skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everyone realizes that, and it's irrelevant. You know, all the Trump voters who were swayed by propaganda campaigns actually voted for Trump. All the depressed kids who get convinced to buy some product by crafty advertising actually go and buy the product.

> No one forced us

A totally useless sentiment. People weren't generated all this data with benefit of hindsight and understanding. Effectively ZERO users EVER read the terms-of-service even, let alone understand the ramifications of giving up all this personal data.

It's hard enough to get people to save enough buffer to get through predictable crises that come up. Get them to be thoughtful and responsible in the face of a system designed to hide every aspect of concern and hesitation??

Facebook is one of several actors here, but it's complete nonsense to suggest that they are just a normal, innocent player in a internet world where people just do things a certain way because of culture. Facebook actively designed things for certain results.

It's not like Facebook is solely to blame, but the situation is NOTHING like you describe. Facebook wasn't just a neutral tool like email protocol and people just used it.
that is a bold statement to make from the video information we got, at least in my opinion. I would estimate the speed to be at least 50 km/h which gives 25 m as a very rough estimate for the stopping distance without reaction time. It's probably better than that but not 8 m.

But I do agree that the car doesn't seem to have stopped at all and missed the victim completely.
The Red Wedding Problem: Write Spikes at the Edge and a Mitigation Strategy [pdf]
Well, GNU/Linux itself is not an OS, but Ubuntu and Fedora do enable that check in NetworkManager by default, whereas Debian doesn't (for privacy reasons).
The Uber car was a Volvo XC90. They are supposed to have some of the best pedestrian avoidance safety features in existence. My understanding is that a stock Volvo would be expected to catch this situation and avoid or stop. Did Uber override these systems? Or does it just not work very well?
Checking what? It's dark. You should already know where the cars are around you at the moment. Second, a human eye easily could have seen her, this cam footage is not remotely comparable to the low light sensitivity and motion sensitivity of a human.
> But the gap between street lights is going to be very hard to see into.

This wholly contradicts my experience driving at night on a street with street lights. I can't recall a time in my entire life I have had significant difficulty seeing into the gap between street lights. Keep in mind that the gap is not arbitrarily chosen.

Edited to note that I have experienced difficulties in low-vis conditions such as snow storms, sand storms, VERY strong rain storms, etc. None of which apply to this situation.
The point is that humans who have poorer sensors and do even stupider things are allowed to drive. So the bar for self-driving is a lot lower than people around here make it sound.
I certainly wouldn't have high beams on here. It's a lit road and it seems to be in the city, so you'd likely be encountering other cars often enough that you'd spend more time turning the high beams on and off than you would controlling the speed and direction of your vehicle.
Uber shills and other defenders of straight up manslaughter by a machine (breaking first rule of robots), I thought it was the woman's fault and tooootaaallly not a failure on Uber's part. Hopefully this puts the final nail in the coffin of a terrible business. Sad someone had to die.
> It's clear from the video that a human driver actually would've had more trouble since the pedestrian showed up in the field of view right before the collision, yet that's in the visible spectrum.

This was taken by a video camera - which has a much lower range of detectable brightness then the human eye. The pitch-black spots in the video are almost certainly not pitch-black if you were to look at them.
Was it going above the speed limit?
Sharply swerving at the last minute would probably be more dangerous than simply slamming on the brakes.
The issue I am having with this is that you can easily see that something broke the sight line between car and lights on slight left. Mind that - the video is not only of pretty low resolution but also it is not giving out proper "blackness" of black. A human observing the road would be able to catch that and as a precaution take the foot off a gas and put it on a brake pedal. Those small changes make the difference.
This is great news. Cloudflare is way too expensive. Pricing seems reasonable

Policy Charge	$5 per Cloud Armor policy per month
Per Rule Charge	$1 per rule per policy per month
Incoming Requests Charge	$0.75 per million HTTP(S) requests
>and "experiential consciousness" — that which cannot be studied, because it is only capable of being experienced by one person and thus fails the criteria for reproducibility.

How do you even know it exists if it can't be studied? How is anybody supposed to know what you're even talking about if they can't recreate it in their own brains?

When you get down to it, even though the processes occurring in our brains are extremely complex, there is nothing that indicates that the behavior in one cannot be reproduced in another, within any given scale of accuracy.

So you only presume that it cannot be studied, and you assume that it is a different kind of process. With no reason for it to be either, when it could simply be something currently out of our reach.
Given there are no obstructions in the road, LIDAR (or even the decent cameras from the sensor array on top) would obviously show her on a clear collision path many seconds before impact.

So I guess this is the ultimate litmus test if the culture at Uber has changed. They let this video stand and I don't personally think they should be allowed to drive another metre autonomously on public roads.
I'll give a good example about how toastmasters helped me, I hope it encourages those who are very afraid of public speaking.

