skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Again, that's irrelevant from a financial perspective. The rates are priced to account for the risk of increase, and in this case the markets are liquid and competitive enough to allow correct market pricing.

The markets can be irrational for longer than you can stay solvent. You can pull out silly tropes like some concept of "correct market pricing". Which means "correct" according to some group of concerns vs some other group of concerns. Rarely do we get to directly design markets, and designed changes often go vastly wrong with unintended side effects.

It's not irrelevant from a life stability perspective if you get priced out of your domicile for rent increases, vs keeping it for an owned property. People can individually value that stability or not, but it's a real consideration.

There is also large overhead in not choosing the time that one wants to move if rents increase uncontrollably.
And I have literally never had to use high beams on a road with street lights. In my opinion, the camera footage vastly under-indicates the amount of visibility available to the human eye between the lighted areas.
From these comments, it seems like a "hacker" is either someone who understands the technology extremely well or not well at all... either way it's going to be fun ;) (and hopefully not too dangerous).
How exactly is it disrespectful to use this as a teaching aid for other pedestrians about the danger of crossing a road at night?
Bass Astral X Igo – Juno
> What story?

"The actual services Theranos appears to be providing to patients does not match the services Theranos claims to provide in its PR statements." That seems like (a) useful information to other potential Theranos patients, and (b) exactly the sort of information that "investigative journalism" is supposed to be providing to the public.
You're not arguing against anything I've said. Read it again.
My guess is you're in a bit of an echo chamber if you're hearing a lot of "Delete Facebook" rhetoric.

There's been no change in Google trends for "delete Facebook" and similar.

I suspect people will stop caring about Facebook in this context. It's handy, but not held in the same regard socially as a bank or government. Those things impact multiple generations. Facebook will, at best, impact a couple generations.
And Cambridge Analytics isn't the only election campaign "influencers". But for some reason, the focus is only on facebook and cambridge analytics.
> who was apparently half asleep or watching the dashboard

It is possible that a screen provided a clearer (somehow enhanced) view of the road, so I'm reserving judgment for now.

Of course using that screen could be a grave error if the screen relied on sensors that missed the victim. But if it appeared to be better than looking out of the windshield then that points to a process problem and not necessarily a safety driver inattention one.
There's an article related to this titled "Where have all the insects gone?" which discusses the "windshield phenomenon" where far fewer bugs are winding up on the windshields of vehicles.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insec...
There is a far simpler way to look at this, and that is to say that this is why we have peer review in science. If a scientist won't release data or methods, there is a 99% chance they are bullshitting their claims. Theranos's product happened to be adjacent to my research space, so I was already highly skeptical when I heard the initial product claims. When I heard they weren't releasing data however, I strongly suspected they were bullshit. Many years later, sure enough..
Please, mind that the camera does not have the same dynamic range a healthy person has. There are also other subtle signals that humans can use that computers will still have problems using. I have personally avoided few collisions with pedestrians just on the fact that they occluded some far away light or on very subtle flicker of some part of their clothing.

I don't see how car relying solely on vision (it does not seem to react to the pedestrian as if it was "seeing in the dark") can replace human with the current level of technology.

If this is true and the car was not able to use LIDAR/Radar/IR camera etc. to augment its visible spectrum then I don't think it should have been allowed for this car to be driven fully autonomously.
I agree, but I would expect that the real human visibility is greater than what the car camera is capturing here. It's a bit like trying to film with your iPhone at night - you can definitely see much more than what your camera sees.
You're not even arguing against what I've said. You are not the intended audience for my comment.
> Prices are not dropping even when thousands of units are hitting the market every month.

Well in fairness, even with all else being equal, units entering the market doesn't imply prices dropping. It only should imply prices being lower than they otherwise would be.
This data shows 18 thousand approved for all of Australia.

Not "thousands per month" for the mysterious city you live in.

For comparison, in 2017 Seattle got 10k new apartments which was enough to match the growth caused by Amazon's hiring and generally keep the prices sane.

So a thousand a month for the city the size of Seattle is good enough to counteract one of the biggest population growths.
The edges of the "lightpool" that the lamps normally cast is probly being clipped by the cameras crappy dynamic contrast, it is almost certainly a much larger lightpool in real life.
> Why do you imagine this is her choice?

Quite likely it wasn't. But that just means there are two things wrong with journalism, not one. Not only does this journalist not show any sign of recognizing that the information she is providing now should have been provided much earlier, but, if your suspicion is correct, even if she had recognized it, her boss would have overruled her.
> I tend to agree. I think unfortunately this video indicates that the car did not perform worse than a human. It's still valuable to have cars that perform better than humans, even if they aren't perfect.

