It is creating an electric field for every observer not in a reference frame at rest with respect to the electron.
403 karma · joined May 5, 2009
"Preflexes are the latent capacities in the musculoskeletal system that auto-stabilize movements through the use of the nonlinear visco-elastic properties of muscles when they contract.[1][2] The term "preflex" for such a zero-delay, intrinsic feedback loop was coined by Loeb. [3] Unlike stabilization methods using neurons such as reflexes and higher brain control, it happens with minimal time delay. Its chief disadvantage is that it works only to stabilize the main movements of the musculoskeletal system."
Abstract: Fact-checking, the task of assessing the veracity of claims, is an important, timely, and challenging problem. While many automated fact-checking systems have been recently proposed, the human side of the partnership has been largely neglected: how might people understand, interact with, and establish trust with an AI fact-checking system? Does such a system actually help people better assess the factuality of claims? In this paper, we present the design and evaluation of a mixed-initiative approach to fact-checking, blending human knowledge and experience with the efficiency and scalability of automated information retrieval and ML. In a user study in which participants used our system to aid their own assessment of claims, our results suggest that individuals tend to trust the system: participant accuracy assessing claims improved when exposed to correct model predictions. However, this trust perhaps goes too far: when the model was wrong, exposure to its predictions often degraded human accuracy. Participants given the option to interact with these incorrect predictions were often able improve their own performance. This suggests that transparent models are key to facilitating effective human interaction with fallible AI models.
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GDA3jSzRgs
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3242587.3242666
PDF: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~atn/nguyen-uist18.pdf
code: https://github.com/thanhan/uist18
author: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~atn/
https://github.com/dandelany/animate-earth
This repository is an experiment in applying optical-flow-based motion interpolation to processed RGB satellite imagery from Himawari-8’s AHI imager, with the aim of regularly producing high-quality smoothed videos from these images, and sharing them with the world. The final products can be found on this Youtube channel[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6Mlo4zfmEITcNoCpBKfEfg/pla...], updated nearly daily.
they offer a tool called Slider that lets users create overlays of various satellite image streams. You can access imagery from GOES-East, GOES-West, Humawari-8, and JPSS.
Here is a loop of Goes-17 ("goes west") Full Disk Geocolor images captured every 15 minutes for a full 24 hours, starting 9:00 PM PST 2018-10-16 to 10:00 PM PST 2018-10-17: https://col.st/sNSct
Note that GOES East geocolor images seem to render a synthetic city lights texture + live cloud coverage for night-time images. Goes West is just dark.
NOAA publishes high resolution Goes-16 ("goes east") images every 15 minutes, and seems to lag about 30-60 minutes behind the actual time of capture by the satellite. Here's the latest: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/index.php
I think the best source would be GOES-R / GOES-17 full disc geocolor images. I'll post back with a list of potential servers.
anyone have any idea of how frequently horse-drawn carriages crashed in dense urban inner city environments 120 years ago normalized against the incidence of crashes for contemporary cars on the same streets at the same speeds?
Maybe this could form the basis for a kind Turing test for level 1-4 autonomous Vehicles.
Sadly, no one seems to have figured out a way to economically motivate human drivers to do this.
> "On an average weekday, more than 5,700 TNC vehicles operate on San Francisco streets during the peak period"[sfcta.org/tncstoday]
So if TNCs provide ~30 trips a day, and all 1,165,000 MUNI+BART passengers switched to TNCs, there would have to be an additional ~40k TNC vehicles in the city :).
Maybe it would work if they were really, really small.
Huh. This is interesting. The "Learn More About TNCs" button on the page you linked to leads to some more facts, including:
> "On a typical weekday, TNCs make more than 170,000 vehicle trips within San Francisco, approximately 12 times the number of taxi trips, representing 15% of all intra-San Francisco vehicle trips." - https://www.sfcta.org/tncstoday
So: 1,333,333 intra-San Francisco vehicle trips each day, including Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), and from your other links, 1,165,000 MUNI+BART trips per day, for a total of 2,498,333 rides per day
The population of the city during business hours is ~1,100,000... Oh of course, most people make round trips so it makes sense for the total number of rides to be >2x the city population.
--- So... this got really long. It was just supposed be a quick back-of-the-napkin sanity check estimate of the economics of some rural autonomous vehicle service scenarious and it got a little out of hand. If anyone else also finds this interesting, drop me a line or comment! ---
Lets also consider the merits of these two transportation scenarios when depoloyed to serve regional/rural populations too. I don't think any of these benefits are significant for the other much less dense half of the US population (but by 2033 or something this fraction will fall to like 1/3 I've heard).
I grew up in Northern Michigan, where 99% of all daily trips were between 5-40 miles and required a personal car because there was no availability of taxis (too expensive per ride) or buses (because population density was too low to marshal enough passengers per bus route). In cities, where density is high and distances are low, buses/trains that batch passengers into one vehicle that's part of an interchange network works pretty well. But in rural areas where the opposite is true, passengers can't be batched together as easily, so buses don't work and an interchange takes too long to transit because of the distances.