I have always been a very strong public speaker (loud, booming voice, native English speaker) and decided to do toastmasters to get better at talking about very technical things - I have ADD so I tend to fall over myself a lot when explaining things. I have had a very stressful last few months (organised a marketing conference, moved house, organised two gigs that didn't work out so well) and I was asked to present at a meetup a few days before the conference.

I felt really dizzy in the afternoon of giving the talk and thought a drink or two would settle me (the meetup was at a pub.) Turns out it didn't and 3 slides in I became very disorientated. I decided to professionally stop the talk and ask the MC if the next speaker could go first as I needed to get some air. I came back half an hour later and performed the talk.

The reason I was able to handle this so professionally was 100% due to Toastmasters. So many people in my club were not native English speakers who had very stressful reactions to public speaking. Every single person given a task would always show the upmost respect for those who struggled and act in a supportive manner, so when I had a rough time I knew how to act appropriately.
I know that it's unreasonable to hope that Facebook will die because of such minor nuisance, but I still hate how soothing it sounds.

Anyways, what really makes me wonder is that it's such a huge scandal right now, every newspaper does updates twice a day, society is "alert", Facebook loses 60B in capitalization over night. It's a big deal! And yet it seems there's nothing new here, nothing we didn't know a year ago. In fact, I remember hearing about Cambridge Analytica, Facebook and USA presidential elections/brexit voting a year ago from Jordan Peterson, and psychology professors aren't typically the ones to hear tech-related news first.

So what gives? Why now?
Although it seems from the dashcam footage that the scene is dark and the bike/pedestrian comes out of nowhere, humans are able to handle extreme low-light situations and I don't doubt that this pedestrian would have been visible to an attentive driver.

If autonomous cars cannot handle low-light conditions given the current state of hardware, either from visible, ir, or lidar, then they need to run in the daytime only.
There seem to be two very different issues:

1) Data acquisition. 2) Using such fine-grained psychographic data to politically influence voters at massive scale.

Cambridge Analytica was clearly outside the lines for #1, but they clearly are not the only organization that does such precise campaigns to influence people.

I think #2 is much more important as data is not just available from facebook (although it's an easy source) and working in adtech, this is basically the pitch for all the modern advertising companies that use psychographic and intent targeting. It really goes back to the wider ad industry having very little oversight while selling mass influence to anyone with a credit card... perhaps we should solve that first.
I don't think modern digital sensors actually under perform human vision, or it's at least not obvious. They have made huge improvements in the last decade.

Also, When a digital camera records an image, a gamma curve is applied to it before display, which makes up for a bias against the darker portions which the digital equipment does not inherently have.

Considering the streetlights, I cannot imagine any excuse. This video will sadly give them the benefit of public doubt but anyone familiar with lighting digital video will be unconvinced that the video feed was the culprit.
The pedestrian died, not the SDV developers. Calling this a “teachable moment ... also for pedestrians” is rather disrespectful.
People care about their "football team" [party] and their small economic and social bubble. They are not good in general to see how things affect them.

Fun fact: most fiscal policies have as a goal to get people to invest their money and get growth back in. Their effect is psychological. If the effects sound like they will have a positive effect in my little bubble I will start spending and investing, as I feel the Big Brother is ensuring a positive future for me. In fact, I as an individual impact the economy and not the Big Brother directly, as i) I spread the positive feeling and ii) invest. Hence, the consensus of the market is positive. See Keyene's "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" (http://cas2.umkc.edu/economics/people/facultypages/kregel/co...) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employme...) chapter 12. The average per person confidence for the short term affects the long term progress. People usually find no precedence to connect their privacy to the economic or political success. Now events start rolling stating otherwise. This article for instance states claims that their lack of privacy might have impacted the election, a matter most people feel affects their bubble. And rightly so. Thus why the mild reactions.

Example 2:
People in security world/academia have been paranoid about what NSA was doing. The average Joe did not care about their data till the E. Snowden fiasco. The "mob reaction" told them to care. Then it subsided a bit again. Fortunately, it left the average person maybe a bit more aware on average. The impact was more money flowing towards security research and the rest of the world took note.

As a last (desperate) solution, I hope events like this hit the public where it hurts. Equifax was not enough, but it was a wake up call for some. This Facebook scandal probably will not do the job for the average Jane/Joe, but maybe the next one will. At that point people will either have to take a step or we will wake up in an Orwellian world.

