skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Apple has 285 billion dollars cash. They have enough money to do pretty much anything from scratch.
The main reason why Apple would be interested in self-driving cars is eyeballs. If we believe that self-driving cars are inevitable, whatever the timeframe, consumers will have a lot more free time while they are commuting, and guess what they'll do during that free time?

That's right, they're going to want to watch movies, play games, and fiddle with apps, preferably on a big screen in their car. And guess who needs to be on those big screens in the car to stay relevant? That's right, carOS needs to be on that big screen in the car, or Apple should just cede the market to Google and accept inevitable irrelevance.

This is an extremely strategic play that will develop over the next 10-20 years as more and more transportation is completely automated and large screens become ubiquitous.
> I genuinely do not understand Apple's move into this space.

Many people didn't understand their move into MP3 players or mobile phones, either.

If you take a step back, Apple is an "affordable luxury" technology products company with a heavy emphasis on design and user experience.

In the luxury and "affordable luxury" tiers, cars are technology products with a heavy emphasis on design and user experience.

Apple knows that smartphones, as we know them today, are likely to be an anachronism by 2030. The market for transportation is large enough to be interesting as a potential source of revenue when the iPhone cash cow falters.
How do they mitigate narco subs? Sonar patrols I presume?
Between the same brand doesn’t seem to unlikely to me.

If you have a bunch of cars stored somewhere overnight (so you can fuel them or charge them or whatever) it’s easy enough to imagine some situation where two of them run into each other trying to get out of the lot. Or one going in one coming.

Out on the road it’s kind of the same thing. There are lots of Waymo cars in city X, so if they’re going to hit another automated vehicle there’s a decent chance it would be one of their own.

To get a crash between different brands they both have to be in the same space, running automated, at the same time, and both make or be unable to avoid mistakes. That seems less likely, at least right now.

Of course if one brand runs into itself more than once I imagine the press will have a field day.
No one should really be considered an authority in the field of psychology. Sure they can get things right sometimes but it's not rigorous enough fundamentally to add much validity. It's their bread and butter to spam NHST at the data until something sticks.
Terry Davis, Author of TempleOS, has passed away [unconfirmed, mods please rm]
What confuses me is why they aren't just bringing to market a classy simple EV with a giant ipad in the center console.

This autonomous stuff is stupid. In the mean time people are buying more new ICE vehicles or a poorly made Tesla as a poor substitute for what they really want - a Tesla running iOS with an Apple logo.
I haven't used Signal, so I don't know much about it. I know that Telegram has native clients for multiple platforms (real apps, not HTML/JS apps). For example, its Windows client is written in Qt and works on Windows XP. It is also very realiable and works good even on bad mobile connections.

Telegram has channels - it is like a microblog where the owner can post messages and images, and everybody else can only read them.

And in Russia Telegram is well known (unlike Signal) because its founder (Durov) is also a founder of social network VK.

Judging by screenshots, Telegram and Signal UI look similar (well, almost every IM app looks the same).

As I understand Signal, as Telegram, requires a phone number for registration and therefore doesn't provide much privacy (the government can easily track your location and identify you). I wouldn't give a real phone number to any of them.
if you know what you are doing you dont need to take any kind of a digital asset across a border, everything you need can be obtained at your destination...
border agents are not paid to respect your property, so avoid the opportunity for them to destroy your intellectual achievments via ignorance

However...

==> Your rights at the border. Compared to people and police in the interior of the country, border agents have more power and people crossing the border have less privacy. But the border is not a Constitution-free zone. The powers of border agents are tempered by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, association, press, and religion), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), the Fifth Amendment (freedom from compelled self-incrimination), and the Fourteenth Amendment (freedom from discrimination).

but the agents do have the right to mitigate security/criminal threats.
Thank you so much for doing this. It has been a central political talking point for me for a long time, but I've never seen the data so well laid out.

Obviously, it's just one factor among many, but I think heavy social safety nets and regulations make a lot more sense to people in very populated locations and a lot of interactions and anonymity than they do out in the countryside, who would prefer to be left to themselves with no one else's hand in their wallet.

It looks like your data is by county. I wonder to what extent it would be clearer if it were down to the city level. A large, mostly empty county with a dense city in it is going to skew the data differently than a small county with city.
I think autonomous vehicles is an early investor's game. Once there are rock solid models available, it'll be really hard for smaller corps to jump in.

If you're sitting on billions, hell, you might as well get your feet wet and see what happens.

People won't stop buying macs if apple ends up not ruling the autonomous vehicle space.
My impression was that was the way most if not all states were set up.
This, but also, human drivers do similarly awful things like stop at the end of a long acceleration on-ramp when they should have been accelerating to match the speed of traffic they are attempting to merge into.
Just because you know how to avoid the problem doesn't make the problem go away.
The hatch would need to be the same size as the hold, as well.
Not really sure what this article's final point is? Facebook and Google have hardware teams that allow them to build impressive data centers. Cisco has lost a lot of potential revenue from all the components FB and Google have managed to build in-house.

