Is there any reason they can't just go back to Google? I thought they only switched to Yahoo because the contract was up and Yahoo offered a deal they couldn't walk away from.
No, they definitely could go back to Google. Problematic is just that while Google will probably pay, there's now essentially a third of the competition for that spot gone, so Google will have to pay significantly less.
Never mind also that Chrome has made leaps and bounds. I don't know the details of the history of Mozilla and Google's partnership, but featuring prominently in a major browser was probably a lot more valuable to Google back when Google didn't have a browser of its own.
It is also a bit of a conflict of interest on Google's part to support Mozilla. They have a competing app ecosystem, and while supporting the Firefox Marketplace and Chrome App Store are actually relatively simple for HTML5 apps, they probably would rather not have the competition at all.
This is the first fatality collision after 130 million miles of tesla's autopilot, so it's already above that bar.
Additionally, 92 people are killed in fatal car accidents in the US every day. So it's not as though this is some uncommon occurrence that autonomous vehicles would be unlikely to improve.
> This is the first fatality collision after 130 million miles of tesla's autopilot, so it's already above that bar.
It most definitely is not above that bar! The autopilot is combined with a human operating the car.
How many accidents were avoided by the human rather than the autopilot?
I suspect a ton of accidents (i.e. the autopilot has a high error rate).
How many did the autopilot avoid that the human would not have? Probably not that many, if any.
> Additionally, 92 people are killed in fatal car accidents in the US every day. So it's not as though this is some uncommon occurrence that autonomous vehicles would be unlikely to improve.
Do the math.
I did.
0.00001% seems pretty uncommon to me. There is a lot of driving in the US, so even that low of a number is visible, but it's still a low number.
Remember every single computer must be all but perfect to reduce the error rate.
Have you ever seen a computer to be that good? At even something as simple as not crashing? Never mind driving a car.
92 people per day isn't "uncommon". It might be statistically improbable, but that's not what uncommon means. It's a regular, daily occurrence for 92 real human lives every day.
Uncommon for the computer (or human) driving the car.
You have to understand the magnitude of the perfection needed to have any hope of implementing it.
Tell me: Before you read my message, would you have assumed at a computer that is 99% perfect, or 99.9% perfect, would be better than a human?
I can tell you, that until I did the math, I thought so myself.
But 99.99999% is 10,000 better! If the computer was 99.9% perfect you would have almost 1 million fatalities per year (assuming things scale linearly, which I'm sure they wouldn't, probably most of the time driving is easy and 99.9% would still not get into an accident).
> It's a regular, daily occurrence for 92 real human lives every day.
I know. (Although you said that badly: it's not a daily occurrence for those people. But I get your emotion.)
But a computer will not solve this problem, not for a long time. We simply are not able to make a computer that is that good.
Let's see if we can make a web browser that is that good before we try to make a driving computer that good.
It also puts human drivers in a new light. I was of the camp that people are terrible, horrible drivers that kill all the time.
But actually humans are nearly perfect at driving, it's just there are so very very many people driving, so even a tiny cumulative error shows up.
Except I am not guessing. That's the point of math.
The autopilot plus a human, only did slightly better than a human alone. That means the autopilot did nothing, since slightly better is well within the range of normal for a human alone.
> So please keep your math out of this.
What a strange reply. Why keep math out of this?
Are you hoping that this will be real if you ignore all evidence to the contrary?
Right now the evidence is in: Computer assisted cars don't do anything helpful to the accident rate. This bodes poorly for self driving cars, and since the error rate they have to hit is so low, it's really not looking good.
I personally don't expect self driving cars to ever be used on regular streets. Only on computer-exclusive roads, specially marked for them.
So all they determined was everyone already has the top installed (and often pre-installed) apps already installed? What a surprise.
Also I would love to install more apps but to do so I have to clear space on my phone, and the apps I already have are slowing my phone down and eating my battery. For me it's always a matter of resources.
Yeah and I like how he goes in on 'Agile Gurus' and then at the end of the article plugs his continuous delivery conference like it isn't the exact same thing in a different hat.
This problem is the bane of my existence as a css/html guy. However I don't believe the core problem is what you suggest. Forcing designers to just work within wireframes isn't going to work. Assets and wireframes is only a small part of what a designer does when creating a good user experience.
I think the solution is going to lie somewhere inbetween, with designers needing to expand their knowledge and working within tools that are based on how CSS and HTML actually function instead of a program that allows you to just place boxes wherever you want and hope its easy to code.
I've been following what these guys are doing over at BoxBox, they are onto something big I think. https://keminglabs.com/boxbox/
Ten years ago I had wonderful experiences with Qt Designer. You can build a UI that's an actual UI, you can run it, resize it, click the buttons and all the rest. And then that becomes the real UI - in development you connect up the buttons and the like to the business logic.
Yes, I think if the designer is going beyond wireframes, they should probably be doing CSS themselves. Ideally applying CSS to a live prototype that the 'programmer' developed based on the wireframe.
I don't know, I'm not sure what the solution is. But I'm pretty sure it's not PSD-driven development.
I assume when referring to PSD-driven development you mean to say the process of having a designer design a non-responsive, static mockup which is delivered the the front end dev team? I think this is important to clarify because a lot of people tout Sketch as being the answer despite it having the exact same pitfalls and issues Photoshop does.
Check out this demonstration. I really think this is going to be the next big step forwards for designers. I don't think they need to fully understand CSS, the box model, flexbox, the dom, inheritance, etc to deliver effective designs. They just need to be forced to follow these limitations of these things within the design tool itself.
I think the idea is to make every change the designer makes reflect a nearly identical change that the frontend devs are going to have to also make. For example, text color inheritance is a notoriously hard thing for a designer to grasp. If that was handled automatically for them, they are going to out of necessity, create a more code friendly color inheritance hierachy in their designs.
Maybe a "web" designer really needs to know their medium.
A sculptor needs to know about clay and ovens, a clothes designer needs to know how to sew, the strengths and weaknesses of different fabrics and so on (even if Gaultier or Lagerfeld didn't do any sewing and stitching when they made it big, you bet they learned to when they were apprentice designers). Knowing your medium makes you aware of the limitations and possibilities and a better designer.
Why do we insist on coddling designers with tools like Photoshop? What's wrong with making them learn CSS and HTML?
Generally newly created, but not necessarily. In 'The Lean Startup' by Eric Ries one of the primary examples is based around Intuit, which is a large publicly traded company.
