skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An autonomous vehicle obviously shouldn't exceed a speed where it's stopping distance exceeds it's vision capabilities, since next time it might as well be a tree trunk. That's sometimes difficult for humans to gauge, but then we want autonomous cars so they can make these calculations (and they are much better equipped to).
I can't count the number of commercials I've seen for Fords and Nissans and Subarus and every kind of modern car that has this exact feature, and this is exactly how the advertising plays out. Someone sprints in front of the car, the car stops automatically, everyone is safe, pedestrian continues with their life. I've never used it in real life, but I assume it works how the ads show it.

If Uber can't match a $25,000 off-the-shelf floor model mass-market midsized sedan for collision avoidance, it's hardly a self-driving car.
The vast majority of retailers on gundeals sold accessories which is legal for anyone to do.

Those that did sell guns were federally licensed retailers, gundeals did not (to my knowledge) allow for private sellers to post. All federally licensed (FFL) retailers must perform a background check (or transfer to another FFL to perform one) before transferring to a purchaser. I don't see how any of that could be considered as not "law-abiding".

All of that applies only to the US of course, but I'm not aware of other countries having deals there.
There are two caveats to interpreting the video:

1. Human eyes have a better dynamic range than cameras do. The camera is thus displaying a worse contrast than a human eye can see.

2. Motion is preattentive in the visual system. (When you think about it, panicking about subtle motion in the corner of your eye tends to be evolutionarily advantageous).

So the time we have to identify the pedestrian using the video is a minimum bound of the time, not necessarily an accurate reflection of the time. It is not clear how much extra time (if any) a reasonable driver would have in this incident.
Yeah, gundeals was strictly dealers only. There were other subs (probably banned now too) for legal person to person sales.
A few people have commented along the lines of "I probably couldn't have stopped in time even if I had been driving." I think it's important as a driver to hit the brakes as hard as you can even if you don't think you'll be able to avoid collision, because the energy is reduced greatly even with a small amount of deceleration (F=ma). Probability of death in car/pedestrian collision is reduced from over 80% to under 10% by slowing from 40 mph to 20 mph. [1]

Also, I think it's likely the human eye would have been able to see the woman before the camera does. The camera needs her to be fully covered by the headlight beam. I know when I drive at night I focus my attention on the area between the road ahead and the fringe of the beam as I scan center, left and right. The area outside the beam coverage never looks fully black to me. I definitely can perceive obstacles outside the main beam coverage.

[1] http://www.humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm
Going lineage OS with F-Droid for your APP needs has been quite the positive experience for me. Everything has a nice FLOSS alternative, that is sometimes better than the Google-App equivalent and the newly revamped F-Droid works great.

If you still need something from the playstore there is the "yalp-store" app, which grabs apk with a fake account from google.
Far more likely is that this is a standard dash cam that the police know how to pop the SD card out of and access the video...
Is the video slowed down? Also they need to release a better quality.
If I was behind that wheel, I don't think I would've seen that lady to be quite honest. The place where the lady was crossing the road was under a shadow of nearby trees or buildings. If one is going to cross a road like this, they should at least use a well lit part of the road.
Also, why did she have her back turned to the traffic if she is jaywalking on such a big road. Very poor decisions on her part.
I am willing to bet Uber gets out scot-free with this one, and rightly so.
> A large influx of people into your area is almost guaranteed to lower your quality of life

Speak for yourself. My quality of life has been very positively correlated with population density. It's why I'm settling down on the east side of San Francisco, and I'm eagerly awaiting the new development there.
My impression is that Republicans voted for that bill because they were afraid that voting no would be used against them as proof that they were in cahoots with the Russians. I think that's at least a tenable interpretation.
Agree that the driver was clearly not paying attention.

I was surprised that the headlights did not illuminate further down the road. That is, drivers are cautioned not to “out-drive your headlights” — meaning that you shouldn’t drive so fast that by the time you see something, you don’t have time to react. Maybe a human driver couldn’t have avoided the accident given the speed the self-driving car was traveling, but perhaps a human driver would have (or should have) driven slower?
Yeah I think it has to do with there being just more python scripts floating around, and Django (or flask) make it easy to turn that random script into a proper api. Plus CS courses have now started teaching python.
"however they may have been able to do a sharp swerve."

As someone that enjoys racing cars and other types of high performance driving I feel like I can pretty confidently say this isn't even remotely a realistic statement.