We may need an event so drastic that relates people's privacy with their bubble and fast. Remember the "sudden" economic/social disasters of today are usually decades in the making (1920s, 2007, Russian revolution, most likely "x (social) revolution", where x is your country).
Saying "I'm not trying to do X" doesn't absolve you from doing exactly that. Nice try though. Not trying to be rude ;)
It really isn't relevant. The question was "How do the Japanese build wealth, then?" and your response was "the US housing market can also crash".
> I have better night vision than this camera, I feel as a human I would have seen the bike.

I'm not so sure. Under conditions where there is low light everywhere, so the eye has time to adapt, human low light vision is very good. But under the conditions shown in the video, where there are street lights present and the pedestrian comes out from a gap between the street lights, your eye won't be dark adapted and you won't have much of a chance of seeing the pedestrian in the shadows.
God: The ultimate engineer?
It's not that interesting. Obama is a typical politician. Trump is a bullshitting, dysfunctional, con-artist who would never have been elected under normal circumstances. Trump is not politics as usual.
This one wasn't. Also you don't cross a main road with your back turned towards the traffic.
When promotion/compensation is tight to new things (products, internal tools, etc)...

Is there any benefit to their career to undertake maintenance?
Advertising.

See: https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2017/Q4...
As presented, this looks like a pretty classic "overdriving your headlights" situation.

Even though they're made of retroreflective material, only two lane divider dashes at a time can be seen in the video, indicating something like 50 feet of visibility. Stopping from 38 mph takes 70+ feet from the time the brakes are applied (and human reaction time adds quite a bit more). Things (people, animals, stopped cars, road hazards) appear in the road fairly routinely. If you can't stop inside the area you can see, you're operating your vehicle recklessly.
I should have considered it but I am not someone who streams live content so just a static playlist of music videos was all I was looking for.
Also in those stormy conditions you slow down enough where the stopping power should roughly equal your visibility.
No, it's an element of political discourse that is entirely necessary. Given how cheap and effective this sort of tactic is in the current media and information landscape, why would someone interested in destabilizing a country not do it?
You just convert the datetimes to integer timestamps, then find the midpoint between the two entries... wait this sounds familiar :)
In 8m, though, it may have been able to brake enough to make the collision survivable.
The proponents of pre-programmed cars would be wise to stop blaming "humans breaking the rules" for their mistakes.
So the exploitation of massive amounts of personal data from unwilling participants is ok as long as you agree with the person doing it?
So? I can see some objection to Nazis but what's your issue with the other topics?
I see a lot of people who cross the street without looking. I definitely don’t get it. I constantly check everywhere even when I clearly have the right of way. But that’s how people are.
8m ?! That sounds completely unreasonable to me. The first google hit says it is more like 33m..

http://www.brakingdistances.com/38Mph
Since in the video, we aren't seeing the original scene, but rather, the camera's interpretation of that scene, I think it would be hard to judge except to base it on what your average streetlight brightness is.

Like a camera, your eye also has only so much dynamic range. So if those street lights are bright enough, or your interior lights are too bright, you might have nearly zero visibility in those shadows.

But it is certain that a self driving car "should" be able to see. Even two cheap digital cameras one tuned to see the darker range and the other brighter should easily see in these type situations.
My sentiment was that most students will probably gladly take this very stringent option over what we have now. I surely would have.
I accept this is almost certainly the case.
The problem with voat is that it is based in europe and if voat ever got traffic, the european authorities would shut it down.

We need something in the US where we have free speech rights.
Also importantly, even the lowest-density Japanese residential zones seem to allow some low apartment buildings and some home businesses, while other residential zones are mixed-use and allow corner stores etc.

In e.g. San Francisco, more than half of the city is zoned to only allow detached height-limited single-family houses or sometimes duplexes, with businesses restricted to designated commercial streets. When you add wide streets with several wide lanes, generous street parking, parking requirements for buildings, long skinny land parcels with (often unused) space for a small yard in the back, etc., land use overall is incredibly inefficient even if you want to preserve the “local character” of low buildings.

Look at the sea of light yellow zones in the zoning map, http://default.sfplanning.org/zoning/zoning_map.pdf

And among cities in the region SF has higher density and more flexible zoning than most.

If we upzoned the Richmond, Sunset, and Marina neighborhoods from pale yellow to orange and purple, and added better transit, we could easily double the population of the city without anything taller than low-rise apartments.
"The team also looked at a big California database of everyone over 24 who was admitted to the hospital, data it was able to match with individual credit reports."

Is anybody else concerned that they were able to access individuals' credit reports without the subjects' knowledge or consent?
A mix of scraping and APIs - e.g. http://confreaks.tv/ has a great API where you can get the whole dataset in a json file
Why was the car speeding? Doing 38 mph in a 35 mph zone. Are these things programmed to systematically speed?
It seems pitch black on a video, but human vision is much better in low light. You may have had way more time to react.
I also suspect that human eyeballs would have a different view of the light/dark portions of what's depicted there, and especially eyeballs would have probably had a much higher chance of detecting movement in peripheral vision than that video gives any hint of.