I disagree. I think this video shows that the car performs much worse than I would expect a human to.

I have my own dashcam videos at night that look very similar to this, and I definitely think I would not have hit a large object such as a pedestrian walking a bicycle on a straight road such as this in a 35mph zone.
> How do you even know it exists if it can't be studied?

Because you experience your own and therefore assume that other people (and probably many animals) have experiences do to the similarity in behavior and biology.

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

We do so by imagining other people feeling things like we do. This can be a problem when we come across people with experiences different enough from our own. I don't know whether I can imagine giving birth, since I'm male. I also can't imagine what it's like to see in more than three primary colors, but some animals can.
I came across iYTBP - injected YouTube Background Playback. It allows one to

1. view 2k 60 fps videos in app

2. background playback

3. download for forever

4. dark mode

5. no advertisement ever

6. VP9 codec

7. loop playback

8. pip mode

and much more without rooting your phone.

https://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/app-iytb...

This app is also available by Youtube Vanced name in XDA app store for free.

Alternatively, just make the public playlist of videos you like to watch and use youtube-dl cmd tool to download all those videos inside Android using Termux app. I prefer this method over the earlier one.
I think the discussion should not be whether autistic people have some kind of superpower but whether there are parts of the autistic spectrum that can't be thought of as a disease.

There are obvious examples of Autism that are absolutely objectively terrible for the person experiencing it, this is not about those cases but about the "less severe cases" where an autistic child can go to a normal school and lead a generally normal life. If that is the case, I think the line between what you call a disease and mere personality traits is actually not very clear. Instinctively I would be very careful to describe someone's personality as a disease just because it is different from other peoples behaviour.

The problem with my thinking on the other hand is probably that the definition of the word autism itself might be unclear when considering these edge cases.
I actually believe that the kind of situation shown in the video (pedestrian walking across road at night in the path of a car, where car has to brake hard to avoid a collision) happens much more frequently than most people think. And most of the time the pedestrian comes out fine because most drivers are looking ahead most of the time, and someone walking across the road is a big abnormal event that is easy for a human to notice and react to.

I don't have any data to support this, other than a vague memory of doing something similar many years ago. Although if I remember correctly, that was a more major road that was probably better lit. But I still find it hard to believe that human vision would have been as lousy as the camera's.
Even if you imagine it thought it was another vehicle stopped in the other lane of traffic, the SDV should have slowed. There's no way you should assume a stopped vehicle isn't hiding another danger and blowing through while speeding is what stupid humans do and what SDVs shouldn't.
gab.ai and minds are pretty good free speech sites.

but i suspect people actually want echo chambers these days where they never have to think about their enemies or political reality ... echo chambers for all
Thermal imaging and near-infrared imaging are not the same. Waymo/Uber/etc are not using thermography for their autonomous vehicles.
This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
> Do we know the vehicle didn't brake?

Because the nose of the car doesn't go down. Especially in an emergency braking situation the nose of the car will go significantly down, and you would see that in the video.
> The dynamic range of the human eye is vastly better than a visible spectrum camera.

Certainly better than any camera mounted on a dashboard.

It's honestly a bit surreal how the pedestrian appears out of the splotch of pure darkness in the frame. That's low dynamic range and resolution (or high compression) at work, not how light behaves in reality.
Twitter and Square’s Jack Dorsey: Bitcoin Will Be World’s Single Currency
Thanks. If I can reproduce on a pure LineageOS device, do you want the bug reports then? In other words, are these the types of things you would patch LineageOS for if you had the patches? I ask because I don't have much of an understanding of how this ecosystem works.
I think releasing much higher quality and higher dynamic range and multi-spectrum video is going to be a LOT more damming of driverless car tech. Just look at all the commentators here saying they would have not been able to stop in time based on this terrible camera footage (ignoring the vastly better capabilities of their own human eyes).
Any engineer on that project would have to be horrified that their system didn't prevent this accident. It failed, completely.

I would be shocked if we see Uber resume testing any time soon, if at all.
But who decides what's constructive? It's all very well if you're choosing amongst people who basically agree with you - what if they're telling you it's going to take another year of experiments to get it up to standard?

