greendestiny

Nonsense, the reluctance of governments to reduce carbon emissions has been driven by the reluctance for entrenched industries to give up their gravy train. There are many ways for power to be produced with lower carbon emissions, it's absolutely not a binary situation at all.

What nuclear is is a wedge issue that can successfully split the opposition to the fossil fuel industry. People should be incredibly wary of the argument being forced into these positions, its artificial and contrary to the desires of people who want action on climate change who support nuclear and don't.

I understand the article - the point about 'learning' is that if the model and its outputs are a derivative works then the copyright belongs to the human creators of the works it was trained on.

Edit*: Or perhaps put more pseudo legally that the created works infringe on the copyrights of the original human creators.

I think that it's absurd that we've jumped to the conclusion backpropagation in neural networks should be legally treated the same as human learning.

I mean I don't think think I could find a better description for following the derivatives of error in reproducing a set of works as creating a "derivative work".

Sure as a word it can be broad, as a concept in our legal system that should be much more nuanced.

The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?

You can get chatGPT to generate plantUML

Disclosing vulnerabilities.

I think the theory is suggesting that the photon was emitted with less energy.

You and me both. :(

Actually despite your skepticism Tesla's PR spin has already beaten you.

"but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average"

That's not what they said, they said the death rate was lower than the average. And yet you can't help hearing that it lowered the death rate. I think it's very likely turning on autopilot massively increases the rate of death for Tesla drivers, but they've managed to deflect from that so skilfully.

Hah!

I don't think it's going to emerge without significant effort to make it happen. I think most of the 'intelligence' we desire will be attainable without sentience. Sentience itself will require a lot of specific research directed at the goal. It's certainly a risk though.

Right there with you on this, love react's rendering model. Redux seems to get all the hype but I'm sort of beginning to suspect it might be mostly the wrong way to do things. It reminds me of TDD, most of the benefits seem to be moral in character rather than concrete.

Yeah but in defence of the guy you're replying to, once you render them they are 2d images.

You can try it yourself with commercial software: http://www.123dapp.com/catch

Scale can be hard to capture in photogrammetry, but in general the unrealness probably has more to do with the somewhat smoothed out (triangulated) surface that doesn't capture too fine a level of detail and the textureless (uncoloured) model they are rendering.

Serious eats food lab recipes are fun and effective. Additionally very highly rated food network or taste recipes are usually good and simple.

Oh sure it's a particularly human conceit that that number be exactly 1. But it certainly might be that the number is low enough that it will be very very hard for us to ever detect or interact with other life.

Wait what?

"Why not? URIs are at least able to be tokenized perfectly well by a regular expression."

"5. Bonus critique, anything using regular expressions to URL-encode or decode is very suspicious; strongly prefer built-in functions that do this."

"boring but safe."

But seriously, the most important part of that sentence 'safe' is absolutely unproven.

"but in comparison it will never fail as often as human do"

Ok I know this is my little cause of the moment, but seriously why are computers apriori better at anything? Sure they don't make poor life choices but they are absolutely at the mercy of the quality of the algorithms, sensors, operating system, training data and physical computational hardware.

Here's a probably equally badly made statistic. Tesla estimates their cars had driven 130 million autopilot miles before the fatality. Some googling suggests the first non-autopilot Tesla S fatality was in july 2014 and this graph ( http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tesla-Model-... ) suggests that was around 400 million miles driven. So the autopilot is 3.33 times 'worse'?

Who knows, but if Tesla feels they have a moral duty to leave on autopilot if it is safer, they equally have one if it is more dangerous. It seems they are pretty happy to be in dark about which it is while they test their system.

"I should add a note here to explain why Tesla is deploying partial autonomy now, rather than waiting until some point in the future. The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability."

That's a hell of a statement and I want to see much better stats than that. Just looking at the total distance per death in human driven cars and comparing it to the autopilot total distance is a gross simplification. At an absolute minimum you have to start by only comparing driving on similar roads. Tesla simply keeps hiding behind 'if used correctly' which includes the driver being alert and ready to take over - if we restrict human driving stats to similarly ideal conditions the accident rate will also drop. Additionally driver demographics is a big deal as is the safety features of the car itself.

I consider myself part of nerd culture, it's not an insult. The whole point of Ethereum is to build something black and white, but it isn't there yet. Either way this is a failure - the failure of the DAO to operate how the makers of contract specified is significant.

Yes letting the transaction stand is boost to the confidence in the protocol at the expense of the DAO funds but it shouldn't give anyone the impression that future transactions are immune from reversal.

Yeah but in reality letting half the DAO be siphoned off is vastly worse for the promise of smart contract cyptocurrency. So the 'messy' solution is the better one for what you want, but that'll never stop nerd culture seeing things as black and white.

There are crop dusters that fly close to the ground and obstacles - do you want to get in a manual one or can I code up a computer controlled one and put you in it?

What you really mean is you want to see safety data and a track record.

As for the actual planes and auto-pilots, the real point is the kinds of engagements and disengagements that work in the air don't necessarily work on the ground and being so close to potential collisions is part of that.

Do you? Can I wire an old iphone into the control system of your car and fire up opencv and a bit of depth estimation and lane following send you off?

Once again Tesla have made the discussion about the driver. They have put an auto-control system out in the wild that steers the car into hard obstacles at high speed. Beeps to warn the driver at some stage in the preceding interval do not make this control systems failure any more acceptable. It still misjudged situation as acceptable to continue and it still drove into obstacles. Those are significant failures and a blanket statement of responsibility going to the driver isn't going to cut it.

If planes had to fly within centimetres of hard barriers there would be no autopilot.

He'd have to have a live link to satoshi is all. I don't buy that he had the actual key and then either forgot or refused to use it for the sake of the 'trust'

If CSW had no ability to sign real messages then he simply would have left his proof at duping individuals and having them vouch for him. It would have certainly worked well enough to drum up some investors and run off with their money.

So if he had some access to the keys does that make him Satoshi or part of a Satoshi team? Personally I think the real Satoshi was happy to use him and sign some messages for him but baulked at signing public proof. It's pretty similar in outcome to having a trust that cooperated with him and then didn't but much simpler.

You just have to spend a lot longer in phase 1 (or pre phase 1) where you're trying to make something people want. Once you've built that tech you still want to sell it and to have growth right?