byyyy

All good points, except he deliberately crashed it at a specific location. He carried out an action with intention and that intention was fulfilled. You're going into hypotheticals about a possible mistake.

I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.

I live in that state, and the actual numbers compared with the actual people living in that state unfortunately trivializes the events. More people die in car accidents so it's not like it's a huge tragedy that's on everyone's' minds. It may be if you are affected or close to people who are, but in general it's not top of mind.

It won't go there for the judge, it's too hypothetical. Likely gross negligence at worst without specifying details of a fire. The fire is just a hypothetical for discussion here.

The actual data says that post crash fires are rare.

Ok, but you get my point. It's rare. Most people haven't seen this ever.

Yeah. Not worse to the point of jail time.

Makes sense thanks for clarifying.

Only a ratio of 0.04 of accidents resulted in a post-impact fire.

Again to reiterate my point. It's rare.

Words, qualitative descriptions and numbers with no context can exaggerate reality. That is the meat of your sources.

If you take a look at the numbers, only a ratio of 0.04 accidents result in a post-impact fire. It's rare.

As you suggested, I noted the word "often," in return please note 0.04.

But what this have to do with a plane deliberately into an area known to be Devoid of people?

Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.

Good sources. But a crashed small plane is unlikely to start a fire anymore than a car accident will go up in flames (basically never happens).

Starting a fire or crashing a small plane/car are completely orthogonal situations.

Your sources point to weather/climate as the causal source of wild fires.

I'm hung up on it because it's true.

When's the last time you seen a car light up on fire during an accident? Never because the chances of it happening are basically negligible.

How come when I upgrade my graphics card on a PC I don't need to upgrade the binary?

When compiling for Nvidia chips there's only one target. I believe all Nvidia chips despite different architectures use the same underlying assembly language. So a cuda binary should work everywhere.

It's not gpu architecture here. Nvidia makes sure that the API to that architecture remains constant. The differences that are happening are high level architectures. Consoles aren't like PCs that follow the same overall architecture. They are usually massively different each generation, with different central chips different board layouts, etc. Etc. Sony use to get really creative with this... I remember the cell architecture was extremely innovative at the time.

However I believe for the most recent generations of playstation and for all Xboxes those consoles have closely followed the PC architecture. Nintendo consoles have yet to do this though, each console is massively different from the PC and each other with the exception of GameCube and Wii u which were largely similar.

I've tried this and I have a monster machine. The experience is overall better on the switch. Not everything has been emulated correctly and the frame rate is still higher on the switch overall.

Should someone who runs a car into an empty wall be charged with jail time? No.

It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre part here is your stringing of logic to try to transform this into a crime related to murder.

First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that.

Second small planes or cars don't explode in a ball of flames when they crash. That's just movie magic. What actually happens is the car or plane becomes metal debris. That's it. A fire and a crashed car or small plane are completely orthogonal concepts. Might as well arrest people who make bouncing balls because the bouncing ball might accidentally smack the trigger of a gun and kill someone.

What's bizarre here is your post says I'm trying to completely eliminate rule of law when I never said that. Why lie straight to my face? What's the point? It's bizarre. You're the one twisting the rationale to fit your convenient narrative. Please be more logical with your reasoning.

The punishment should fit the crime. A huge fine and revoke the pilots license. That's it. Ruining his life with jail time does not fit the crime at all. If he's rich, then increase the fine... that simple.

No this is Hollywood making you think that. Car crashes and small plane crashes result in metal debris, not exploding balls of fire like Hollywood likes to depict.

In general the concept of starting a fire and a crashing small plane are orthogonal concepts. What happened with that plane is not arson at all.

This idea that crashed cars or small planes explode in a ball of fire is from Hollywood. When a car or small plane crashes it just crumbles into hunks of metal debris. It has no relationship to the concept of fire starting.

Every action done here is completely orthogonal to fire risk and completely independent of the fire risk of the region.

Under your logic Making an illegal campfire is much much more of a crime here. And this logic makes more sense to me.

We understand. He's just talking about how justice should work from a hypothetical perspective.

Hypothetically we all want a justice system to be based on justice but everyone is well aware that the system is at its heart capitalistic.

It's ok to discuss hypotheticals.

It's not surprising to everyone here.

It's just brought up as a topic of discussion. Everyone is pretty much aware of what you said.

What isn't fully spelled out is that there are social relationships involved as well. Responsible parties are buddy buddy with regulators while this YouTuber probably pissed off a regulator with his dumb antics so the regulator is unreasonably likely going all out in a fit of annoyance.

