It's great that you're willing to die for Tesla's profit, but you realize that autonomous vehicle-induced crashes affect everyone on the road? Even someone who doesn't consent to Tesla's TOS is still sharing the road with potentially dangerous software.
Granted, individual drivers are awful enough that it probably doesn't make that huge a difference in danger. But would you still feel the way if a family member was killed in an accident where their human-controlled car was rear-ended by a Tesla?
I don't think he said he's willing to die. He said he's willing to test it, and presumably he'll continue concentrating and will manually take over if the car does something dangerous.
He came fairly close, honestly. "I'm going to do my best not to die, but I'm excited about this tech" is recognizing, and accepting that death is a possibility as a result of Tesla's self driving process.
There's risk of dying every time I get behind the wheel of any car. There's no benefit to pretending real risk doesn't exist in any given scenario. I'm confident that I can be attentive and cautious enough using this tech to keep the risk similar to what it would be just driving normally.
That's assuming he's always able to intervene before it kills him. The argument is that he may not always be able to or prevent AP from behaving erratically enough that results in killing someone else (while he saves his own life).
Everyone puts their lives in the hands of other machines daily, for instance brakes or automated elevators or medical devices; driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Computer or human won't change that. If we delay computers getting better than humans, we will just have status quo which is 30k or more road deaths yearly in the US.
Elevators and medical devices go through extensive testing and certification processes before they ever go near being put into service. And when they are updated, they again go through extensive testing and certification.
Teslas, on the other hand, apparently change their handling and driving profile overnight at the whim of the software engineers at Tesla, without even telling the drivers, and introducing bugs like the OP that are liable to get someone killed.
They are not the same, and comparing them only highlights the issues that Tesla has around their OTA update practice.
According to the linked Reddit poster “ Tesla's only release notes for this release were DOG MODE and SENTRY MODE. They don't tell you there is a massive change to AP and to reset your expectations.“
You're right. The owner/driver has to approve the update, if I recall. But putting responsibility to review and understand release notes on the car's owner seems kind of absurd. And that's assuming that you have accurate and descriptive release notes, which was most certainly not the case for the described instance. In any case, clicking "update" is such a rote behavior for users on computers, phones, and now their Teslas, I'd argue that it's effectively no different than an update happening without notice or user intervention.
There's only so much you can learn from even the best release notes, period. The ever-so-common "bug fixes," for example, is so broad that it effectively means nothing at all. At best, it's telling the end user "this little update just changes some stuff hidden under the hood. You won't notice anything, so don't give it any thought."
Disclosure seems like a red herring, if there is no real choice other than to accept the update. If I get an update to my car that says "this may cause your car to explode at random times", and I don't want to scrap it, the only thing I can do is look around and see if other people are ignoring the warning, and then rationalize that it won't happen to me.
You can't ever look at consent outside of the context of the best available alternative to agreeing to something.
On the other hand, if enough people die because a company rushed self driving to market before it's ready there's a very real chance of knee jerk regulation setting the technology back even further.
> appeals to emotion in order to drive irrational thinking do not make for constructive debate.
In a perfect world, sure. Real world, you will never have an inherently emotional situation (road safety) where the only voices heard are those of completely detached individuals.
As humans, we have to figure out ways to connect with them, and empathize with what they're feeling. Simply dismissing their concerns as driven by emotion isn't a winning strategy.
Understanding the emotional reactions of people to situations is important. "How would you feel if"-type statements do not do that. They do, and are often intended to, shut down conversation instead of foster it.
The QC35s also only need the battery for wireless use/active noise cancelling, so even if your battery dies on you you can still use them with a wire and a standard 3.5 mm jack. That is, assuming you still have a 3.5mm port to plug that jack into :)
It's also a lot harder to crucify the QC35s on their cost when comparing to airpods, which don't seem to have comparable noise cancelling. If you are going to shell out for a premium product at least make sure you get a premium product.
