skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's not saying much. Most of us don't understand most science behind anything outside of our limited specializations. These beliefs are manifestations of people's distrust of large institutions.

People believe GMO is bad because they believe that large corporations would do anything for a buck regardless of long term consequences.

Alien abduction, anti-vaxers, 9/11 inside job and other conspiracy theories are just ways for people to express their distrust of government.

Global warming deniers don't trust the liberal media.

The pattern is: I don't trust X. What is the worst thing I could believe about X.
In the context of a conversation where people say “car” implies something capable of 200MPH, that would be worth pointing out.
Bias and Starbucks – Implicit Bias
My way is to skim the book backwards. Keeps you from getting hooked by the narrative. You can decide in a few seconds whether it’s worth reading.
Zig: programming language designed for robustness optimality and clarity [video]
Be honest here... you typed "messenger bag" instead of "purse" into Duck Duck Go because you knew that the latter would return only bags that most men wouldn't be caught dead carrying.

Yes, air fresheners for cars are flowery and men buy them. LOL That doesn't mean mean that most men are going to choose to wear perfume instead of cologne, buy Herbal Essences shampoo, etc. You can come up with exceptions to any argument, but that wouldn't be a challenge to the general rule.
How can they hoard all the laboratories? This isn't a repeat of the early 20th century. It is way easier to make a lab than to find a new diamond mine.
Cervus: A WebAssembly subsystem for Linux
You asked about non-autopilot cars and how common it is.
I gave you data.

I can also find no data that suggests any other TACC is crashing into vehicles (no NTSB studies, investigations, etc) at all.

So yeah, i'm going to conclude, based on what i've seen so far, that autopilot is part of the problem.

If you have data that says autopilot is not worse, i'd love to see it.
It's just the path to commodity that every product follows. That's inevitable with gems now that synthetic stones are equivalent, so the choice facing De Beers is to stick with expensive mined stones and die out while the market evolves, or to get a big chunk of the action. The only thing is that to pull it off they had better be ready to cannibalise the existing business and let it go. They need a very long term plan which doesn't always revolve around the next few quarters which might be a tough sell with shareholders.
I think the bias is against older people who are looking for jobs through the same channels as the younger people rather than having an established enough work history or a network that gives them an express lane.
Only for their own branded diamonds, there's no requirement that other manufacturers add any distinguishing feature.
I haven't done the math, but I'd be mildly surprised if there were any dangerous effects. The Sun is just so big relative to even the largest planets, and much much denser as well; I suspect that most of the ejecta thrown up by a collision would be pulled back down the gravity well before reaching Earth orbit, and the mass of a planet is so small compared to the Sun that I doubt it would alter its gravity well appreciably.
ngate's Discourse on HTTPS. I don't know how accurate it is, but it's a good read!

http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/
> It’s kind of a pain in the ass to add a new payer each time

This is one reason Venmo is successful. Paying someone is easy. Receiving money is easy. No one wants to spend 5 minutes setting up a payee on their phone when they’re splitting a dinner bill.
Yeah you're misreading my issue
That's a rather elegant and funny way to put it.

Unfortunately, a huge issue is that it's almost impossible to be in the control group anymore. Or if it is, it demands huge efforts and is very hard to check the success of it.

I understand the scientists defending the GMO. But quite often, they assume people in charge are making decisions the same way they do. However, the people in charge often make decisions according to economical factors, science being just a tool toward that goal.
From the article:

> "Tesla has always been clear that Autopilot doesn't make the car impervious to all accidents, and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that 'Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings,'" a Tesla spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

From the picture at the top of the story, it is clear there is no divider on the stretch of road where the accident occurred.

Maybe it should detect when it is being misused, and start blaring loud noises, do its best to make the driver carsick, or simply immobilize the car.
In general:

Two pathways have led to economically viable synthetic gem diamonds. One is chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the other is high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) growth.

The successful CVD makers use hydrogen+methane and high power microwaves (typically 915MHz, 30-60kW) to form plasmas that cause diamond to deposit and grow on small diamond seeds. IIa Technologies, Diamond Foundry are two of these.

HPHT is an old technology, the first to unambiguously demonstrate diamond synthesis in the 1950s. It grows diamonds in metal solvents at high temperature and pressure (typically 1000°C at a million psi). It has come to be successful in gem diamond production due to better press design and use of modern process controls.

The business challenge in gem diamond production isn't any aspect of the technology. It's the sales.

De Beers has a hundred years of channels for whatever type of diamond they want to sell. Newcomers have to build their own channels, largely because the older ones are highly loyal to De Beers and won't handle goods from any other source.