You're grossly overestimating human response times. Even if we're ignoring response time and imagining the driver instantly turning the steering wheel, large SUVs like the XC90 simply can't generate the lateral acceleration required to move the vehicle clear of the pedestrian in the time and space shown in that video.
> I could, tomorrow, go buy a duplex, triplex, or quad with only 3% down and immediately rent out all units except the one I’m living in.

But that's not something an average person does. The poster I replied to was speaking of real estate wealth building solely in terms of buying a house, living in it till you retire, then selling it at an appreciated value and going live in Florida or wherever. (or alternatively change house every 10 years, rolling the appreciated property value into a bigger house every time)

What you're talking about is the work of a real estate investor, and is far more time-consuming and involved than buying a few index funds on Vanguard. Researching properties, finding and screening tenants, performing or managing repairs is a non-trivial amount of work.

You're trivializing the work of getting into landlording (maybe you're already doing it so you underestimate how much work it is for someone who has no experience doing it). If it really was that easy to earn better than index fund returns, everyone would be doing it and the returns would naturally come down.

> While not the sole way to build wealth, it’s one of the most accessible ways for anyone who isn’t already wealthy and intends to live somewhere more than a few years.

I don't even agree with that. To buy a single share of an ETF you need $50-100 max to spare. To put even 3% down on a property that you can rent out, you're talking thousands of dollars + decent credit for getting a mortgage on the property.
I have been paying for YouTube Red since 2015. I really like the YouTube Music app and how I can save songs for offline use, and how it's kept up-to-date with songs I like on YouTube (as well as recommended suggestions) whenever my phone goes on WiFi, so my playlist never gets old. You also get other perks like keeping a YouTube video playing in the background on your phone.

I prefer using YouTube for music as opposed to other services because I listen to a lot of underground/developing artists who aren't as easily signed up to go on the larger platforms like Spotify. For that reason I also like Soundcloud, but I feel I find more relevance on YouTube.

Since I pay for YouTube Red, I don't get ads. I think the cost justifies it. So, if you have so much of a problem with ads, you should really consider just paying for it. It's a great service. Shouldn't you be paying for services you appreciate?
This is probably all about advertising. Advertisers likely told these platforms to get rid of this stuff or they'll stop using their sites to advertise. It's possibly the same advertiser(s) on both sites asking for it. That could explain why it's happening on the same day.
In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.
Americans. Anybody else is a dog eating commy that should die.
Usually saying one quantity "grows with" another quantity would mean that one rising causes the other to rise, not fall.
hooktube.com

(provides youtube content without the youtube crap)
So the user is responsible for securely transmitting the share URL? i.e. Secrets are shared out-of-band?

It’s pretty clever, I like it. Definitely not the holy grail of client side browser-based multiparty encryption, but you’ve found some innovative techniques. Bravo, good luck with it.
This seems like one of those things corporations obviously do, but you'd be hard pressed to believe someone would be dumb enough to openly state they do. Now when you wonder if YouTube is actively trying to irritate you, you can know that yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do.

The YouTube team's behavior is getting a lot more annoying of late. The other thing I can't get rid of is the popup suggesting I get YouTube Red every like 48-72 hours of my life.
The Uber Safety Driver behind the wheel when the incident occurred:

Rafaela Vasquez, 44

She has convictions for attempted armed robbery after a plot with her Blockbuster video store co-worker to seize their own shop’s takings at gunpoint in 2001.

Vasquez was convicted under her first name Rafael but she now identifies as a woman.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/934713/uber-self-drivin...
If you are paying, you might still be the product. Companies have plenty incentive to double dip and extract profit from multiple directions.
It's funny how free speech these days always dissolves into nazis. I'm thinking George Carlin would have considered his fight against the FCC for seven dirty words a battle for the freedom of ideas and not hate.
Scraping likes and friend lists is still very easy to do today on Facebook. All of that is pretty out there in the open as long as you have a Facebook account. They can limit their API, but that's really not very consequential with bots and the lax privacy settings most have. But I guess all of this "sounds good".
Uber is more than welcome to release their video(s) themselves if this one represents an inaccurate view.
Coming from Europe, I've been surprised as how many places in the US that don't have streetlights at all. Driving between Maryland and Virginia, there are 4-lane highways that are completely dark for long stretches at a time. I'm assuming this is a money-saving concern, since the US has such a huge amount of area to cover.