Even if you say that's not the same, Samsung is probably the closest to Apple in the consumer space. They own the entire pipeline in various degrees.

Yea Apple is winning in profits, but it's not the vertical integration that's doing it.
... according to the legendary measure that 5% + 5% + 5% ... will allow us to divide by 6-10 our CO2 emissions, which is simply not true. To access these kinds of savings:

- A great depression

- A drastic reduction of population

Any other “saving” measure will immediately be followed by a temptation to use the unused resources. Politically saying “no” to consumption when the resources are available means saying “no” to increasing the government debt by 10: It’s the right solution but politically unviable. Global warming and govt debt is actually the same problem, by the way.

So it’s worth mentioning from the GP that incremental improvements won’t get us out of global warming. Or else, we’ve been lied to about the scale that “we must divide out consumption by 10”.
Cloud-hosted Android OS with voice – what's next? Hosted piano cat?
Interesting thread.

I think self-driving cars are short term doomed, and we've doomed them.

The problem is we view them as a purely technical problem where-as the real issues are sociological. It's not possible to create a self-driving car that acts perfectly on roads designed for humans (arguably, it's not possible to have humans acts perfectly either).

There are two solutions to this problem. Either shift human expectations such that they accept the failures of self-driving cars, or change the roads to make it easier for automated cars to drive on them.

I believe we should overwhelmingly be doing the second. We should be augmenting and instrumenting our road infrastructure to make self-driving easier. And in particular, we should be concentrating our efforts where this is easier, and has the most value (probably transit).
It’s also something I would expect self-driving cars to have a huge advantage over human drivers, simply because the former can check behind and to the side while still checking the car in front of them.
Source? Crime in general decreased quite a lot after the depression, but the use of leaded gasoline was quite prevalent regardless.
How can we be sure the people doing this study were not message board users?
All you have done is made the comparison implicit instead of explicit. The full form of your question would be "Why is the Universe here (instead of not here)" in which "not here" is just a euphemism or a form of "nothing". You cannot escape the axioms that existence exists and that we know it. This is the starting point of any claim to knowledge even claims that deny existence or our awareness of it. That is what makes such questions invalid.
Partially because giant touchscreens in non self driving cars are a horrible UX.

Also probably because they know they can't outcompete actual car makers at making cars.
And changes in level of enforcement.
This still leaves the question of liability. In the case of cancer treatment I assume that patients are required to sign some sort of waver. Don't see how this can work in the self driving car case as some of the victims may not have signed such a waver.

This leaves some sort of bulk protection for manufacturers ?
Yes. First, fix a programming language; for example, C. Now, the halting problem asks for a given C program and a given stdin, will the program terminate. For simplicity, let's just say that we close stdin and give the program an empty input.

It turns out no algorithm can solve the halting problem for all C programs. The explanation is that, if you had such an algorithm, you could write a C program that applies the algorithm to itself (this is a special quine), and then does the opposite of whatever the halting algorithm says the program would do (if it says the program halts, the program will just enter an infinite loop; if it says it does not halt, the program calls exit).

Now, imagine a list of all valid C programs in alphabetical order, beginning with the empty string (which, oddly enough, is a valid C program). Consider a number where the Nth digit after the decimal point is 0 if the Nth C program halts, and 1 if it does not; for example, the first digit, corresponding to the empty string, is 0, while a few digits later, the digit corresponding to "int main() {main(); return 0;}" will be 1.

Putting it all together, we know there are C programs for which we cannot compute the solution to the halting problem, and we have a number whose digits are determined by the solution to the halting problem for every C program. So that number is not computable (because we cannot compute every digit, so we cannot compute it to arbitrary precision).
Because Microsoft. There was a time when Microsoft was practically printing money, even ignoring corporate contracts. People were cycling through their PCs at an extremely regular rate which in turn resulted in massive revenues for Microsoft as each new machine was accompied by a variety of licensed software. But then something happened. It wasn't long ago that a computer was outdated in 6 months and obsolete in 2 years. Now? You can buy a PC and, unless you either do high end gaming or engage in a handful of esoteric high performance tasks, it'll last indefinitely. Buy this new phone that's slightly faster and slightly thinner than the last one you bought is not a sustainable keystone business model.