Nah. A fire is unlikely here.

There is logic. When you do an investigation the threads will point to individuals and people with names.

Those people should be punished for murder.

Instead the concept of a corporation ends up abstracting the details away and blurring responsibility.

If our justice system was truly just it would seek out and charge named individuals for crimes.

This has the effect of being in actuality more just but it also prevents the entire corporation from pulling off crimes like this as no one can hide behind the protection of the corporation.

It's not that there is "no logic." But that there is fundamental illogic in the way it all works.

He's asking about victims that were slaughtered.

Your "time wasted" is not significant at all. Perhaps I should be sent to jail for wasting your time with this reply.

No thats just Hollywood. In general a crashed car or small plane crumbles on impact. It doesn't explode in a ball of fire. A forest fire is very unlikely here.

When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander.

But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid.

Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.

Destroying evidence for what? A crashed plane that did nothing to no one? Don't be naive, this is a crime punishable by revocation a pilots license and a huge fine. That's it.

Boeing deliberately withheld information on what was causing people to get killed. Actual man slaughter.

A wild fire has a slim chance of happening and so does a death of a bystander when you crash a plane into unpopulated forest. The danger is so minimal here that what he did is clearly will not lead to accidental injury or deaths of others. It's Just stupid, like a person who road rages and rams into a parked car, unoccupied car.

The consequences here should be a fine and loss of pilots license. Jail time isn't even a discussion here.

The maximum permitted should be zero years. Any jail time for this dumb stunt is overboard. There just needs to be a huge ass fine and revocation of pilots license.

I point my car at a wall and drive into it on purpose for views... And suddenly that's a possibility of jail time? That's crazy.

There needs to be a minimum number of permitted years when death is involved with clear negligence. Sadly there isn't any our court systems use max permitted years to pick and choose who they can punish. Dumb kid who crashes his plane on purpose versus safety inspector who Actually killed hundreds of people?

There is a clear disconnect here.

There are names that can be found. While not everyone can be fairly thrown under the bus certain names can be found and those people can be blamed. Who approved the design? Who signed off on the inspection? There is a signature that points to at least one guilty party.

Doing this sets a precedent and an example that prevents people from frivolously permitting things that are unsafe if there is a risk you'll be thrown in jail.

>I propose a simple lens to settle this debate: look around you and count how many products or services you use regularly that you wish are better digitized or “software-ized.” Unless and until that number is 0, there will be more developers, not less.

What? How does this logic work out?

Is this not considering how AIs can software-ize products and services in place of a software developer?

How about talking about how AI can empower a single developer to do the job of 10 people?

These logical implications obviously point to "less developers".

I mean it seems really really obvious to me. Whether you agree with the potential of AI or not you need your "lens" to include this angle.

The problem I'm seeing is a lot of "simplification" to the point of blindness. Certain Software engineers don't want to face a world where a machine completely trivializes the skills they spent to much time cultivating so they self induce blindness. They lie to themselves the same way tobacco execs and big oil execs had to lie to themselves before lying to the world.

The main problem is this: While we made significant progress with LLMs in producing an intelligent AI, We don't know if the current problems with LLMs (hallucinations, occasional logic errors, etc..) are technological dead ends... That's it.

That's the main crux everyone is debating about. Even the big experts in AI like Hinton are divided on this fact so there is actual controversy here.

There is a paradox.

First off IQ only has a slight correlation with individual success past a certain point (someone with below 60 IQ is obviously going to have a hard time succeeding). The data shows that for high IQ and average IQ there is only a slight correlation with success.

Second what you said is patently false. We do not know if there is a causal relationship because a casual experiment is nearly impossible to conduct. This is very different from saying there is "no causal relationship." A correlation points to a possibility of causative relationships. Literally. You make a statement as if it was true, tell me the exact causal experiment you used to determine your statement about "no causal relationship".

Third. The correlation between economic success and IQ is much much stronger then the correlation between individual success and IQ.

Again there is a paradox. You are wrong.

Found the article:

https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-professor-rants-daughter-lowe...

Average size is still smaller according to data. Google the stats according to age range. The results still point to the generality that Asians are smaller.

One metric for intelligence is IQ. If you don't think IQ is a good measure of intelligence then let's not talk about things with vague definitions. Replace every usage of the word "intelligence" in my post with "IQ". Now we can talk on more exact terms.