skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The chief of police says: "“It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,”"

I'm curious what you know that he doesn't.
Upwork is a terrible place for contractors. It doesn't fit that salary range. It's hard for really good contractors to stand out. And a lot of higher paying people there expect contractors to have lots of hours under their Upwork profile, meaning that most people will have to work far below their expected rates to qualify for something just barely decent.

Practically every other site is a better choice, even Reddit.
But you see, this is a computerized car. Whereas for a human, there is gauge observation error, there’s really no excuse for a machine, especially a machine who has our lives in its hands
Nothing changed. What happened in many of these cases (Weinstein, Facebook) is that the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times.

My only point (if there is one) is that, despite the massive proliferation of blogs and amateur media, it often takes a professional, salaried reporter to bring an important story into the public eye.
Can we please stop calling 38 in a 35 speeding? In many places that speed would be inpeding traffic.
To answer your question, it is apparently deliberately unclear. "Potentially" is one hell of a weasel word.

We're at the point where the public no longer trusts its institutions to make impartial judgments - we all know the overriding societal bias towards cars, the tendency to blame the deceased, the political incentives of wanting Uber's continued support, etc. And if this initial analysis is indeed the correct one, then it's especially in everyone's interest for such doubt to be eliminated.

There are video(s). They should be publicly posted swiftly, before it can be edited down to show the most plausible narrative. Anything less feeds the ongoing breakdown in trust.
Pump-and-dump telegram groups are basically done if their members see a get-rich-quick opportunity from the SEC which surpasses the promised returns of the pump-and-dump scheme.
Didi ordered to withdraw shared bikes from Shenzhen
You don't think the opinion of the police is relevant in a homicide? The opinion of people who have investigated hundreds if not thousands of similar accidents?

Who meets your criteria for expertise on saying whether the car could have stopped or not? Uber?
What is the driver supposed to say in this scenario?

"Actually officer, I saw her coming from miles away, but I thought to myself: let's just see what happens..."

Of course a "driver" in such a vehicle is going to report the victim came out of nowhere, otherwise they're basically committing homicide or implicating themselves in not paying attention and the car in not sensing them...it literally adds nothing to the evidence base...
Car forensics will be interesting. There will be data collected minutes/seconds before https://semiengineering.com/anatomy-of-an-autonomous-vehicle...
For some reason I'm not at all surprised to learn that Uber programmed their vehicles to speed. Of course they did. This is literally "move fast and break things" at work.
That's with people expecting to click, ~500ms is more realistic for a scenario where you need to recognize, decide and react.
I get that this is most definitely the likely side effect of a business model of collecting info.

There's still the fact that FB _did_ close off the info that CA was holding onto, and they saw it as something they no longer want to offer to its ad clients.

The simplest explanation is that FB is trying to do damage control for being way too liberal about its data sharing in the past, because it will generate more scrutiny for their present policies (even if they are "better" than before). Even if they're improving, many might not think they've improved enough.
It's video footage from cameras at night! Of course on the footage the victim comes from the shadows because cameras become notoriously useless at night when you still want to hit reasonable framerates (and you do).

That's why that thing has a very expensive LIDAR on top.
Ok. I think that would be incredible to have a website where you could just search for projects and features within projects then just get paid per PR to implement that specific feature/bug fix.
Ads against H1B visas posted at BART stations
Good point. Ray tracing makes compensating for lens distortion trivial.
Source for the lazy: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-fut...
If I'm imagining this scenario correctly, I've experienced it tons of times and never seen traffic slow down. It's a road with a median and a person attempting to cross the road has temporarily stopped in the median waiting for a break in traffic so they can cross. Maybe I've just lived in 2 crazy states, or maybe I'm not imagining this scenario correctly, but I can't recall ever having seen traffic slow down for this situation.