Which reviewers, too, do you respond to? If it's a popular paper you probably can't respond to all criticism, but picking which criticism to interact with isn't going to lead to good science. There's a lot of value, even if it's not perfect, in writers being forced to respond to one or two reviewers' comments.
I don't know if I would have seen her either.
What is displayed on the center console? Is it possible that the driver was looking at a live video feed? I believe that some standard cars show their night vision feed there.
You don't actually need 64GB or 32GB or whatever RAM. The docs should be more clear. What they mean to say is if you have a large enough dataset in production, 64GB RAM per node is the ideal maximum size. That is because 32GB is the max Java heap size that uses 32-bit pointers. So 32GB for Java heap and 32GB for everything else. Although more RAM is generally better because the OS cache will still be utilized making queries faster overall.

I think ES's Java heap default is 1 or 2 GB, and that is more than enough for many use cases. Heap-heavy operations like sorting and aggregations may need more RAM depending on the index size. As far as I know, search isn't heap-heavy so you only need more RAM as query volume increases or index size increases.

For crashes, what version? Version 6.x has never crashed on me, but previous versions did have a tendency to crash for me.
I take a photo with my iPhone in night conditions and the image I see on the screen comes out way darker than I saw with my eyes. That has to be corrected for, no?
I dunno, if it decided to ignore the pedestrian because she was in the other lane that's extremely troubling. The pedestrian was moving laterally across the road. If the car has detected that, it should infer that she might become an obstacle very shortly.

Driving is all about predicting the future. Think of every time you've been able to tell that someone is going to change lanes even though their blinker is off, or slowed down when a ball bounces into the street because you know there's going to be a kid following it. If the car isn't capable of that, it's not ready for public streets.
cgroup limits can still be beneficial, consider for example contraining the (by default unlimited) metaspace.
FWIW the spot where the crash happened is in fact badly lit. I know this anecdotally from having been at the location for events -- it's right next to a concert venue -- but it can also be seen on other dashcam videos.

In this video [1] driving northbound, same as the vehicle in the crash, the car first goes under AZ-202, emerges under a streetlight, goes through a darker spot, then another streetlight (as you see the rocky outcrop), and then a very dark spot: and suddenly, you see a right-turn lane that wasn't there before. The latter dark spot is where the crash happened.

Another video by the same author, driving southbound [2], provides another useful reference. And these videos are three years old, yet the illumination of the roadway has not improved. Cameras exaggerate the contrast a bit, but not unreasonably so. The streetlights in question essentially aim directly downwards, illuminating the roadway immediately underneath, but much less of the surrounding air than other designs. This is responsible for the dark gaps, albeit it does significantly reduce light pollution.

[1] https://youtu.be/zEaTdYJExq8?t=8m50s [2] https://youtu.be/yfR7krN7z00?t=23m26s

EDIT:

Found more. The car in this video is going southbound, camera facing backwards [3]. This view faces the same way as the Uber did, but of course this video is moving away from the scene, and offset by a few dozen meters to the west. The drastic change in roadway illumination can still be seen.

In a fourth video [4], the car is going northbound, like the Uber, in the proper lanes, but the camera is pointing obliquely front-right. The illumination seems better, but you can still see the intensity of the shadows, including environmental shadows and the car's own shadow, as it moves between the lights.

[3] https://youtu.be/0Dum8Fj71JU?t=13s [4] https://youtu.be/6qHcuW_LCIU?t=16m45s
A driver (I refuse to say "human") would have also swerved.
Circle Medical (S15) Hiring Nurse Practitioners in SF to Reinvent Primary Care
In some nature protected areas in Germany, researchers [1] have reported a 75% decline in flying insects over 27 years. Study is from Oct 2017. This is alarming.

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
> With your car's headlights and the road lights, there are no blind spots on the road.

I agree that is the optimum, but I don't think all roads are optimal in this respect.

> If there is not enough street illumination and my headlights cannot reach far enough ahead I turn the high beams on and travel cautiously.

From what I can see in the video, this is what a reasonably cautious human driver would have been doing on the street shown, since it does not appear to have sufficient light to avoid blind spots. It does not appear that the Uber car had its high beams on. But, as has been noted in other comments in this thread, the car had other means besides visible light (LIDAR and IR) for seeing the pedestrian, so it should have been able to do better than a human driver at avoiding the collision.
Never outrun your headlights should be a rule for self driving vehicles as well.
What? Who would have thought?

https://prism-break.org/en/
I wouldn't say minor, but a reasonably attentive driver would have probably slammed the brakes, even if it was too late.
And yet you didn't make that mistake when you were in a very similar situation.

I don't think I would have hit that lady pushing the bike. If I saw her slowly meandering into the left lane like that, I would have slowed down. The car just plowed ahead at full speed. In fact, it plowed ahead, at night, at 3mph over the speed limit.