As the CEO of one of the most successful synthetic diamond producers recently told me, if their cost of production were zero, it would still be a major challenge to sell their gems.
Except the insurance policy on a person is cancelled if word gets out that they have it.
Automatic window coverings are probably the killer application. It has a huge improvement in livability and can dramatically reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling.
Judea Pearl sees a way out of the winter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/machi...
Speaking of Google-scale databases, I've always felt the unhyped hero of deep learning was the data sets themselves. I'd be happy to see one less book about deep learning, and one more book on how you can gather and build a quality dataset yourself. Granted, I think gathering and preparing the data is a broader and most difficult task in many ways.
How dumb of an idea is it to attach the camera/lidar/what have you to a 2 axis rail and move it around at a high speed to introduce some parallax movement to the scene?
Start with:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170912.as...

Also, 18 crashes so far where autopilot was enabled?
vs so far, literally zero known crashes across everyone else?

Do you not find it somewhat interesting that in zero other cases has the NTSB found that TACC or the design of a TACC played a role in the crash?

I'd also point out: the supplier of their original crash tech broke up with them and ordered them to stop using it because they felt what was happening was unsafe (see Mobileye's letter to Tesla).

Tesla later tried to spin it as "they are made we are breaking up with them" but Mobileye then produced data showing tried to renew the contract and Mobileye refused.

In fact, plenty of other car companies are building self-driving tech, and currently relying on Mobileye, and Mobileye has not refused to supply them - only Tesla.

Like, i'm not sure how this set of stuff doesn't tilt a person into "hey, maybe this is something to be worried about, they should produce data why it isn't".
> Of course, that's where the UI comes into play, because if the driver hadn't been watching Harry Potter, he would have seen the tractor trailer as well.

Reports at the time said he was watching it on a portable DVD player, not the Tesla screen. Not sure about the NTSB report someone just cited though. If that report really said he wasn't watching anything, I wonder how that rumor started?
I think porn hub could do it.
Exactly.

I once brought up what you said to an acquaintance and, wow, the way the color drained from his face, the way his voice hardened and lowered in tone, as he said "That's just a bunch of bullshit.". Later that month, he would go to work for IBM as a junior-level front-end engineer.

As always, it's probably better to be quiet and let the insecure live in their own little worlds.
> Somehow the word has been twisted to be almost exclusively negative.

Webster gives pride of place to both the transitive and intransitive definitions that could fit your "once upon a time" definition.[1]

Furthermore, of the six definitions given, five are what I'd consider a trait or ability that is wholly positive to possess. Only the 2nd definition for the intransitive form has a negative connotation.

> But show me an organization that doesn't discriminate, and I'll show you an organization of utter incompetence.

Any organization that isn't utterly incompetent would avoid using the ambiguous word "discriminate" in place of the unambiguous phrase "use good judgment."

Also, HR is just one tiny and narrow domain of human affairs. Music, writing, even dating see way more use of the positive definitions of "discriminate."

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate
"So, like you, I thought there was only one way to interpret it." Wow. All I hear from you is condescending snark. Just letting you know, it's pretty toxic.
No, that's not why men don't wear women's clothing. Those are complains women have about their own clothing(and they're right!). Men don't go walking around with hand bags and purses in general, in fact I'd guess 99% of the time. Messenger bags don't count.

Yes, there are kilts, but the vast, vast majority of men would never wear kilts casually.

I should rephrase that by "without exception", I mean the "vast majority of the time". There's a reason that products marketed specifically towards men feature dull/drab colors and tend not to have floral scents. I don't blame you for how you feel about the products you prefer to use; I happen to buy products from Lush, which have flowery scents that are nose-numbing. Still, I don't think that the vast majority of men would use such products. Then again, if the color of the product was army green and came in bullet casings... maybe.
What? That's not true. It can and does brake for objects in front of you that it senses. Its ability to sense objects is sadly very incomplete, but it does (quite often, but not often enough) successfully sense objects and slow or stop for them.

See page 93 of this owner's manual, for example: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_s_owners_man...

(What it won't do is steer around obstructions in a lane, either full or partial.)
I asked about actual crashes. You gave me info about a controlled test where the exact car discussed in this article avoided the test collision. Given that the car discussed in this article crashed in real life, the controlled test is clearly not the final word in whether these other cars are experiencing crashes like this in the real world.

Also, I wasn't asking about how Autopilot compares to similar systems from other manufacturers, I was asking how it compares to the Mark I Human, which is a driving system that crashes into stationary vehicles with distressing frequency.
Show HN: Austechjobs – job board for tech jobs in Australia
The screen displays a Mars rover. You turn the steering wheel to control where that Mars rover goes. I'd consider that a video game.