It's possible to believe that the sensors/AI failed (no braking) while also acknowledging that the vehicle/driver is not at fault for the death. I suspect that may ultimately be the case here.
Not really. It's more that healthcare is probably the single largest software industry around here. But there's a pretty good mix.
If she was behind another parked car and stepped in front of the car that hit her, she could have been at a normal walking pace. The police stated that the car did not show signs of slowing down before the accident. I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system.
But that’s sort of my issue, this is Mark Zuckerburg and Cheryl Sandburg, engaged, liberal leaning (to my knowledge) individuals, you’d think regardless of the business model, they would be taking extreme steps to understand Facebook’s role in all this, not ostriching....
Go look up what a rape tree is, or the percent of women who are raped making the crossing and you'll understand the context.
Personally, I am constantly scanning for people near the edge of the road and anticipating their movements. I bet most of us have had the experience where someone stepped out unexpectedly but you already took action because you could tell they were not paying attention. Good luck programming that.
I’ve got 3-4 of the developer units and still marvel over how responsive and easy to use it is. I think it was better than on phone honestly. Haven’t used the phones in years though, so maybe memory is jaded. Will need to pull one out of my drawer and see if they still charge (mixture of Palm Pre versions and one other I forgot it’s model name).
How is it unclear that the person you're responding to wants to see the video and LIDAR data, not just take someone's word for it? "Potentially shifts the blame" as hearsay isn't good enough.
This implies that you should probably invalidate all URLs created before you applied that mitigation, right? Or do you have some way (logs?) of knowing which ones were compromised?
But, in the US at least, the speed of traffic will be much faster than the speed limit, so driving the limit is unsafe.
Traffic might not slow down, but I'd definitely keep an eye out for the person in the median.
-it is not possible to decrease scope

-tooling is hard e.g. to detect unused styles

-scope problems are a pain to debug

-some constructs are awkward (e.g. tooltips with :before and positioning styles)

-vertical text behaves unexpected wrt box model

-variables are suboptimal

There are probably a lot more.
When it comes to traffic, there's the concept of the right-of-way. I don't know about the rules in Tempe, but here's an excerpt from the rules in New York.

> (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

And that kind of makes sense, because if pedestrians were able to cross wherever they chose, it would become difficulty for vehicles to move down a road with a stable velocity. (Increasing emissions, etc.)
is pretty hard to beat human drivers in the danger category. But ok let’s play this out a little longer before you start dismissing it
There's been conflicting reporting, but from what I've seen it was a person walking a bike.
Because the CRA is based on computers, which are based on math, anyone can know why the CRA is inconclusive -- based on facts, not opinions. The theory of Turing machines (TMs), programs, and universal TMs explains objectively why in the CR there is a 2nd computation (which is instantiated via Searle's "universal" one). (E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine)

Basically, the Searle-UTM has TWO inputs, (1) the program and (2) the Chinese. The Searle-UTM itself processes the 1st, which is in English(!!), which in turn instantiates the program's TM per the theory. The program's TM thereby processes the Chinese symbols, which is why Searle, as merely the program's agent, can (and must!) process them purely formally.
The details are further explained and illustrated here: https://chineseroom.info

This also explains why the Systems Reply is the most popular type of CRA rebuttal: it backed by TM theory, even if many don't know the details. Note that although this refutes the CRA, it does not prove the Strong AI (computationalism) thesis, which remains open.
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. It doesn't help, and makes this place worse.
There's a current trend for people to anthropomorphise cars, with the backing of the industry (two eyes/lights and a mount/grill on the front of "him/her"). Won't the industry go into overdrive on the anthropomorphism front to try and preserve this judicial empathy?
Can't the police fairly easily determine who had the right of way? Given how simple the rule is, it seems like one of the first things a police officer would have done.
First you started by claiming the difference was due to scale and choice. You're now retreating to a third distinction: the difference between established technology and experimental technology. Well, all established technology was experimental technology at one point, and it was not uniformly regulated. We could play this game all day.

Self-driving cars are a new and important industrial development that will require adjustments to policy. They don't require revolutionary new legal principles.
From the article: "Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic."
Not speeding would cause it to impede traffic flow. Speed limits are often set for revenue generation, not safety.
That’s interesting, hadn’t thought about that, but undoubtedly there are hundreds more examples of this. That’s a congressional investigation they would probably like to avoid...
If there is data to be reviewed, that’s your best bet against someone who was not even there.
One day a team of talented psychiatrists will explain how a group of people who spend countless hours by solving "freind-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" types of puzzles for living can act in shock and awe over this "data breach"
Not long ago I seem to remember people listing the lightning fast speed at which an automated car could drive as just one of the many blessings the technology would gift to us. Now we want them to drive the speed limit? Boring.
People can't be cars, so, no.
There can be several ways to explain this but generally speaking you are right.

It shouldn’t go over the speed limit, and under no circumstances should it take the liberty drivers usually take of being within 10% above the limit.

I hope no one wrote it that way.
>speeding

>didn't engage breaks

>not ubers fault

one of these things is not like the other.