It's not the battery life per charge, it's the battery lifespan. Similar to iPhones (which are rated for only 500 charge cycles because gotta pad those profit margins... so good luck using one battery for even 2 years), AirPods experience battery degradation to a point where they last < 1 hour and just shut down randomly because they can't provide enough charge to the buds. In just 2-3 years.
So if I go to my local library and check out a copy of the book (that my taxes paid for, presumably) I'm stealing from the author?
I pirate most of my ebooks because they're typically poorly made ports of the physical books. When I truly enjoy reading a book, I order a physical copy and add it to my shelf, so the physical copy becomes a) a conversation piece in my home 2) a decoration 3) available for my next read. But because I do most of my reading on the subway or while travelling, I still lean toward using my Kindle most of the time.
If I recall correctly one was created by a non-Telegram dev as a bit of a fanproject, and eventually adopted by the company as a pseudo-official app. At some point actual Telegram devs decided to create (I think) Telegram for Desktop based on native stuff like Swift. But both applications get bugfixes and updates because it's easy enough to maintain both.
Your discussion of "real time video chat clients" has me cracking up; it seemed that a myriad of pieces of software had this figured out in the 2000s, but today I can't think of a single piece of software that I'd actually want to use for video chat. All of them have some fatal Achilles' Heel: Facetime has security problems/previously did not have group chats/is exclusive to Apple OSes, Skype is laggy and has more connection problems than any piece of software I've ever used, Google Hangouts chokes once you get to 3 or 4 participants and frequently has issues with even 2 participants, Duo is only usable on Android/iOS as far as I know... does anybody have a good client that they can actually recommend?
Myself, I've gone back to using Ventrilo because I realized that I really don't care about having video.
I mean sure, video chat is overrated... but the tech is there, it just turned out it isn't quite as desirable as first imagined!
Firefox Hello worked remarkably well IMHO, it was super simple to use.
The field is full of video chat clients though. Uber-Conf is popular, although I think the % of problem free calls I've had with them is less than 50%.
Zoom has worked well for me, no real issues.
Facebook Messenger, privacy issues aside, works well.
As an aside, I could save $XXXX a year by having a roommate/living in a worse house/having a crappier car/never going out for drinks/etc. The list goes on. There is an incredible number of things your average first world worker could give up to save money per year. The reason people spend money on these things is that they spend 40+ hours a week working so they CAN afford to spend those unnecessary dollars a year on things they enjoy, that enrich their lives. Otherwise we would all have plenty of money in the bank while we live in a 5x5 concrete cell and literally only go to work/sleep. Some things are not about maximizing profit.
Sure. It's worth a consideration though if that specific thing is one that's actually something that enriches your life, or just something you're doing because it's what you've always done. (personally, the best places have been those where a group cooks their own lunch every day, but that's somewhat rare)
I often hear my co-workers complain about their bland green smoothies or salads without enough walnuts. Meanwhile, for lunch I prepare moroccan lamb stew, chicken cordon bleu with pasta, szechuan tofu and green bean stir fry, ham and gruyere with tomato soup, pear and blue cheese salad with rotisserie chicken, loaded sweet potato with curried fried cauliflour, and quiche lorraine, among others.
I'm not saying nobody should eat out, but to do it every day just seems wasteful. And I find cooking to be quite a bit more enriching than takeout.
I spend time cooking for the family and then eat the leftovers for lunch. Just like a lot of swedes do. Make a dinner that works in the microwave for lunch and you are all set. No time wasted on going to the restaurant and waiting for food. More time to talk over the lunchtable in peace. Maybe even switching lunch with a coworker.
See I eat lunch out so I can use those leftovers for dinner the next day. Gives me and my girlfriend more time to spend together or on our hobbies if we only have to cook every other night.
This is what I do. I can cheap food every day for lunch for about $6 and longingly look at, but not purchase, nice food (like salmon) for $10-12. Or I can cook and bring my own nice food for $2-6. It's kind of a no-brainer.
In my experience, there is a good chunk of people who have to eat out every day because they have no time for cooking, because they work 40h/week and have a one hour commute (, to pay for the lunches and the car).