If they want to stay on top, they need to move on. But to what? Self driving cars seem like they stand a very good chance of being the next huge industry.
Google and Apple have a theory of why it's important to control the autonomous car market. It may be tied to smartphones dominance just for the reason that the two market leaders in smartphone platforms are putting in significant capital into the field.
> If we believe that self-driving cars are inevitable

I am a programmer and I would never ever get in a self-driving car if I had a choice. I don't trust other programmers, I don't know if a backdoor has been put in by someone, and I don't want to get into a vehicle that can be hacked.

I believe self-driving cars will be a catastrophic failure.
The US is one of the safest places in the world to drive, and certainly in the same class as most developed countries. Is it the risk to individuals you object to, or the environmental cost? Which matters more, lead in fuel or the burning of fuel itself? Should we just go ahead and ban all combustion engines? That would at least be fair across the transportation sector.

Microprocessor production is toxic. Should we ban microprocessors? Dry cleaning is notorious. Should we ban dry cleaning? Gasoline is toxic in all forms. Should we ban gasoline? Batteries are almost always toxic. Should we ban batteries? Or maybe we should just let the EPA and similar government bodies regulate this, along with the courts, which means we’re all good today.
I’ve had many interviews such as “all day interviews” to ones that were only an hour or two at a time in America.

The current position I’ve accepted is a German owned company that has a Japanese branch. Small company. Pay is low when compared to compensation I could get in America.

BUT, the interview process was simple. Skype video call with a few people at the same time. Met two of the owners while vacationing in Japan. Got an offer and accepted it.

Despite the low pay, I accepted it because it is completely remote. The work is fulfilling (right now my project involves data that can help farmers). I’m learning a lot of new stuff.

It’s actually because of all three that I might stay long term. Remote, fulfilling work, and learning new things checked all the boxes despite the low pay.

Stuff like that matters. Many companies don’t understand this.
I have a theory that it has to do with keeping Jonny Ive happy.

It's well known that he loves cars. Perhaps he's bored and has taken on other projects to keep him at Apple (designing the new campus, Apple car).
I can’t imagine Google NOT releasing that update. Ever since CarPlay first came out people have been complaining about this and blaming Apple.

When iOS 12 was first unveiled a huge chunk of the comments I saw were people happy about this exact feature.

Now that there’s absolutely no reason Google can’t do this… it seems moronic said they would choose to hold the feature back.

What would the benefit be? They wouldn’t get the data collection because the app isn’t running, and how many people would realistically switch to Android over this single decision?

When it comes to the Apple car I guess part of the question is… can people even buy them? It’s not as much of an issue if it’s a fleet car or a cab kind of situation.

It’ll be very interesting to see what Apple does if that day comes.
The article is about procrastination. If someone is simultaneously trying to do all the things you mentioned, and the only problem is that there's not enough time to do all of them (of course), then they likely don't term it procrastination. By definition, procrastination is about when one has the time but is unable to do the things one wants to do.
NOOOOOO
Definately looks like pop-psychology, a grain of salt would be worthwhile.
> but I'm just not getting what the vision here is.

A place where Apple is working hard to improve is maps. Instead of thinking of the self driving car project as something to sell, think of it as powering Apple Maps. Although it's probably cheaper to just pay a bunch of people to drive around the country 24/7/365.
Ban them from certain areas (school zones, cities) or restrict them to specific applications (long distance trucking), times of day or areas (traffic between startup campuses in Mountain View).
Do you not get into regular cars where safety features are controlled by software? (That is, any car from the last 30 years?)
Personal risks that overwhelmingly affect only the people engaged in the risk are things that most people accept as the participants’ business. Motorcycles, fatty foods, swimming, and many others fit this category.

It didn’t occur to me (or seemingly Wild182) that you were suggesting banning an activity that was risky essentially solely to the participants in that activity. Being worried about ground fatalities of non-participant is something that makes sense, so that was the line of reasoning I thought you were suggesting. It was my mistake.

On a per-mile basis, light aircraft are approximately as safe/dangerous as motorcycles. That’s the “all causes” rate for both. Both activities have means to substantially reduce the risk versus the “all causes”. On a cycle, wear a helmet, drive within your limits, don’t drink and ride. In an airplane, don’t run out of gas, don’t fly into thunderstorms, don’t fly in clouds if you’re not instrument rated and current.
Taking the College Tour by Private Jet
Sleek UI and hardware is nice, but for autonomous vehicles AI is essential. You can have the best car in the world in other respects, but without AI it's not self-driving.

Apple hasn't shown that it's particularly good at AI or mapping. Siri and Apple Maps are distant runner-ups. If it weren't for name brand awareness, I doubt anyone would be paying attention to Apple's self-driving project versus the field of competitors.

Apple may have enough money to brute force their way to a spot in the rankings, but it hardly seems like a natural fit for them.
Qin Shi Huang lifted the sword to the sky, and shouted: “Computer Formation!” Four giant bronze cauldrons at the corners of the platform came to life simultaneously with roaring flames. A group of soldiers standing on the sloping side of the pyramid facing the phalanx chanted in unison: “Computer Formation!”