A personal car is a necessity for most people living in rural areas because there is no other practical way to get to a job, store, movie, friends house, hospital etc when these locations may be 10-40 miles away. The time spent traveling to these places may be about the same as the commute time for a city-dweller, but rural residents have to do the driving themselves. Aha, so the critical question is: what, if any, features of personal transportation via on-demand self-driving-cars-as-a-service in rural areas might make it competitive with or more desirable than owning a personal car?
If costs per year are roughly equal, then I would love a self-driving car that I could work in. Or self-driving land-yacht office RV for 4-8 people.
Say a personal car costs $3000-6000/year in gas, maintenence, payments, etc. If a person travels 200 days a year and takes 2 trips a day, that's 400 trips a year. This is hard to estimate. To be conservative lets say self-driving-cars-as-a-service would be competitive if it allowed a customer to take 400-800 trips a year for the price of owning a car. That works out to $3.75-$7.5 per trip for the ex-owner of a cheap car, and $7.5-$15 per trip for the ex-owner of a mid-range car. I guess if these are electric self-driving cars, the fuel cost might be $0.50-$2 per day. Hmmmm. If the vehicle cost ~$50,000 and the profit per ride was $4, then it would take ~12,500 rides to break even. If a vehicle can get 10 average fares per day, 350 days a year, thats 700 fares per year.
So actually, the economics are not toally insane. At $4 profit per ride, it would take ~2 years to break even on a $50,000 vehicle assuming 10 rides a day that that take 1 hour, have a rider only one of those two ways, and only have 1 rider at a time. These vehicles might be operating at 20 hours a day though. Not sure they would last 2 years. So... what startups are working on self-driving Land Yacht Office co-working-commuting vehicles?
Now I see a significant portion of the fleet should be something that could pick up at least a few passengers along a route, otherwise there would need to be basically as many vehicles in the fleet as there are riders to support solo rides during commuting hours. $200,000 land yacht, 5 riders, $5/ride: 8000 trips to break even, 10 rides a day = ~2 years. But for a region of 40,000 riders, that might require 5000-8000 land yachts that cost $200,000; so $1-1.6 billion in vehicle costs. Aw man. What's ubers valuation? 70bn? And goog is 820bn? hmm.
Ah so here's the problem. Because of the distances involved in rural trips, it might take 15-60 minutes after requesting a ride for an automated fleet vehicle to travel to the pickup location. That might be ok for occasional travel, especially if trip times are 3+ hours, but it wouldn't be convenient for daily travel. So rural passengers would probably prefer owning their own car, or sharing an automated land-yacht with a couple local other folks, because they need it to be physically nearby most of the time to minimize the time-to-pickup.
In conclusion, InitialLastName's comment leads me to imagine a future in which the dense core of urban areas is served by high-capacity public transit, a significant portion of the central surface streets are closed and used for other purposes, with small-vehicle parking and pick-up/drop-off hubs are sprinkled throughout and around the city that link transport throughtout the wider region and state via privately owned vehicles (for daily commuters) and automated on-demand vehicle fleets (rolling offices) for the ocassional traveler.
Personally, I find it hard to do productive work on public transit, largely because transfers interrupt continuous work and the passenger compartments prioritize density over work surfaces. I think I would be ok paying 2x the fare of public transit for a trip that took 1.5x as long if the vehicle was outfitted with normal office furniture (desks) ~6 passengers. A relatively low-density vehicle for its size, scheduled a couple of hours in advance, providing a hub-to-door trip with no transfers. Ha. Yeah. Self-driving-land-yacht-office-as-a-service company?*
* we could validate it right now... SF <-> Palo Alto, 6 round trips per day per vehicle, 6 passengers per trip, $19 fare, $200,000 vehicle cost, $19/hr for driver, and lets ignore fuel costs. So say revenue of $600/day, that leads the vehicle break-even within a year. hmmmmmmmmmmm.
If public transit i.e. Muni serves 10x or 100x riders each day vs ride sharing than I see your point... I think.
Wait. Maybe you could spell it out?
This is why US passenger train service is so poor compared to Europe.
> The picture for freight is different. According to Panorama 2009 , 46 percent of EU-27 freight goes by highway while only 10 percent goes by rail, while in the U.S. 43 percent goes by rail and only 30 percent by road. (In both cases, nearly all of the rest is waterways and pipelines.)