I guess you don't consider that a video game, which is a perfectly valid opinion. But I'd just wish you had made your first comment "I don't consider Tesla's interactive easter eggs to be video games" instead. That way you clearly communicate your intent and this whole needless bikeshed could have been avoided in the first place.
The aversion to lockfiles is especially head-scratching given that vgo has a concept of a go.modverify file (separate from the go.mod file) which is used to store version hashes, which is a function that lockfiles usually fulfill. I think the advantage is supposed to be that modverify files are optional, but in practice I don't see why anybody wouldn't want one given that it provides additional security for free.
While I basically agree, really it ought to be called "AI autumn is well on its way", since I'm not sure we're into actual winter (i.e. dramatic reduction in $$ available for research) quite yet. But, probably soon.
I could be wrong but that looks like an autopilot 1 car which is an older version of the tech that they're not really developing anymore. The newer autopilot 2 and 2.5 is what they're going forward with for now. That also doesn't look like a highway and autopilot isn't designed to handle that yet.
And yet the forward collision warning on a lot of inexpensive cars like Hondas would have warned the driver and then hit the brakes in this situation.

We clearly don't have an epidemic of cars with forward collision warning systems slamming on their brakes for no reason, so those systems must be able to deal with the false positives somehow.
I can't help but think of how the various Star Trek series handled rogue planets... and then later on how IRL science delved into rogue planets as more of a reality than previously realized.
Its on there. Control + H
If your aircraft is equipped with automation you may be required to demonstrate proficient use of the automation during your check ride. Any piece of equipment installed in the aircraft is fair game for the evaluator during a practical test.
It's worth pointing out that when working in a monorepo, there are no version numbers and no package system to tell you that upstream broke you, or you broke something downstream.

So how do you find bugs? You run tests.

The same can be true if you're working with package management. Most bugs aren't found by the dependency tracking system anyway. Having good tests will tell you about incompatibilities that upstream didn't even know about.

If you're not using exactly the same versions that the maintainer used, you need to run tests.

Maybe people currently don't run tests often enough? But this suggests a different approach to software robustness than comparing version numbers.
It sounds like a good idea until you realise that besides the extreme hardness, diamond is also extremely brittle and thus likely to shatter from impact --- and the thought of having xray-transparent shards of diamond forcefully embedded into one's skin is quite unpleasant.
I have seen very few examples of what you describe, if any at all. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is because I've missed them, and I certainly wouldn't mind getting a few clues/pointers.
Perhaps your wife has a different from address on multiple devices, and every so often sends a message from a different device causing the thread to switch?

Worth checking the "new messages from" setting on all of your devices (on both sides probably)

I agree though there is a shortcoming here.
I assume you could achieve the same thing with less complexity and more cheaply using a fixed system.

Either having more than one sensor or using mirrors or something.

In fact, I'm sure that the camera systems in place are already doing this to some degree. I think it's more that it's not yet good enough at picking out these stationary objects that are in the path of travel.
At the risk of diverging into politics, it's amazing how "influencers" can do this with social media posts without spending lots of money. As long as the information is from someone (company/individual/etc) perceived as reputable, people will believe almost anything at face value. It's much easier than researching something on their own.

Whatever the message, say it loud and often, and it becomes accepted as true. Call it spin, call it PR, call it marketing, it works.
I test drove a Volvo S90 recently. The Pilot Assist feature almost feels like a gimmick due to the attention required. If you don't give steering input in five seconds, Pilot Assist disables itself. It basically requires enough of your attention that there's little difference between using it and not using it.

It seems pretty clear to me that Volvo only has Pilot Assist in the first place as a method to gather data via telemetry for the next generation of self-driving vehicles, because it otherwise doesn't seem to add anything useful to the driving experience. Consequently, I haven't heard of any notable incidents where Pilot Assist caused an accident.

I haven't test driven Enhanced Autopilot but I see people on YouTube taking their hands off the wheel completely for much longer than the Volvo let me do. Tesla seems like they're pushing something half-baked out and representing it as something it isn't.
I've seen a few that used 1.0.3 which is also common among python and other languages. One of the biggest new go projects, istio[1], uses the 1.0.3 style.

I'll switch over in the future and keep existing tags for dep users.

1. https://github.com/istio/istio/tags
If this is recent information, how does it bear on dark matter, i.e. machos? An excellent read, btw.
Hook library for Android 4.0+ (support armeabi-v7a, arm64-v8a, x86, x86_64)
New matebook x pro. A “macbook” with a proper keyboard
Musk demos auto-pilot to the press in response to a recent crash in an area that is: A) not a highway, and B) has no lane dividers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO33rOofFpg&t=2m18s

Also takes his hands off the wheel while using it in a manner that if someone else did and died, Tesla would slam them in the press for doing so, using dodgy-from-a-privacy-perspective and potentially-inaccurate (frequent reports of hands on wheel false negatives) telemetry.
> be Google
"You turn the steering wheel to control where that Mars rover goes."

