hemogloben

The OPGW reference and your final paragraph are relevant for Transmission lines; the article implies that this robot is used on Medium Voltage Distribution lines, so not just substation to substation.

I thought this about Eagle's[1] project storage switching to XML; I figured it would allow us to store projects and libraries in git and easily branch / merge changes etc.

It was a nightmare. XML does not work well in git.[2] I even thought I could resolve some of the issues by sorting elements so they'd be in a consistent order, but none of the elements had guuids or anything to allow me to do that.

1: http://dangerousprototypes.com/blog/2010/10/14/eagle-open-xm...

2: https://blog.joepairman.com/2016/11/26/xml-in-git-mercurial-...

This has been the most frustrating thing for me. The advice for the individual is essentially the exact opposite of the advice for the 'too big to fail'. I understand that the circumstances are different, but it feels frustrating that my accountant would suggest I save 6 months for unforeseen circumstances, but wouldn't provide the same advice to an employer with many people's livelihoods in their hands.

That said: Are there any studies on the economic impact of every company hoarding 6 months worth of safety vs the likelihood of that event vs the cost of no company having the safety net during this pandemic?

Those are some pretty incredible results. For any single frame I found it hard to find a significant quality loss between the DeepFovea frame and the reference (obviously while looking at the Foveal target and trying to compare peripheral quality), but in motion there was a lot of interframe noise / aliasing / jitter.

While I'm sure they'll improve on those issues I'm currently wondering what kind of visual peripheral trade offs I'd make; if I had a demo in front of me I'd bet that I'd prefer running at higher foveal settings / fidelity with peripheral artifacts to running at lower overall settings / fidelity to avoid them.

NNs are just the first step in the pipeline. Their outputs (detected objects, segmentation, etc) will be piped into other software that builds higher level models.

Considering the path-planning requirements I would be absolutely shocked if Autopilot wasn't build history models and estimated paths for objects around the vehicle (other cars etc).

I’ve always though Caleb Chung was being pretty hypocritical in this episode. He not only programmed the pain response behavior, but also must have thoroughly tested it, meaning he or someone at his company must have done a more scientific version of that video.

I think the article plays a little fast and loose to make a point. Not sure, but I'd always believed / assumed that the confusion around this topic was based on confusing terminology around three ideas: physical gender, gender identity, and attraction.

Personally, I have no idea what to do about or with physical gender, which seems to be what you're replying to. I apologize if my reply is off topic.

This article mainly seems to deal with the gender identity and attraction layers (attraction only in so far as the many gender definitions).

My concern with the proliferation of gender identities is roughly in line with the article. Feminism and early movements were inclusive and intended to dispel the idea that men and women were mutually exclusive properties. Instead, I believe, they were intended to show that there was a spectrum between men and women that everyone inhabited. So currently I'm on the same page as the article.

But my concern isn't the logical aspect of non-binary (though that is where the article is strongest) so much as the intention. By listing and itemizing identity you've changed the intent. As a 30 something white straight male I can't possibly understand the stigma, so maybe having your own *gender is preferable, but on the whole it feels divisive and weirdly clinical. That seems self-destructive; instead of making whatever you want to be normative you're trying to prove you're different.

I could probably type pages more, but like you I am not up to writing a rebuttal. At the very least I appreciate the reasonable tone of the article and hope the response to it isn't harsh. This really is one of the most important issues of our time and it feels hard to have an earnest discussion about the pros and cons of how to approach the issue.

In the end I think I agree with the conclusion... We shouldn't be categorizing every possible identity or attraction; we should be making it a more normative part of meeting people casually / romantically to have discussion about who they are and who they're attracted to / into. By throwing up divides we're short changing ourselves.