The basic expectation is that if people are on the edge of a roadway you slow down and pay more attention. What exactly was the person in the drivers seat doing?
800ms looks like it is actually pretty fast for a sober human driving [1]:

"This study examined the effect of brake and accelerator pedal configuration on braking response time to an unexpected obstacle. One hundred subjects drove in the Dynamic Research, Inc. (DRI) Interactive Driving Simulator through a simulated neighborhood 21 times, each time with a different pedal configuration. Each subject was presented with an unexpected obstacle only one time, for one of three previously selected pedal configurations, to which he or she was instructed to brake as quickly as possible. Foot movements were recorded with a video camera mounted above the pedals. Data were analyzed manually, using time and course location information superimposed on the video data. Response times were analyzed using ANOVA to determine effects of pedal configuration and various driver factors. Response times ranged from 0.81 sec to 2.44 sec with a mean of 1.33 sec and a standard deviation of 0.27 sec. There was no significant effect of pedal configuration on response time. Driver age was significant, with increased age corresponding to increased response time. Car normally driven, gender, driver height, and shoe size had no significant effect"

[1] "Braking Response Times for 100 Drivers in the Avoidance of an Unexpected Obstacle as Measured in a Driving Simulator"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274973324_Braking_R...
This release provides iedit mode for multiple cursor support.

and highlight symbol mode for select symbol.
True, but you also might not have time to react and hit the brakes if someone darts out in front of you.
>expanding information access is actually harmful to democracy.

And if that is true, then democracy is a fraud, or at least a failure.

Anyway, representative democracy does address this problem to a pretty large extent. We can't expect, nor would we want, everybody in the voting population to hold the expert knowledge of law and government that we require of our elected representatives. Even if it were possible, it would be a monumentally inefficient waste of time.

A small and limited government with distributed powers ultimately reduces the risk of such failures, but we are well past that now.
There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are.

I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorists, or sharks.
> For one, no mention of testing here (or really hardly anywhere in PHP-land), [...]

In a different life I had to maintain a website based on the Drupal CMS and also one based on the then-popular Laravel PHP framework, and in both environments testing was common and well-supported. As much as I dislike PHP, such a blanket statement does not hold up.
There's problem classes and problem instances.

What does NP-hardness look like for self-driving car tech? non-deterministic polynomial in: number of objects? number of lanes? time steps in the planning horizon? action/observation branching factor? These things are bounded in practice.

Not saying that the computational problems aren't hard. But ending the conversation at "NP Hard" throws away too many nuances.
Well, was she already walking in road where the car should have had time to stop or did she walk in front of the vehicle at the last second? Did the car make an effort to evade?
Since we already have the original TeX files, any conversion directly from PDF would be of lower quality.
In most places the driver isn’t an experimental automated vehicle. Maybe while trying new tech that can apparently fail to see a woman with LIDAR, stick to the damned speed limit? That seems fair to me.
I've seen people charged with a misdemeanor for going 5 over the limit where noone was harmed. If a human can be held to that standard I think a self-driving car should in the case of a fatal collision.
On a 35 mph road with no traffic to impede, there is no reason to speed.
There is data...in the form of a video taken by the car that hit her. You don't need a team of PhDs to watch it and make a judgment call.
Had not thought of that, though it would only really work if it was Zuck getting caught up, I don’t think a lower level person getting netted would change how he acts.
It's cliche in America to absolve drivers of any culpability when killing pedestrians and cyclists let alone a case involving a local government that was actively courting a known unethical company.

Until they release footage I'll be taking anything from Uber and Tempe officials with a grain of salt, they'll spin this as hard they can.

P.S. I'm surprised he used the word shadows considering the car was equipped with a fancy lidar unit.
The San Francisco Board is subordinate to the laws of the state of California. If California wants to ease regulations against denser urban areas, California can do it.
Are people having a hard time understand a criminal conspiracy?
Could (and probably will) happen to a bigger douche bag. but I'm not unhappy its him atm
It's didn't just happen to me.

Search for "Facebook adding friends without my approval" on google and you'll a lot of threads where people have had similar experience like me.

Here is one, https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=9079047...
That's the beginning of the excellent book "au bonheur des ogres", where you learn that the hero's karma is to be a scapegoat. It's his job. It's his relationships.

Also when a bomb explodes, of course, all evidences point toward him even though is the very definition of innocence.

Wonderful work from the great Daniel Pennac, which can stand on it's own, but has follow up tomes that are just as nice.

And I just looked it up, it's been translated to english.

The title, is, well, "The scapegoat".
> Also, I doubt GPU vendors would add special-purpose hardware like that. They'd much rather just add some new shader instructions to help doing it.