No you don't. The Mars map is exactly like the Earth map, with a Mars texture instead of the map, and a rover instead of an arrow. Technically you control where the rover goes by using the steering wheel, because the steering wheel controls where your car goes, and the rover's movements come from your car's GPS. But it's not the sort of video game you describe. There's no way it could possibly work as you describe. The steering wheel is mechanically connected to the front wheels and still steers the car even when Autopilot is engaged, so it could not possibly be used as a video game control.

The problem isn't my failure to disclose my opinion of the easter eggs, it's your misunderstanding of what they actually are.
A primer on situations where [Tesla] Autopilot is more likely to fail
> man-made diamonds are much more likely to be purer and flawless.

Hmm, both natural and man-made stones have price/quality trade-offs. I am no expert in the field, but I think both kinds are post-sorted into quality grades based on what flaws are found. And I guess labs can also tune their growth parameters for different trade-offs.

So yes, for a given price and size, the artificial stone will have better quality -- but that is just another way of saying they are cheaper.
"Move fast and break things" is probably the worst philosophy to sweep over SV. It encourages a worldview where externalities that potentially break laws and maim or kill other people should be disregarded in the pursuit of "progress" and profits. But it's nice to see the HN community finally start to come to this realization
> The lock file stops future upgrades; once it is written, your build stays on serde 1.0.27 even when 1.0.28 is released.

That means that the only difference is that `vgo` doesn't require lock file for reproducible builds, now the question is what's considered so terrible wrong/dangerous with having a lock file?
> Educated people who hate GMO are instant signal that they don’t understand science.

Not actually being familiar with the science in a particular domain and not understanding as science are very different things.
That "turbo roundabout" really got me. I feel like for that example (and probably others) you'd also need to measure the quantity of efficiency lost to people just trying to understand how the system works and maybe then the actual score would be lower.

In the same vein, for the few complex systems at the end, they should probably factor in human mistakes in the score because it looks like it would be incredibly time consuming to get back on the right way if you took the wrong turn (and could potentially add traffic to the equation).
> Blame Elon Musk. I'm serious.

If you want to fix the problem, just charge him with attempted murder of a cop.
Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO.

So if you don't trust Monsanto for most things, you will especially not trust it to tell you the truth about the safety of its products nor about the completeness of their tests to ensure said safety.
Author here, yeah, it is the autumn. But I guess not many people would recognize the meaning, winter on the other hand is not ambiguous...
I'm extremely skeptical that there have been zero TACC-involved crashes with other cars. Has the NTSB or other organization actually put out a statement to that effect somewhere, or are you just basing this on an inability to locate any when searching?
The difference is in the compare. A collision avoidance system is there to help correct driver errors, so even if it only works 50% of the time it is still a massive reduction in the accident rate. Whereas with autopilot the expectation is that it should be recognizing objects as good or better than drivers, so a 50% failure rate would be considered massively buggy.

Note: Tesla also has a collision avoidance system, which is actually on all the time and a distinct feature from autopilot (although it uses the same underlying sensors).
It's the same story again like exaggerating the influence of IoT 5 years ago. The whole thing is exaggerated to raise money from investors and attract customers instead of actually buidling superior product
The actual benefit is to have the car handles itself in situation where you would be distracted regardless.

I engage similar system on my car before fiddling with the attention seeking touch screen, or when I need to give a quick look at the kids behind. Another is traffic jam: a lot of nothing going followed by a lot of things going on - focus on the wrong thing and you can rear end somebody. Minor benefit are some fuel saving if you are a "dynamic" driver, and it can make you more relax in stressful situation like the traffic jam above.

That's just to answer your question. I completely agree with you that the feature is overhyped, not worth paying much for it and actively promoting dangerous driving behaviour. However, it nowadays comes nearly for free as a consequence of other very useful systems: the whole set of emergency braking scenario (emergency, cruise control, safety distance, pedestrian, ...), line keeping assist, blind spot monitoring. It has its uses, if you remain aware of its shortcomings.
Subaru Eye Sight does this reliably and actually auto brakes correctly. Going from that to APv2 has been a real step back. There's a curve on 92W that it consistently try to accelerate you into an embankment. I think Elon just doesn't understand the real world reality of how bad AP is.
Autopilot is like the steering wheel, brake, stickshift, etc. You don't get to blame an accident on it. Airplanes have autopilot as well. We live in a world where movies like jackass are made, based on real people and their attitudes. It's not reasonable to suggest that safety labels or terminology can fix everything. Some people are
plain irresponsible and foolish.
In a similar vein, here is a fun issue I filed: https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/20072