Back in many native, smaller habitat, I've only rarely encountered this kind of darkness, and it's usually on small, isolated country roads. When I got my license, my instructor's company had a special spot, an hour outside the city, where they always went to for dark driving lessons, because almost all of the road network is (exceedingly well) illuminated.
Thanks. I was imagining the more "traditional" (for lack of a better word) racist and sexist slurs that have been around for a lot longer than the alt-right, but I see what you mean. I wasn't familiar with what was said in the incident being discussed.
Please stop spreading the "Obama did it too!" canard, they didn't exceed authorization.

So in this formulation you're making Facebook out to be some kind of super-governmental authority on the proper or improper use of this potentially civilization shifting cache of data.

This issue here isn't, oh noes! Trump broke Facebook's rules, bad Trump!

This issue here is that this cache of data exists and we've seen it put to use in a variety of ways that elicit dismay from a variety of people.

This issue here is that Facebook exists, has constructed this system, exploitative of human behaviour and psychology, and collected this data.

Think back to the Chamath and Parker stories a few months ago.
This is a much bigger issue than the doings of a single political campaign.

Are we just going to leave it up to Zuck and Sheryl to work out how they can best profit from this system and data while hoping they don't destroy society in the process?

What if Zuckerberg were to die in a plane crash tomorrow and an enfant terrible, a young Maxima Rex were to subsequently rise to the throne while holding political views polar opposite to both you and her father, would you be just as enthusiastic about her deciding what are and aren't "authorizable" uses of this data?

#deletefacebook
I have to agree. Just like a normal camera has issues in low-light, it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was. While I can't say confidently that I would have been able to stop to prevent hitting them, watching the video in full screen does lead me to believe that I would have seen them and been able to apply the brakes at least enough to reduce the impact. Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else just prior to the impact. This alone leaves me skeptical to just how much could have been done to prevent this accident.
I think there are some pretty large differences in scale between "buying ads to target people with specific attributes and saving the situations where they interact with your ad" and "enabling any application to view all of the information about any friend who has connected with the app user".

I wouldn't argue that micro-targeting can't end up with very specific privacy concerns, but I don't think it's nearly the same scale as "you should probably assume that if you signed up to enable the Graph API on Facebook all information about you prior to 2015 is available to people you probably don't trust".
Right. I was commenting on the former, not the latter.

Per the other example — haven't heard of Bret's story, but if your career is "ruined" by showing up on a day anyone decides whites aren't welcome, seems safe to say you're better off without that career path?
> The gap between street lights (and hence the person) was in the field of view of the camera the entire time

But the gap between street lights is going to be very hard to see into.

> I'm confident my eyes are good enough that I would have been able to see this person at night in these lighting conditions.

I think you're overconfident. Human low light vision is very good if there is low light everywhere. But it is not good at seeing into low light regions when brightly lit regions are nearby.

That said, I agree that a visible light video camera is likely to be even worse that human vision under the given circumstances. But as others have commented elsewhere in this thread, the car is not just supposed to be using a visible light video camera. It has LIDAR and IR sensors, which should have clearly shown the pedestrian well before visible light did.
I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed.

The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own.

There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.
Doing it already, I probably am glossing over the complexities of doing so. My apologies.

My point is that almost always, real estate values in the US go up. So if you need to live somewhere, and the government is going to give you cheap money to do it, you’d be crazy not to.

Yes, it’s not as easy as opening a Vanguard account and buying a share of a mutual fund. But it’s also not terribly difficult.
I was just listening to an older episode of Indie Hackers today as a matter of fact. Thank you for contributing something valuable to the ecosystem. A lot of similar podcasts/blogs focus on a lot of fluff, but you do/did a great job of directing the conversation, and summarizing long-winded guest comments that may not use the proper business jargon into concise and interesting tidbits.

One thing that was always interesting for me as a listener is that I'm actually the opposite of a lot of your audience. I'm a senior marketer who knows the marketing world inside and out, but I'd consider myself an "early" programmer[1]. It is a very different set of challenges. But one thing I noticed was the true lack of basic marketing skills many of your guests had in the beginning of their journeys.