I've seen my own dashcam videos that look very similar to that, and in reality things are much more visible than what the dashcam shows.
I do wonder if perhaps Uber made the video darker before releasing. Or used a camera that is not the main sensing camera. Because I would hope the cars are smart enough to increase ISO to get more detail at night time.
This is a sign of immaturity of the field in my mind and how management forms and enforces low standards. Developers need to have some leverage to push back from these arguments. Just my 2 cents.
I don't see any caching/cloud-egress-charge-avoidance here. This is only targeting a small part of Cloudflare's value proposition.
Well, since we are already orthogonal, lets turn this the other way round. Would you support the idea that any software that you are mandated by law to use, should be required to be open source?
yeah if this really takes hold, the whole model is stuffed
Although this video will no doubt throw that driver under the, um, bus it wouldn’t matter if this were some rock star Uber engineer. You could see the exact same result.
What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really hard to do it. Witness our embracing of torture, taking shoes off to board an airplane, fear of sharia law, etc.
Long IR. No one is using that for AVs. (that might change after this incident!)
Bikes are mainly curved, small pieces of metal, and absorptive pieces of rubber. Their reflectors are designed for viewing them from the front or rear, not the sides. I wonder whether lidar can even differentiate a sideways bike from noise.
Seconding DNS66. Another benefit over hosts file based ad-blocking is you can disable/enable it without having to restart, which is super handy for the occasional "is this site broken or is it my ad-blocker" sanity check.
And what would giving Dennett's view a fair shake ential? I've read and listened to what Dennett has to say on the matter, and the implication is exactly what the author states. It only seems like we are conscious, but we don't actually experience anything. We're all p-zombies, and Dennett has exactly stated that in at least one of his recent talks.

Dennett also tried to deny that we have dream experiences, calling it coming-to-seem-to-remember upon waking up. I don't know whether he still denies the experience of dreaming, but it would be totally consistent with experience being a cognitive illusion. Taking Dennett seriously entails denying any sort of internal experience, whether it being mental imagery, dreams, inner dialog, feel of pain, etc.)
The pedestrian in this case isn't equipped with computer-activated motors and brakes. Yeah, it would've been best had she not crossed there at all. But that issue is entirely independent of how the AV should perform, assuming that Uber AVs are touted as being significantly safer and faster to react (day or night).
The video here is misleading. A human driver has a much wider field of view and better low-light vision than this video renders the situation. That's not to say that this would have been prevented by an attentive driver. But it's also clear that the safety driver was not paying attention, so it's even harder to know.
Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.
> I have literally never had to use high beams on a road with street lights.

I have, plenty of times. Not all road streetlights are optimally placed.

> the camera footage vastly under-indicates the amount of visibility available to the human eye

I agree with this; it's pretty much always going to be true for a visible light video camera under nighttime conditions. But I don't think that means a human driver, without high beams, would necessarily have been able to see the pedestrian. (As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, I think I would have been using high beams on this street, streetlights notwithstanding; the gaps between the lights look too long for good visibility.)
2017 Legacy with "Eye Sight." I have had one or two situations where the car emergency braked on my behalf. It happens when the car in front of me turns off the road and is nearly clear. I don't brake because I know that the car will clear the roadway before I get there but the system doesn't see it that way and brakes. I anticipate that now and avoid anything close enough to cause braking so I don't wind up the front end of a rear end collision.

The other thing this system does is to provide adaptive cruise control. If I'm behind a vehicle that results in slowing down and then switch lanes (to where there is another vehicle in front of me) the car seems to think it can resume speed and slip between the two vehicles. I've come to expect that too and disengage the speed control before switching lanes.

It also provides a warning when approaching the lane markings (unless I have indicated a lane change.) Occasionally it triggers on seams in the pavement. It also provides steering input if the land deviation increases. I've only experienced when I tested it in purpose. I'm not sure it would reliably keep the vehicle in the lane.

Overall the system seems to be pretty good and though not perfect, is a net asset.
I wouldn't put it past Theranos. They have shown their playbook includes filth. Ask an investor if it would surprise them: "oh s%^t we didn't stop the journalist, pull the fire alarm"
That is one super dark patch, but lack of visible light shouldn't be a problem for IR?

And whether the human driver/observer could have reacted fast enough to prevent death is a question, but it would help if the human in the car had been looking out the window more than looking down at her? phone.
Purify your web development with Raxx, a functional Elixir toolkit