hellllllllooo

It might effectivly reduce demand.

No one is objecting to 20-100 year thinking and even then planning is hard if you look back 100 years and see what has changed. I would be very happy if these people were putting their time and money into solving problems on this scale like the Gates foundation etc. This is just a sci-fi hobby.

Am I the only one who finds The Long Now obnoxious? Mostly rich people who spend their money and time thinking about 10000 years from now as some kind of grandiose, pretentious, self-important hobby.

Spending millions burying a clock isn't helping anyone: http://longnow.org/clock/

> this is just a distraction from the real shit

Facebook is not all of the problem but it's definitely part of it. Facebook has clear privacy issues an implications and everyone uses it and knows about it. If highlighting its issues is a viable path to better privacy legislation and is the example that allows the bigger problems to be demonstrated to everyone, even non technical people, why not use it?

The issue with doing things at huge scale are all the edge cases. If Facebook wants to have all the benefits and money it gets from owning its huge network it also has the responsibility of having to treat different content with nuance. These kinds of issues are one reason why Facebook wants to move towards a more private network with more private interactions so it can avoid having to deal with the endless complexity of human interaction in public.

Does anyone who writes code for a living here actually spend 90% of their time reading code?

> suppression of opposing viewpoints

How are they supresssing oposing viewpoints when alternative news sources are consistantly producing stories with a wide range of points of view? What is it exactly that they are supresssing? Through the internet I can easily access all sorts of takes on any topic.

They are a tool to be used where suitable and not the answer to everything. They are significantly better for detection and classification than what came before but improvement has plateaued. When they fail, how and why is not characterizable. They're good for some things but you have to be careful about how you build the whole system and not just throw a CNN at it unless you really don't mind undefined behavior.

Maybe. I think if someone visits just to troll having to donate to a publication they dislike might be a reasonable deterrent and it improves user tracking for moderation. It could serve to focus the conversation to people who at least respect the publication as a whole even if they disagree with a particular article. Seeing comments by people who clearly just dislike the Guardian don't really add much. Comments like "Typical left wing Guardian nonsense" are pretty common and useless.

I would be happy if comments on contentious articles were only open to donating members so they have some skin in the game and are contributing to the cost of moderation. Problem is they become full of drive-by trolls if left fully open.

Encryption, medicine, transportation, food production etc.

You're agreeing with my point.

If you're equating modern economic policy with hard science you're making a pretty big stretch.

Show me a news paper without a political bent? Centerism or balance for the sake of balance is also a political bent. The Guardian does a better job than most in reporting hard facts and news about the world.

I wonder if you apply your standard for quality to everything you read in an unbiased way?

Not really. Neural nets are good at detection and classification problems for objects in the environment but they are not a panacea. Assuming a neural net is good enough to detect everything a car will see (for pedestrians this isn't the case) path planning while predicting behavior of other actors is still a very difficult unsolved problem.

Simple case that Waymo etc still struggle with is making a left turn through an intersection or an unprotected left. Even something as common and predictable as crossing oncoming traffic that humans do every day is still causes disengaments for these cars. Cruise has a team just focused on issues at intersections. Throw in some pedestrians and this is very hard. Humans can intuit a lot from a pedestrians behavior that these cars just cannot handle. Is someone standing by the corner or about to walk into the street? People do a lot of weird unpredictable things in downtown areas. Tesla has done ok with the easiest part of driving, freeways, with the support of an attentive human but three are still many reported problems. Moving on to complex environments with multiple moving actors at such high reliability that it is a hands free production-grade system in 1-2 years is not likley, but good luck to them.

There's a lot more problems involved than just data collection. The algorithms do not exist to safely and reliably solve these problems even with all the data in the world. Simply put Tesla is declaring it can do something with a restricted set of sensors and compute that the current state of the art in research doesn't support. Even Waymo who have no real production restrictions and can spend >$100k in equipment per car and have a lot more compute is not claiming anything like this will be feasible in the next year. He is claiming cheaper, faster and better than anyone else.

The problems just get harder and harder as you move from a nice controlled environment like a freeway and even there Tesla has shown there are many issues with the system where a driver needs to pay full attention for it to be safe.

From first hand experience with these problems and their complexity I fully expect a slightly better version of autopilot to be delivered and Musk to declare success despite it not being anywhere close to an autonomous fleet of Tesla robo-taxis and justify the difference with the caveats he quietly snuck in that he knew wouldn't make headlines.

That might be enough for his customers and investors so from a business sense it might pay off.

> The guy in that story had had autopilot malfunction several times on the same intersection

My point stands

Regulations are not the problem here. He is clearly trying to imply something about his technology that, given the reality of self driving cars, can not happen next year even if everything else went positivity for him. The fact that he is using caveats around regulation etc. doesn't get him off the hook. He knows people will report the story as some amazing breakthrough that will help pump stock and sell cars. It's dishonest.

I like what he has done for electric cars and without him we wouldn't have the shift towards them that is happening today. He made them cool and they are an important step forward which I respect.

What he has been saying about autonomy defies what anyone who works in the area knows about the state of the technology and is genuinely dangerous. People have died because he oversold autopilot.

https://gizmodo.com/tesla-autopilot-malfunction-caused-crash...

I wish he would just focus on building and selling great electric cars instead of pushing truth in areas where people's live are at stake.

As someone who agrees with your point about not taking your career so seriously I agree with point 1 on the post.

> Don’t focus too much on long-term plans.

As someone who has just worked hard on the thing in front of me without long term planning it has paid off pretty well. That along with being pleasant seems to go a long way. I didn't need a list or a philosophy to figure that out I just happened.

12 was where I felt alienated.

> Avoid spending time to earn or save money.

When the author starts talking about their time being so valuable that they throw money at things and don't cook etc. to me they sound like a rich out of touch robot and not a normal relatable person.

> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

This starts with a false premise that is so broad its hard to take seriously. Well run government can do a lot for innocent people.

Like crypto mining through a third party? Does Brave even care as long as the person paying them thinks it's real?

They've literally selected for a userbase of people who dislike advertising enough to go out of their way to find and use a largely unknown browser.

I doubt that the people who downloaded it to avoid advertising will sign up for this without paying them a lot.

Difficult to resolve this kind of thing either way. If you like it you like it. Could reasonably ask why Tesla has old fashioned headlight design? Purely subjective.

Given the huge amount of truth stretching in the autonomy anouncment yesterday anyone here with relevant battery experience want to weigh in on this?

Yesterday completely burned through some of the goodwill and trust I had for Tesla to the point that I am sceptical of anything they announce now. Is this real?

Yeah it's nonsense. It's an after the fact reframing of a decision that was made for other reasons. Lidar + camera is better for this kind of problem. It's because current lidar are too expensive and too fragile (1-2year life) to put in a production car, not because they aren't much better. If this wasn't the case he'd definitely be using them. Elon cannot use a lidar in a Tesla even if he wants too so he's coming up with some FUD to dismiss any completely reasonable questions in advance.

Option 1: They have solved a problem so hard that no one else, even Waymo, is claiming to be close even with $100k+ worth of sensors and a lot more compute and they have also quietly solved multiple hard unsolved research problems.

Option 2: He's lying to get money.

What was the problem?

Absolutely not suprising. What's this from?