Their share structure prevents them from ending up in ETFs, so one of the largest segments of investors literally won't be able to invest in them. Seems more like VC wanting to cash out and leave employees who can't sell their shares yet holding the bag.
There has been a lot of discussion about this issue in the last years. Dual-class setups (at least for new IPOs) are penalized now by some index providers.
Ahh, thank you. That makes much more sense. So it's not that ETFs are specifically prohibited from purchasing them. Rather, if index providers exclude issuers who have a dual-share structure from their indices then any funds that track to an index wouldn't be purchasing stock in those issuers.
I think it's important to note that many ETFs aren't index-tracking so even though index providers may exclude the issuers with several share classes that doesn't mean the stock will be shunned by all ETFs.
Dual-class share setups are typically prohibited by most ETFs. That's why companies that do want to have more than one share class will trade them under different tickers ($GOOG vs $GOOGL).
Edit: Prohibited was the wrong word, looked down upon was probably better.
Thanks, can you explain a bit further? (Nerdy curiosity here, I've done a lot of legal work with mutual funds & hedge funds but have no experience with ETFs so I'm both clueless and curious.) Prohibited by what? The prospectus? And what exactly is prohibited that assigning a different ticker gets around the prohibition? SNAP has a similar structure but I don't remember hearing the same buzz about that being an issue for ETFs when they went public.
Agreed, and now that I think about it a bit more the ticker symbol is largely meaningless. Institutional investors trade by CUSIP, not Ticker, and a unique CUSIP is assigned to each security (and each share class of a company's stock is a unique security) regardless of whether they share an issuer.
Different classes always trade with different tickers. When they trade, of course: Google has also a non-traded B class. (By the way, I don’t think the first statement is correct.)
Prohibited was the wrong word, you're right. Institutional investors that run ETFs have become averse to dual class stocks ($SNAP, $LYFT) because they don't have the same voting power per share that they do with other share class setups. Indexes like S&P 500 have also stopped including listings that are dual-class -- this is changing though, see the articles I've linked below.
I'm curious to hear more from you on this, because I've always felt like Facebook-imposed censorship would be far worse than open dialogue on the site. People already wall themselves off inside of echo chambers that only reinforce already-held opinions, so is your thought that the worst of these echo chambers can be eliminated via FB filters?
Honestly, the most toxic content I've seen on FB hasn't been gore or racism or sexism or anything else distasteful, it's been blatantly false clickbait/opinion pieces that flare up existing divides.
I've always thought that the best way to make FB a decent place again would be to simply ban sharing of links, so that the feed could become what it was originally meant to be: a place where I can see what my friends are up to. But that would also mean FB would have to dial back its targeted advertisingm, which is all links (seriously, would contextual advertising really be that bad? Bad enough that we can justify the insanity that is FB data collection) and stop scooping up all the data they can get... which doesn't really seem their MO.
Here's the thing. Facebook already editorializes in two ways. First its community standards, and second its algorithm. THEY CHOOSE what to put at the top (first thousand) results of your feed.
They dont need to censor what people post to make BETTER decisions about what floats to the top. They just need to do a better job of prioritizing and placing better content. It is out there and it exists, surface it. They want to APPEAR impartial, as if your newsfeed is just what your friends post, BUT they are still deciding which posts are more important than the others. They are using the wrong signals to float the cream.
The question is less is censorship bad, and more "can/should fb better own that it is NOT impartial, and IS injecting its voice into people's conversations." If facebook wants to be impartial, then step back and act like an infrastructure, and if it wants to have a say in community standards, fucking own it and do a better job of judging what is worthy of the top of a feed.
I felt the same. I wonder if some of these issues stem from the fact that the book was originally written in Chinese (iirc)... maybe some of the infodump sections seem more natural in the original tongue?
Granted, individual drivers are awful enough that it probably doesn't make that huge a difference in danger. But would you still feel the way if a family member was killed in an accident where their human-controlled car was rear-ended by a Tesla?