We typically cant see much detail in the scene out of our small region of focus, but you can bet if a tiger appears from behind a tree our visual system will scream to the brain _look over there right now!_

Our eyes and our entire visual processing system is very much not "just like a webcam, but made out of meat".
> humans are able to handle extreme low-light situations

But this wasn't an extreme low light situation. It was a situation with street lights alternating with extreme low light regions. Under those conditions the human eye will not be dark adapted and your low light vision won't be very good.
Mods: Why is this being deranked? This is a legitimate discussion.
This is literally the reason for high-beams. If the road is not illuminated enough you turn those on and drive as fast as you are comfortable being able to fully stop if a deer jumps out of left field (or in this case, a pedestrian is walking across the road).
Thanks for the link. I'm now fully expecting for regulators to call for airbags on the exterior of all AV's...
Because it was all links to normal, legal, gun retailers with online stores, like Dick's Sporting Goods, Cabela's, Bud's Gun Shop, KY Gun Co, Palmetto State Armory, etc. (There's dozens more big ones.) All of them follow required laws in shipping only to FFL holders.
I'm guessing you're not American? ;)

The American idea of a perfect life is to have a nice house with a huge yard that the kids can frolic/play in. A big house with a big garage. And of course in a nice school district.

Basically its supposed to be an ideal environment for raising kids. Which is weird because me and all my friends grew up in heavily urbanized areas living in apartments (outside the US) and all turned out OK (well almost all).

It probably also has to do with the independence of not having others live across the wall.
IDK about some of this. When thinking about what policies we should have, we tend to overemphasize policies' effects on whatever we're we're looking to fix. A common trope is policing methods and crime rates.

For example, I've heard a lot of talk this past year about german housing policy with Berlin cited as the best example. It rarely mentions that Berlin's population peaked before the war, reunification and other things that aren't housing policy. I'm not saying that Tokyo's housing policies are not good, just that there's likely a lot of context to their successes.

Housing can be pretty complicated and nuanced. Policies don't translate well from one place to another. Where I live (dublin), house prices are effectively a derivative of bank policies. Whatever banks will loan the median person becomes the median house price. Now that we've had boom, bust & boom again... it's very easy to see how these two things track.

In a less supply constrained scenario I think bigger houses, not cheaper ones. Another big part of the story here is a near unanimous objection to development in general, more out of conservatism than NIMBYism. So, stasis biased.

Anyway, my point is that it's complicated. The dynamic in Dublin is different from Austin or Berlin, and policies exist within these contexts. It sounds like NIMBYism is a big factor in california. I imagine that the economic & population growth in these cities is another big factor.
> Owners can simply claim they’re unaware of lead paint on the property, and in most cases, that’s the box they check on the disclosure form because lead inspections occur so rarely,

This needs to change. There needs to be a duty on the seller to investigate and declare, certified by a certified third party for lead. Same for other contaminants. A number of other nasty environmental stingers can be non-declared as well, unfortunately. Disgusting.

Anyway - the entirety of the lead paint housing stock needs to be remediated, along with the ground near it. Too, the old highways and roads need to have a remediation plan implemented.

This is one of the Great Challenges for the next 100 years. Not as sexy as going to Mars, but we will reap dividend after dividend in public health. The EPA and the SuperFund system need to be supercharged; we will have boons of public health paying back year after year here.

edit: you can find information about it all over when you start looking. Here's a fast explainer - https://www.vox.com/2016/1/19/10790534/lead-soil
But it wouldn't have sounded so cut and dry if they reported it as "a pedestrian slowly meandering across the road".
Video:Uber Robot Car Rammed into Pedestrian
Maybe I'm one of those users? I've been getting two ads before almost every YouTube video for weeks now.

Even more annoyingly, the first ad still says, falsely, "your video will start in .. seconds" or "you can skip in .. seconds".
Literally every other statement of fact in the original police announcement was proven false by this video.
Wow, the pedestrian just walked onto the road without so much of a glance at the direction of incoming cars.

Sure, it's the car's responsibility to stop. But still--it's almost like the pedestrian didn't care at all. She never saw the car throughout the entire incident. She never saw it coming. She didn't cared to.
That is strange. Maybe they were not talking about 4 lane roads? Because on smaller streets I would also expect pedestrians, especially if there is not boardwalk. But in my opinion this is indifferent to the situation at hand anyway because this video is about somebody crossing the street without respecting the cars right of way, which can't be deemed common behaviour by anybody.
>Whatabout McCarthyism?

What about the founder of Wikileaks working for Russian propaganda media, which is what we're discussing here? I'm not sure what your motivation to deflect on this is.