karyon

well, there are asm.js and in the near future web assembly (basically, binaries for the web)

The related django issue is here: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23919

there are lots of other cleanups happening right now. It's a real pleasure to look at the diffs :)

Personally I have no interest in such luxuries and hope I never will have. My goal is to keep my expenses to the (relatively low) level it is now, and save excess money for kids (which i don't have yet) or donate it. But I'm not there yet, I'll leave university in a few months, and what do I know what my future self will do.

but what about maybe another yacht? some island? that limited edition lamborghini? oh you could collect art. use your bonus to get more of that. i think this "if i had this specific amount of money, then i'd have everything i could possibly desire" is unlikely to be true, you'll find more things to spend your money on.

another thought: you could donate all of it. the perfect money sink. it actually helps, and more of it helps better. so with an altruistic mind you can get motivated with that no matter on which salary level :)

I'm pretty sure that there are lifestyles that burn several millions per year, and my guess would be there are people living a happy life with less than 60k.

but of course it's true that the further you go up the scale, the more absurd it becomes to talk about serious comfort losses, and there's a point on the lower end where we're talking about actual poverty.

This sounds a bit like "my income is normal, and everyone above that is rich"-thinking that a lot of people have.(if there's a word for that i'd appreciate any hints :) ) i'd definitely consider engineers at google to be rich and don't see how another 200k makes that much of a difference. you think these execs are rich and don't see how another million makes a difference. and the execs consider billionaires to be rich and don't see how another billion makes a difference. it's just different scales, but who's actually right?

i think it's important to realise that the scale of income has an extreme range and we are already on the upper end and definitely rich by global standards. my personal opinion is that a majority of people living in the western world is actually rich and any complaints on salaries by these are just first world problems.

on a more constructive note, i think i've seen a study that said that higher salary actually does motivate more, but hits the point of diminishing returns at about (i think) 80k or 100k. I don't remember which country and whether it was $ or €, but that should give a sense of the rough order of magnitude.

it seems to be 10% faster and use 15% less power, so that's something.

source (german): https://www.computerbase.de/2017-01/intel-kaby-lake-test-cor...

could you elaborate? i don't quite understand your comment but want to understand it. do you mean your citation regarding the copenhagen interpretation to be applied to us consumers, the mining companies, or the newspaper? and how does your second comment relate to that? genuinely interested.

i think the primary purpose is to find out what your compiler will do out of your C/C++ program, to see e.g. what optimizations are performed. but who knows, maybe it's also used for actually writing assembly :)

that... sounds too good to be true. could you provide any references on what the actual consequences of this warranty are?

The article says

> Existing structures [abandoned buildings] surrounded by walled compounds of some type were selected because there was little in the environment to use for protection—such as dirt to fill sandbags, earthworks, and existing obstacles.

so that might be part of the reason.

I don't see how speaking the truth and being polite could ever rule each other out.

In fact, HN is the one place where i've seen the phrase "I disagree" the most often. Not because people are so disagreeable, but because they openly, and politely, state their disagreement if there is any.

Let me play the devil's advocate here as well :)

What exactly is the problem with punishing people for risky driving? Or rather, let them pay a corresponding premium to cover for the (statistically expected) higher damages they will cause? Keep in mind that driving behaviour is something the user has full control of, in contrast to e.g. disabilities, for which of course no insurance premium should be paid.

I actually think this is a good idea, and would like to hear opposing opinions.

well, but people usually don't ask for making e.g. the print feature optional because they don't use it and want a lean browser... i mean, you need to draw a line somewhere, sure, but different people will draw it differently.

why would you want to remove that feature? i mean, you can probably remove the button to be out of sight easily. if it does nothing when you're not using it, what's the deal?

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

hey, the milestone and contributing.md links are broken.

