I think it will go much faster than people realise, because the big blocker to infrastructure changes that make self driving easier is the fact that there are no self driving cars. Once they have a foothold somewhere, with caveats and limitations, it's much easier to convince the neighboring city that with "only a few updates to these intersections" or "just a couple of beacons" or whatever, they can have self driving taxis too.
Don't think about the cars, look at the charging network. I think it's plausible that all the big car companies realise that nobody will buy their electric models unless they license Tesla's charging infrastructure. They can try to replicate that infrastructure but they are already behind, and it would be very painful to do if nobody is buying your cars while you build it out. So there's your (literal) network effect.
I guess we would know because animals don't tend to have much more bone than they need. You should be able to estimate the mass of an animal based on the size and structure of it's leg bones (and whether you think it lives it's whole life in water). Then you assume it has enough muscle to move that mass, which gives you an estimate of the density (and locations) of some of the remainder. Split the rest between organs, fat and more muscle in proportions that seem reasonable based on existing animals.
Then discover you're still surprisingly wrong, probably. But it should rule out the pudgy T-Rex at least.
It's probably not that they think you are wrong or can't be trusted. Think of it like defending a thesis. A typical code review process for me is to just ask the author a bunch of questions. If they have satisfying answers then great, the code goes in and we now have recorded answers for a bunch of questions about it (helpful if issues arise later on). But it shouldn't be surprising if there is something they haven't considered, despite being someone who writes quality code. Perhaps your team is guessing about correctness rather than asking about it and it comes across badly?
That's another problem that doesn't need to exist. I never saw a fire hydrant until I arrived in the states, because the smart thing to do is put it under a hatch somewhere in the road.
I think you should read some early retirement blogs. If you have a good job (seems likely around here) and you don't value much stuff then you can choose to work a lot less than 70% of your productive life. After all, if it's truly capital that extracts all the value at the expense of workers, then you should get in on that to the degree that you can, shouldn't you?
There are plenty of possible charity improvements, but I think anyone who has accidentally sent an email should understand what this really needs: A countdown timer in the 10-30 second range with a clear, bold description of what it will do, and a cancel button. There should be no way to skip the timer. I'd be amazed if no one said "wait, shit" within 10 seconds of clicking the wrong link.
I wonder if it would be possible to have a clause in your will stating that if any family member sues any other family member, the whole lot goes to charity. Bonus points if you can get a legal professional to utter the words "and you can all eat shit".
As much as I appreciate the guy, I don't think he thought this one through. A simple back of the envelope calculation would reveal just how hard it is to compete with a subway in terms of people per hour for a given width of road/track. Even bicycles, which are pretty compact, still need a safe stopping distance which wrecks the space efficiency. If you eliminate the stopping distances you probably also want to connect the vehicles to reduce crashes, and tada, it's a train.
It definitely still had BSPs. UT2003 had terrain rendering that seemed custom (not likely octrees but could have used quadtrees for all I know) and much more of the environmental detail was made up of static meshes (meshes were culled based on the bsp but didn't contribute to it) presumably because GPUs could churn through them faster. The basic BSP editing was still there though, kind of amazing how long they kept that unchanged.
In case anyone was considering sending him $10, no, his hypothetical code would not be running on the Google login page. Google does not pull in external dependencies willy nilly like that.
No, I to think he's saying that -0.01 applies to everyone. Each individual choice is actually causing a loss of 80 million in utility (vs a gain of 1), but that loss is mostly borne by other people, so they are individually better off making that choice.
Well, after a few cars get stuck (or crash) it will show up on the mapping system as blocked and the remaining cars will find another route. I'm semi-joking, but human drivers do that more than we would like to admit. Just needs a cheerful "please get out and push" message.
Or take a page from the internet playbook: Destroy the car and re-send from the origin.
I was expecting something like "so we sent her to the local neighborhood school and did what we could to make our own community better", but no, apparently the change you want to see in the world is that Dad should do everything?
I think you've hit it on the head. Mostly you shouldn't be trying to codify what a scraper is, you should be collecting little utilities that are useful for building scrapers. The more lego-like the better.
>The train situation isn't going to get better by people being selfish and gaining a few extra minutes at the expense of everyone else's.
Doesn't that pretty much sum up the New York experience though? If everyone could not block the intersection, stand back from the baggage claim, and wait their turn then life would be better for everyone.
This "half baked" idea is just proportional representation. It's not like they invented it, and it seems to work well enough in New Zealand, in fact most complaints seem to be that it isn't perfectly proportional.
We're talking about severance pay that they were paid in the course of being fired. It's not clear to me that it should have been paid in the first place.
If that's true that just makes me angrier because a far better solution would be to improve the currency, like Canada and many other countries did long ago.
That seems like an unnecessarily abstract way of saying "make good choices".
Drug abuse seems straight forwardly defined as using a drug for purposes other than as prescribed. Not following the schedule or following it when it is unwise to shouldn't be considered abuse as long as you are still using it to manage pain. Of course that boils down to intent, which is hard to determine.
Similarly (arguably worse) someone can create a drop box account using your email address and there is no verification nor mechanism to say that it is not yours. Their support will repeatedly bug you to use an automated system, and of course the automated system cannot fathom that you do not have or want an account. I think it took a couple of weeks for them to actually delete it. Alternatively you could try the lost password flow, log in and delete all the files belonging to the poor sap that made a typo. All the while, you hope none of those files were intended for you.
Even if US colleges are better than 98% of the world (which I doubt, it seems like you conveniently forgot Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.) employers are mostly using that degree as a box tick. Convincing students they need the exhorbitantly priced best when they really don't still seems predatory to me.
Personally I paid the equivalent of 16kUSD for a 4 year software degree in New Zealand, and my fortune 500 employer seems fine with it. A foreigner would have to pay double, but that's still far from US prices.
An investment isn't necessarily something that is expected to go up in value, it is something that is expected to make you money. If I buy a house and rent it out, and the value of the house also tracks inflation, it made me money through rent. If I owner occupy I receive that money in the form of lower expenses, but that's just details.
Similarly, if my education increases my lifetime earnings by more than it cost me then it is a good investment, regardless of where in my career I make that return. The idea that my education must increase in value over my career in order to be considered an investment is very, very strange.
You can argue that these investments are frequently bad, but it doesn't make sense to argue they are not investments.