olympus

What the RVers are too cheap to do is pay for the product they want. Go to unlimitedville.com, pay $200 a month, and you have unlimited LTE in every city you travel to. If you want the best mobile internet you have to pay for it.

Honestly, page-based systems that can be accessed with a castle/boat switch is fine for modern fighters and trained pilots. Hearing a trained Eagle driver rattle off how to get to a specific menu/page from any other page is pretty impressive- "You need to change missile mode but you're on the ECS page? Back, down, down, right, right. [or something like that]" And they aren't even sitting in the plane or looking at the screens, it's just muscle memory.

Non-military specific, and the biggest con of touchscreens in a cockpit: - Turbulence makes it hard to hit the right places on the touchscreen. Traditionally you'd rest your hand or stabilize a few fingers on the outside of your radio/navigator before twirling the dials or pushing buttons, and there was enough resistance to keep from accidental presses. With stuff like the GTN 650 pushing the screen out to the edges, resting your hand on the bezel means you accidentally make touches to the edge of the screen. Competitors like Avidyne actually market old school buttons as a feature, and it's a compelling one.

Military specific concerns: - Wearing gloves while flying means that button size needs to be huge and touchscreens aren't very precise. - High-G maneuvers make it really hard to touch the right part of the screen.

Advertising "gay" products to you based on the fact that your cell phone spends a lot of time in close proximity to a gay bar probably doesn't meet the bar for a discrimination lawsuit.

"Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"

"The law subjects Russian citizens found guilty to fines of up to 5,000 rubles and public officials to fines of up to 50,000 rubles."

I'm not aware of any US protections unless they came along with recently passed legislation, but the GDPR had some recourse for European citizens. They are now guaranteed a right to explanation and a right to correct the data. So if a person is given a higher health insurance premium, they are allowed to ask for an explanation. If the answer is "Google thinks you're gay, so we're raising your premium," the person is allowed to correct the information, basically saying, "I'm not gay, so please lower my premiums to what they were."

There's enough discrepancy here that I'm not sure what happened until we see the onboard data (unlikely to be released to the public) or a statement from a trusted public official like the Tempe police chief.

"the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human"

This statement isn't really true. Do you think Uber is investing in this because it makes their passengers safer? No, they are pretty much immune to any car crashes with a human driver, the risk and insurance hit is assumed by the driver. They are doing this to save money. They don't have to pay a driver for each trip. The safety aspect is just a perk, but Uber will be pushing this full force as long as the self-driving cars are good enough.

I'm more concerned that Uber will "lose" the video evidence showing what kind of situation it was, and we'll never be able to know if a human would have had ample time to react.

The need for the explanation is because an AI can learn to discriminate against protected classes even if they aren't explicitly part of the dataset. You might not have included race in the inputs, but you did include their name, and it figures out that people named "Jakub" should be declined for a loan. The AI can't say that it's because they are Polish, but it learned to discriminate against Polish sounding names because of all the racism in the training data. We could uncover that if the AI was able to explain that it denied the loan mostly because of the name, and that the other pieces Y and Z did not factor into the decision as heavily. Just saying X Y and Z doesn't help us figure out which of those pieces are the important parts for denying a loan.

"Articles 13-15 provide rights to 'meaningful information about the logic involved' in automated decisions."

Your scenario doesn't explain the logic. Saying "that's the AI's choice and we're going with it because it's 99.9% accurate" isn't the logic involved in the decision.

You need an interpretable model to ensure that the AI isn't discriminating based on a protected class (race/gender/etc). "You were denied a loan because the AI determined that you're Polish, and we don't like Polish people" is partly what this law wants to prevent.

Forcing models to be explainable makes sure that we aren't illegally discriminating, so we need to make sure that we can tell why the AI made it's choice, not just what the choice was.

As mentioned in the article, Google was previously caught tracking people even when they had location, data, and Wi-Fi turned off. We just have to take their word now that they don't do it anymore, and the word of a big profit driven corporation that has been implicated in PRISM and previously tracked people isn't worth too much.

Furthermore, even if Google doesn't track you the cell phone companies still know which tower your cell phone was connected to, so they know your location within three miles at all times. It's not as precise as GPS info, but the police could still ask the cell phone companies to give them a list of phone accounts that were visible to a specific set of cell phone towers at a particular set of times.

If four instruments are following the standard and one is a bit flat because "A-440 Hz is arbitrary" then the whole band sounds like a mess.

The assumption that interactions are smaller than main effects is generally true in real life. There's an idea in statistical modeling called the hierarchy of effects. Main effects are the largest while second-level effects are smaller and don't appear without the presence of the corresponding main effects. It's possible to construct datasets in which the hierarchy of effects isn't true (synergy only, without any benefit from a single variable), but it's uncommon in real life that you could have an interaction without both corresponding main effects being present.

Notaries that allow FP inks are either just accepting the risk because they don't want to be a dick or they are not aware that by using FP ink you might as well be signing in pencil.

- Everyday carry tools/pocket knives - Mechanical keyboards - Headphones - Pens/pencils

There seems to be a common type of person that wants to have different stuff than the mainstream, and they all start by buying Benchmade knives, Ducky keyboards, Grado headphones, and a Lamy Safari.

If you want legally admissible proof that two people signed a document together then you need a notary. Of course a notary could be corrupted, but the courts are much less concerned about that than they are about the chance that two people both own a Pilot G2 in black.

Edit: the article describes them as an engineer that developed a satellite concept for Google and the other sold his previous company to Apple. Neither of them have experience in this regulatory environment. Neither Google nor Apple are space companies. These founders are going in on the tech aspect of distributed computing in space, I doubt either has launched a satellite before.

62 miles (100 km) altitude is where the border lies.

This is not a gray area at all and there is no money to be made by violating the OST. If you start a company in a country that has signed the OST you will be held to the rules. Any country that isn't a signatory to the OST doesn't have a robust space program and will likely still require you to follow the OST because there will be strong international pressure on them. Even if a country did allow you to violate the OST you wouldn't have a viable business because all the economically developed countries of the world have signed the OST and won't do business with someone that is interfering with their access to space.

They don't necessarily need to be a huge team with a bunch of experienced industry insiders to pull this off. They could just as easily be a couple of recent grads with some of Grandma's inheritance from selling her house in Palo Alto.