That's my thinking as well. Taken in some abstract scenario, all those steps seems very reasonable, and in that abstract scenario we can even say it would do better than an average human would. But that is missing the overall context that this was an elementary school during drop-off hours. That's when you crawl at 3 mph expecting kids to jump behind any car, and not going at 17mph.
> But that is missing the overall context that this was an elementary school during drop-off hours. That's when you crawl at 3 mph expecting kids to jump behind any car, and not going at 17mph.
Indeed. Sure the car knows the limit, it knows it is a school zone, it can precisely track people within the reach of its sensors (but not behind blockages it can't see through).
But it is missing the human understanding of the situation. Does it know that tiny humans behave far more erratically then the big ones? Obvious to us humans, but does the car take that into account? Does it consider that in such a situation, it is likely that a kid that its sensors can't possibly detect has a high probability to suddenly dart out from behind an obstacle? Again obvious to us humans because we understand kids, but does the car know?
Urm, ime people frequently drive significantly over the speed limit in all these places, at all times of the day.
Blows my mind how you guys confidently state this with authority as if that's the normal behavior, when the reality is that it probably should be - but isn't actually.
So you're confidently stating it's not the normal behaviour... Can you tell me what the average speed is for human drivers outside elementary schools at drop-off times?
> Urm, ime people frequently drive significantly over the speed limit in all these places, at all times of the day.
The focus on speed limit as some truth is not the best way to think about it.
It might be 15/20/25 (varies, but those are the most common values I've seen).
But in terms of what is safe, it varies far more.
There will be circumstances where driving double that limit is 100% safe in front of the school. (For example, small numbers of high-school kids standing around but far from the street, so even if they did a mad dash to the street (which that age kids will not do), they still couldn't get in a spot to be hit by the car.)
And there will be circumstances where even a one-tenth of that speed will be far too dangerous to consider. (For example, high density of elementary school kids on a narrow sidewalk with many visual obstructions.)
I have a hard time believing that you, or anyone, would drive the same speed in both scenarios without any consideration to the circumstances of the moment.
I know I most certainly would never. If there is obviously zero chance of an accident I'll drive the limit or above. If there are tons of tiny kids in brownian motion, I'll slow down to a crawl or even stop if I sense risk (like a kid disappearing behind a parked car and now I don't know where they'll pop up).
But if you’re plan on building a fleet of cars operating all over the country or the world, do you want to model them after the careful driver, who has awareness about the situation (school, drop off/pickup hours, etc) or say “what the heck, some drivers are not paying attention so neither will my robots, it’s fine”
Well at that point we might as well say it's gremlins that you summoned, so who knows, there are no laws about gremlins hot-wiring cars. If you summoned them, are they _your_ gremlins, or do they have their own agency. How guilty are you, really... At some point it becomes a bit silly to go into what-if scenarios, it helps to look at exact cases.
> Notice that in the Skylake Client microarchitecture the RDTSC instruction counts at the machine’s guaranteed P1 frequency independently of the current processor clock (see the INVARIANT TSC property), and therefore, when running in Intel® Turbo-Boost-enabled mode, the delay will remain constant, but the number of instructions that could have been executed will change.
rdtsc may execute out of order, so sometimes an lfence (previously cpuid) can be used and there is also rdtscp
The issue with that is that a load fence may be very detrimental to perf. It doesn't really matter if rdtsc executes out of order in this code anyway, and there is no need for sync between cores.
You could first measure the perf impact of the fence instruction and then subtract that out? But yeah I guess it may not matter much for quick and dirty calibration loop.
I like that one as well. I just rewatched it again. One of the trappers in the movie is Mikhail Tarkovsky and I just learned he is actually the nephew nephew Andrei Tarkovsky, the film director.
> Start-ups and venture-capital investment could begin to flow to lower-tax states; the next hub of technological innovation may end up being seeded in Austin or Miami instead of Silicon Valley.
There is another agent (group of agents) in this game and that's other states. Those states are often modeled as passive background places one can move to, but they are often not. They can, and do, react to tax laws in other states. For example, TX could encourage capital flight by offering tax breaks.
I've seen this happen with some companies in Midwest: as the states had to raise taxes some Southern states decide to poach individual companies and offered them to move their HQs there with a bunch of tax rebates and credits and such.
> The tax’s designers, however, think they’ve come up with a clever solution to capital flight: a one-off tax that is retroactive, based on a billionaire’s residency status on January 1, 2026.
That is pretty clever. They could also have an "exit tax" -- "leave but if you've been here for 10 years making your billions, we'll keep some of those billions" kind of a deal.
> people appeal to the internet, terrified they’re hindering their careers by striking the wrong balance; they seek advice from job coaches ...
They do? It seems strange to me people are terrified about this and they need coaching about how many periods or commas to put around their "lol"s and "heh"s. If this is what terrifies and scares us, we are paradoxically both doomed, and at the same time doing pretty well, given what the top item on the agenda look like.
> did you feel really smart putting that totally made up "because people often leaves guns in their cars" in there?
I can’t tell if you think people obviously do leave guns in their car, and GP should know better than add the phrase in, or, that nobody does, and GP should know better.
I can tell you have seen people do both in different parts of the country.
Wonder what large scale provider outside USA won’t do that?
reply