I got this from twitter, where Elon Musk writes stuff like "Writing post now with details." and "Will get back to Autopilot update blog tomorrow." So I assumed he's authored the thing.

well, that doesn't help you if you're dead. although it's probably an argument in favor of not requiring such countermeasures, they would still be nice to have, wouldn't they? :)

i think that question is not so pressing until the system is declared fully autonomous as in, no human required anymore to drive. as long as it's just an assistant, the human is supposed to brake. but, since they surely want autopilot to become an actual autopilot...

you could do the same with "normal" cameras (and probably lidar as well) i guess by pointing a laserpointer at it. the safest option is probably to just brake.

here elon musk says they don't use lidar: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/11/tesla-autopilot-8-0-uses-r...

(as an aside, some years ago we had incidents in the news where people pointed laserpointers at aircraft pilots while landing. the pilot's appropriate response is usually to abort the landing and do a go-around, because that's the safest thing to do in this situation)

The blog post says "When the car is approaching an overhead highway road sign positioned on a rise in the road or a bridge where the road dips underneath, this often looks like a collision course. [...] If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist."

So as i read it, the system does think it will collide but ignore it if the whitelist says the object is safe.

The paragraph after that says basically once they have enough data, the system will start braking on unknown objects with gradually increasing force as the confidence level rises. So basically, it will brake on unknown traffic signs but only slightly, as the confidence level shouldn't get too high.

Is it just me or does whitelisting static objects to determine whether the car will collide with them seem like a bit of a crude hack? It almost sounds like the system will brake at newly installed traffic signs.

edit: Upon closer reading, he explains it somewhat. Once they have enough data, the system will start braking on unknown objects with gradually increasing force as the confidence level rises. So basically, it will brake on unknown traffic signs but only slightly, as the confidence level shouldn't get too high, if I understand that correctly.

The last paragraph sounds technically challenging and interesting:

"Taking this one step further, a Tesla will also be able to bounce the radar signal under a vehicle in front - using the radar pulse signature and photon time of flight to distinguish the signal - and still brake even when trailing a car that is opaque to both vision and radar. The car in front might hit the UFO in dense fog, but the Tesla will not."

edit: it seems like they are already doing it beginning with this update: "Now controls for two cars ahead using radar echo, improving cut-out response and reaction time to otherwise-invisible heavy braking events". that sounds awesome.

For a university project I programmed for an Arduino Uno (ATmega328P). Debugging performance problems, we found out that a switch (implemented with a bunch of if/else ifs) with about 12 branches used ca. 200 clock cycles just checking the 12 conditions.

Turns out the ATmega328P has only 8bit registers and the ALU operates on 8bit values. We were using 32-bit datatypes in the conditions, which the ATmega328P loaded and compared byte per byte, each comparison (incl. jump etc) cost us something like 16 cycles.

So yeah, the size of the datatypes definitely mattered for us :)

edit: as an addition, we needed quite a while to figure out (and were quite surprised when we did) that ints are 16bit and longs 32bit on this platform/compiler. i guess this comes down to the general question of explicit vs implicit, and i usually do prefer the former.

In case the last question was serious (i honestly don't know): You wouldn't want that except for daily work (except maybe for reading longer texts), at least not with current e-ink technology. Even with proper colors, adding several 100ms of latency to everything you do at the computer slows you down while typing, makes scrolling ugly etc. Not to think of videos or games...

as i read it, not exactly evidence but rather strong hints. from the article: "evidence that would be consistent with widespread voting manipulation, not proof of it", also he makes two assumptions and adds "If any of these assumptions are violated, then the difference in last digit distributions is not informative of voting manipulation."

from the article: "...with zero confirmed fatalities and a wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance" and "That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all." (emphasis mine)

i also stumbled over this statement, but i think they are using all telemetry data (e.g. what would the autopilot have done vs what the human actually did) in all accidents, not just fatalities per miles driven.

discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419

these don't seem to be the correct slides.

The question of where to draw the line does not come with more telemetry data collected by cars. If you would deploy lots of speed traps everywhere, you'd have a similar situation.

Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed limits. And I'm pretty sure you are allowed to ignore speed limits to a certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of course.

I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety there.