On the ground below, colors in the phalanx began to shift and move. Complicated and detailed circuit patterns appeared and gradually filled the entire formation. Ten minutes later, the army had made a thirty-six kilometer square computer motherboard…

“This is really interesting,” Qin Shi Huang said, pointing to the spectacular sight. “Each individual’s behavior is so simple, yet together, they can produce such a complex, great whole! Europeans criticize me for my tyrannical rule, claiming that I suppress creativity. But in reality, a large number of men yoked by severe discipline can also produce great wisdom when bound together as one.”

—Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem (2008)
Why can’t all these companies just make one self driving car? Seems like a lot of overlapping effort with all of these separate initiatives towards the same goal.

The technology is agnostic unless you redesign the car from the ground up. All the training data and model development should be open source with some monetary incentive for the organization that contributes the most
The legalised abortion argument has several holes in it, the big ones being:

- why did the crime rates simultaneously drop in states where abortion was already legal before Roe v Wade?

- why did crime rates have a similar drop in similar time frames in other countries regardless of the legality of abortion?

There is a very strong correlation between the banning of leaded petrol and reduction in crime rates around the world.
...yup a local solution doesnt satisfy a global level bork [NOT BorK ]
No. No. No. Yes.
Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects
This reminds me of a quick in Kings Quest, which let you walk across the water to the island by ducking while slipping down the embankment. Apparently you couldn't duck and drown at the same time.
> Also, compilers is a basic core course you have to take to get a CS degree.

I'm not sure if this is true. It wasn't required for my degree.

I wasn't offended by your comment, though. I just disagree with you. No hard feelings about that.

Anyways, I agree that knowing how things work under the hood will make you a better programmer. I just disagree with how you phrased that sentiment in your original comment.
But a cool idea
I suggest the following as this has worked well for me in the past.

Make a list of things that interest you, that you want to get done, and break each one down into a set of smaller tasks necessary to get that thing done. It doesn't have to be perfect initially, just make the initial list over the course of a day and rank order the tasks by how easy you think they will be to accomplish.

The next morning pick one task off the top of the list and either work on that task or think about how to better define the task to make it easier, this will often involve breaking it further down into smaller tasks. Some of the tasks will be easier to work on in sets, and some will be dependent on others. You can also pick a different task if you want, it is totally up to you.

As you finish a task, move it to the bottom of the list, mark it as complete, and make notes on what you did and additional paths to pursue. Typically this step will inspire additional things that you would like to get done, so add those as new tasks to the top of the list and reorder those tasks at the end of the day.

To make this easy for yourself, you will need to reserve 20-30 minutes at the end of each day to update the list, marking and describing accomplished tasks, adding new ones, and sorting the list.

Windows Sticky Notes is the perfect thing for this as it auto-saves (still backup though) has minimal editing features and is always there for you :)
Very few people can say they have built something as interesting as TempleOS. It was incredibly tragic to watch Terry's condition deteriorate over the years.
There's a lot to be said for a "keep moving" approach to project work. I'm a worrier with a perfectionist streak, but I do better with multiple projects because I ruminate less on each one: If I cycle through them over the course of a day, I forget what I was worried about and just focus on accomplishing something I had put in the to-do, which levels things out and lets me do more work at less than 100% when it's called for. When I do work at 100% it means I'm destroying myself trying to calculate every possible option. The 100% work only needs to come out some of the time.
I'm surprised they didn't bring up Intrinsity, the semi group hand tweaking Cortex A8s to get better power consumption.
I tried templeOS because it did sound like a fairly cool project or at least some of the ideas behind it. I was never really able to do much with it though and I didn't really have the patience to learn all the obscure nonsense built into it. But I do like the idea of a simple operating system with flat memory that encourages hacking and playing with it in a way that's not really possible with most modern operating systems.

I know his behaviour wasn't looked at the best and he generally offended just about everybody that read the stuff he wrote but, it's kinda funny, when I first discovered templeOS I was right in the middle of trying to help a fairly intensely schizophrenic friend of mine get their life together. A lot of stuff I read about Terry's life and the stuff he did reminded me a lot of the stuff my friend was going through. Terry seemed like he could have had some semblance of a reasonable life if he'd gotten the kind of help he needed but the way he acted seemed to alienate anyone who tried even his family. It's sad. He really did seem like a genius in a lot of ways. It's too bad he was totally fucked and never got the help he needed.
Neither the post nor the Album stated appear in her timeline. Are they private?
I'd hate to be the skeptic here, but there's no way I'm believing a screenshot that appeared on 4chan[0] without verifying first.

[0] http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/67398108#p67398129