> So, it isn’t so much that Europe decided to move people by train rather than by automobile. It is more that Europe decided to use its railroads to move people while the United States decided to use them for freight. America moves almost six times as many ton-miles (or tonne-kilometers) of freight by rail as Europe, while both move about the same number of tonne-kilometers by road. While Europe moves about twice as many tkm of freight by waterway as the U.S., we move six times as much oil by pipeline. [6]
- area of Continental US: 3.12 million sq mi [1]
- area of Europe: 2.306 million sq mi [1]
- rail network length, US: 141,808 mi [2]
- rail network length, Europe: 157,667 mi [3]
- goods carried, US: 1.558 trillion lg tn mi/yr (long ton-miles per year) (world rank: 1st) (2015 estimate) [4]
- goods carried, "Europe": 0.32604 trillion lg tn mi/yr (long ton-miles per year)
So for the two of us, a Muni trip is
- total cost: $5
- usually takes 30-60 min to get wherever we want to go in the city.
- we need to to figure out the optimal route, schedule, and entry & exit stops.
- we need to make sure we will arrive at the stop on-time.
- we need to walk 5-10 min to closest stop on either end
However... a low-cost Uber or Lyfts pool ride for two is
- total cost: $5-12 (same serice area as Muni)
- duration: 15-45 min
- we don't have to plan the route or schedule
- we don't have to worry about going to a remote pick-up stop on-time
- we get dropped off directly at our destination
Of course, here in SF ride share vehicles are definitely not allowed to use the special public-transportation-only lanes of some of the major roads, which remain reserved for the exclusive use of Muni buses and taxis to improve their transit times.
(edited to fix indentation)
because a world in which a greater proportion of people travel via multi-passenger vehicles like the buses and trains of public transport networks is a better world because these transportation solutions are 1) more efficient per passenger (does this help w/ reducing carbon emissions?); 2) economically more accessible because passengers pay per trip instead of purchasing vehicle outright; 3) potentially less expensive to operate due to economies of scale (purchasing & maintaining a large fleet of vehicle vs a single vehicle) and higher equipment utilizationl; 4) perahaps encourage more social connection amongst passengers; 5) passengers do not have to focus on driving and can "recover" the time that would have been spent driving a car doing something else.
I ask because I think the endgame for self-driving car companies is not so much to sell cars (self-driving in this case) to individual consumers, but rather to to win the zero-sum-game of becoming the largest on-demand "elastic" self-driving vehicle transportation platform; i.e. 80% of the cars Ford makes in 2030 it reserves for its automated fleet, which it dispatches on a per-ride bases to subscribers/customers for a single trip, a day, a month, etc. The ultimate technological opportunity here is effectively "packet switching" for physical transport via the highway network.
While it's possible (and desirable, in my opinion) the fleet of vehicles enabling this automated transport network could be a composition of myriad different vehicles, from many different vendors, contributed dynamically by everyone from families (or groups of families) that own a single vehicle and rent it out when its not in use to the fleets of large companies like ups, hertz, ford, etc... it seems more realistic that a few giant companies (Waymo, Uber) will be the ones that can scale up a working network fastest and cheapest by building, owning, and operating huge fleets of vehicles made up of just a few vehicle variants.
Anyway, imagine 60% of the cars on the roads today were capable of participating in an automated-vehicle-on-demand transportation network. This scenario seems like it has the same benefits I attributed to public transportation. What do you think - is it an equally desirable solution, or are there other particular benefits to a world with significantly more (conventional) public transportation / less cars that I failed to articulate?
(edited to remove unique shortlink url)
Since this product is commonly available at hardware stores across the United States, why should comments related to it "be deleted because it is so dangerous"?
I agree that HF can be extremely dangerous, but in this case it's not clear that Sam is working with or advocating use of dangerous concentrations or chemcial forumulations of fluorine-based acids. Maybe I missed a post where he does discuss using more dangerous concentrations or compounds?
MyHeritage.com[1]:
> "The MyHeritage DNA test enables you to get unique matches to users who have only tested with MyHeritage, as well as matches with users who uploaded their results to MyHeritage from other providers. Thanks to MyHeritage’s wide international reach and availability in more than 40 languages, you will have a greater chance of being matched with relatives who live in other countries. You will also receive a comprehensive ethnicity analysis on MyHeritage, drawing from the largest pool of possible ethnicities in the industry."
---
FamilyTreeDNA[2]:
> "If you or a family member have previously tested your autosomal DNA at 23andMe© or AncestryDNA™, you can transfer your results to Family Tree DNA by uploading your raw data file. After transferring your file, your autosomal data is uploaded to our database, one of the world’s largest genetic genealogy databases.
"When you transfer, for free, you will receive a list of your autosomal matches from our database and have access to our Family Finder – Matrix. The Matrix feature allows you to select and compare the autosomal DNA relationship between up to ten of your matches at one time."
Please note that you can only transfer the following file versions:
- 23andMe© V3
- 23andMe© V4
- AncestryDNA™ V1
- AncestryDNA™ V2
[2] https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/imports/transfer-autosom... (https://web.archive.org/web/20170318130533/https://www.famil...)
#5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable.
To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company.
Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?