The PowerVR guys added special purpose hardware for doing spatial lookups for raytracing.
I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system.

With all due respect, then why are they using their bully pulpit to blame this woman for her death at this early stage? The vehicle made no attempt to stop, which seems worrying if the sensors and algorithms were working as intended, so maybe it would be worth looking at those systems.
You do realize a lot of WebOS from an app side is JS, right? WebOS was using Node.js almost at the beginning before many in the web world knew about it (back in the fairly early Ryan Dahl days).
Yeah there are a lot of subtleties that are hard to program; that's why it must be extremely effective on things that _can_ be programmed such as quick breaking, quick steering; prefer lanes that are farther away from pedestrians near-by, beep when entering a non-illuminated zone and hundreds of other details.
FWIW, this seems to be where the accident took place, based on news photos:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,...

It's not completely unlighted, though I'm not sure that's supposed to matter given the AV's sensors? Even if Uber nor the human driver is not legally at fault, I'd still be interested in knowing of Uber's LIDAR and other sensors even detected the woman, and whether it's part of the algorithm to be cautious when someone is that close to the roadway at night?

Can the AV's sensors even tell the difference between a person slowly loitering on a median vs stationary lightpoles and (slightly swaying) vegetation? I suppose you don't want the AV slowing down just every time it senses a solid object near the roadway, but does it make different decisions if a stationary object happens to be a human vs light post?

edit: the article doesn't say what lane the Uber vehicle was in. Since the victim was walking down the median and yet managed to abruptly surprise the AV, then we can assume it was in the left lane? But don't most human drivers, on an otherwise empty road, move toward the far lane to avoid driving at full speed next to someone who is walking their bike near the road? I do that for bicyclists even when they have their own bike lane (never know when someone can abruptly fall). I would especially do that at the sight of someone walking their bike "laden with plastic shopping bags" late at night down a center median, because that is such an unusual situation.
After Years of Violence, Chef Offers Colombian Farmers Pride and Profit
Luckily, I have the answer: a blockchain which records overhyped blockchains. This technology will make it possible to create an immutable, universal record that will exclude all falsehood.

ICO imminent. Act now and receive a 20% bonus on your next overpromise.
That was their pitch. The campaign considered using them as a hedge against the RNC not providing its data, but ultimately did not use CA for the general election.

Source: ABC News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o...
For what it’s worth, I think YouTube is generally much more net positive than Facebook (especially if you stay out of the comments).
This is an extremely common opinion among progressive Southerners of every color.
True. But if there was no crosswalk within 100m (per the article) and it wasn't a highway (only 35mph limit) it's reasonable to cross without a crosswalk. Still a pedestrian shouldn't put themselves in harm's way, but I don't think crossing off the crosswalk should be help against someone in this circumstance.
Perhaps part of what's changed is that just a few weeks back Cambridge Analytica claimed — in writing, to the UK Parliament — that they did not harvest profiles from Facebook:

"On 8 February 2018 Mr Matheson implied that Cambridge Analytica "gathers data from users on Facebook." Cambridge Analytica does not gather such data." — Letter from Alexander Nix, CEO, Cambridge Analytica, to the Chair of the Committee, 23 February 2018 (PDF, linked from below page)

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z...

— And now, it's basically been 'proven' by FB that they do. Of course the ICO is gonna get involved now.

Edit: plus there's also this Channel4 investigation which went public today:

"An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News reveals how Cambridge Analytica secretly campaigns in elections across the world. Bosses were filmed talking about using bribes, ex-spies, fake IDs and sex workers."

https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

— I think that most certainly puts CA into all kinds of shit they weren't in just 24hrs ago.
I didn't notice it mentioned in this piece, but a different article on HN is suggesting she may have been homeless and was crossing where there was no crosswalk.

Homeless individuals frequently sleep under bridges, on the sides of off ramps and other infrastructure near highways. They are often walking where no pedestrian should be at all.

I would like to see the affordable housing crisis solved. Currently, there are only 30 affordable homes on the West Coast for every 100 poor families.* But it is entirely possible she did basically walk out in front of the car at a place where a driver had no reason to expect to see a pedestrian.

It would be nice if people would wait to see what evidence comes forth rather than jumping to conclusions about police conspiracies to hand wave away blame.

* https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-pove...
Well, they are leaders. They define the standard.
Since it was dark out, the story seems pretty plausible. It's really difficult to see pedestrians at night, even when they use a crosswalk much less if they are crossing in the middle of the road.
"Exceeding the stated speed limit by 8.5%" better for you?