Here’s a link: https://ifdb.org/viewgame?id=w5s3sv43s3p98v45
168 karma · joined April 30, 2018
For instance, Gibson frequently skips exposition, and he delivers the narrative with a disconnected, stream-of-consciousness feel that is meant to evoke the sense of disconnection when “channel-hopping” or digging through large amounts of information on the internet. Combined with the frenetic pace of the story it can be confusing if the reader isn’t paying close attention. I’ll add that this was also Gibson’s first novel.
Compare to Snow Crash, which has a pulpier writing style (it was original envisioned as a graphic novel) or even The Matrix, which has a tight narrative. Those are more accessible to a mainstream audience.
Edit: formatting
TBH I don't think it's clear what he's suggesting.
But, "collapsing"? Universities are one of the most long-lived types of institutions known to humankind. Oxford was founded in 1096. I suspect they will be around quite a lot longer.
I’ve never understood these critiques. If you want to study society, what’s the alternative? No matter what, you have to make a model of some kind. Yeah, some models are simplistic, but maybe they can capture the high order bits of the phenomenon they are modeling, and at least you are committing to an idea you can codify, find fault with, and improve. The alternative (never making models) seems to be a type of intellectual nihilism.
The main idea: Let Y be the set {y, not y} and X be the set {x, not x}. y denotes timing out, and x denotes “Kubernetes not starting the pod”. We have some distribution P(Y=y|X=x) (in this case, the probability of “timing out” (y) given “Kubernetes not starting the pod” x. The counter factual distribution is NOT the same as P(Y= not y | X= not x) (the “probability of not timing out given Kubernetes starting the pod”). The counterfactual is P(Y’=not y| X=x, Y=y, X’=not x), or “the probability of not timing out given that it did originally time out when Kubernetes did not start the pod, and given that this time it did start the pod”.
This aligns roughly with what you are saying above.
Bezos’s big contributions will be leadership, creating efficient processes, etc. He’s good at those things. You don’t need to be able to build the product to run a company.
Does sensor B have enough other benefits to outweigh the costs of adding it? I don’t know, but that’s the actual crux of this problem.
You might want to not have sensor B to lower the cost (as I suggested). Or you might want to have both sensors A and B because the provide some synergies (as gkop pointed out, better range of view, increased confidence, etc.). But it’s definitely not enough to just argue that the sensors may conflict.
They probably started without lidar due to the cost (Tesla is one of few companies actually selling cars to customers, who are sensitive to price). The price of lidar has come down, but I would guess it requires a fair amount of expensive rearchitecture to add it in now, and they haven't bitten the bullet yet.