Would you say that the "baseline" for that knowledge among engineers has increased over the last couple of years as the "indie hacker" movement you and others like Patrick McKenzie have helped foster has grown in awareness and popularity? Ie., given the propensity for developers to spend a lot of their time researching solutions online, do you find they are starting with more of the basics in place than they did maybe 5-10 years ago?

[1] https://zedshaw.com/2015/06/16/early-vs-beginning-coders/
There's a huge difference between a product that's being funded by ads, and you can pay to switch the funding source, and a product that they're actively making the ad-funded experience worse specifically to push you to subscribe. One is just trying to keep a business afloat, the other is a company intentionally trying to irritate you.
Exactly. The dynamic range of the human eye is vastly better than a visible spectrum camera.
Did the vehicle have high beams enabled?
she wasn't even looking at the direction of incoming cars. She didn't care at all.
That's the entire political discourse these days, isn't it? X had dealing with, or "has connections" to Y, therefore everything Y does can be imputed to X.

There's a Russian behind every curtain! They're perhaps the most powerful country on earth! Literally everything (from Bernie to Jill Stein to Trump to the NRA) is Russina backed! ZOMG!

I'm guessing you haven't ever read anything about McCarthyism. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/23/the-increasingly-unhinge...
Pay up the real value of a house in a city.
He may have been watching a sensor display. Waymo's older videos show a big screen where the driver can see the data coming from lidar, radar, etc.
Yes, that was in the original announcement
What are some other cities which are in-demand but have plentiful housing. Berlin? Montréal?
If the car was able to pick up the person with the sensors, but the system failed to stop the collision, will the programmers who designed the autonomous system be held ethically accountable for the bug that led to the death? O_O
That’s a good point. But in this situation I think we’d probably find that the driver wasn’t at fault.
Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I'm not suggesting this is easy, but any other method gets messy due to the 2nd.
I would expect most autonomous systems to extrapolate the movements of anything in the vicinity and check whether it's going to cross paths with the vehicle. I would speculate that LIDAR (or whatever systems they use for object detection) simply failed to detect her.
Yes, obviously you should watch for objects unexpectedly crossing the road. No one argued you shouldn't. The point is, some people have and will still argue that the pedestrian has more right to the road than the driver and pedestrians should be allowed to cross anywhere they please. But that's not how it works in the US, crossing roads like this is illegal unless it's done at a crosswalk, and normally people are not stupid enough to do it with oncoming traffic.
The video makes the lighting look bad but most street lighting is very partial. When I drive home in the city—admittedly at somwhat lower speeds—the lighting is very patchy and all sorts of idiots in dark clothing are farting into traffic on foot and bikes. Lots of students. I pretty much expect people to be in the street but admittedly it’s a congested area compared to this.
The interior shot seems to support the idea that it is not feasible for semi-autonomous systems to rely on an alert human monitor to handle the difficult bits. Passive alertness is not a human trait.
Although a collision may still have occurred if a human slammed on the brakes immediately after seeing the pedestrian, even a 10mph slowdown may have mitigated the fatality into a minor injury. ProPublica has a graph showing the frequency of fatalities in crashes for different impact speeds, showing a more than halving in the occurrence of fatalities in crashes between 38mph and 28mph impacts: https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds

The article says that the vehicle "doesn’t appear to slow down". If the data shows that it actually didn't slow down, it seems like there is a critical bug in Uber's software that has killed a pedestrian.
Altaba (Yahoo!'s Alibaba assets) is worth $68 Billion[1], so no, they probably did the right thing.

[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AABA/
1) I wouldn't be surprised if that is the "best quality" they have.

2) 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.
The driver looked up a few seconds before the accident, though and didn't seem to notice anything on the road.
How can you tell that from a dash cam video?
> Societies evolve and social views change.

That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.

I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.

The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.
Interesting article with good points, but some of it is pretty silly:

> To be fair, “Testing Robustness” is followed by a written comment indicating that a “person (not shown) drives the robot up to the door, points the hand at the door handle, then gives the ‘GO’ command, both at the beginning of the video and again at 42 seconds.” The rest of the time the robot presumably executes its routine without human intervention. But this kind of task-and-time-limited autonomy has been around for decades, while few people know what “driving” the robot to the lab door means or that a teleoperator is necessary for nearly all of its movements.

Come on. We know how to make robots that walk to doors. The whole point of the video is to show the robustness of the robot in attempting to open the door. I couldn’t care less if someone drove it to the door then started the program.