sabertoothed

What is your point?

So true. And he cares about ethical behaviour as well (it appears from the outside where I am), in AI and work life.

Ecosia serves Bing results (iirc). The search result quality is awful.

What are you even talking about?

I think you are not being intellectually honest here.

The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3".

Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger.

The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline.

My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.

The problem isn't the pure math. It's the assumptions and conclusions.

Please don't share seekingalpha articles. The site is known for poor-quality articles and highly biased authors.

There is a subtle but important difference between saying that 'muslims are problematic' and 'islam is problematic'.

Attack bad ideas instead of people.

What weird list is this?

If that's the metric, we need to outlaw letting cats outside.

What was your point? Is it now just playing with people's fears or do people have good reasons?

I am still not sure how that solution makes sense.

(1) In what way would the police change behaviour if you're on that list? Why don't they behave that way anyways?

(2) How much unwarranted behaviour will now be shown to people who are not on that list?

(3) What if pretty much everyone ends up on that list in the end?

(4) Should one not spend more energy trying to make sure the callers get identified & prosecuted for endangering another person?

I am not based in the US. The problem is non-existent here.

It is learning. Better performance at a task over time (i.e. after observing more data) is how learning is defined in the community. Unless you have a better definition.

Thanks. What a terribly misleading headline then.

> the wurst case scenario

Please elaborate :)

> No, they don't.

Yes, they do. Because it is defined in relative terms -- as the top 10% by (net) income.

EDIT: Why do I get downvoted for a non-emotional, purely factual comment that provides additional information?

> Ethics are completely arbitrary.

That cannot possibly be true if ethics is based on what causes suffering / well-being.

You seem very angry for some reason that I do not understand. Your emotional response is not backed up by facts.

Hotz can certainly be considered an expert as founder and president of commai.ai. Whether he is a loudmouth or not is less relevant.

The remark by Levandowski can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNgEG5rCav4

Whether these guys are ethical etc. is not of interest for this question.

> Elon really is alone in claiming that lidar isn’t needed for self-driving.

No, precisely not.

Clickbaiting headline. Hotz and Levandowski are also experts and they agree with Musk. More truthful headline: Some experts say, but then again other experts say.

One could argue that articles critical of the Chinese government are _pro_-China rather than anti-China.

It's not censoring as much as school is not censoring. Some things are just factually, objectively wrong and unsupported by evidence.

Democracy requires a functional education system. It's not about "a narrow band of acceptable thought". The truth matters.

Yes. People are remarkably dumb and gullible.

How does the price of the factory matter? It does not make the floor (couch or whatever he slept on) any more comfortable.

I think you need to qualify that first statement with a timeframe. Otherwise, it is clearly untrue. 100% supply is realistically possible with only renewable energy -- within a few years by investing in storage, local wind power in South Germany where the main demand is etc.

Being anti-nuclear (fission as we use it today) is not per se anti-science. If you do some research on how humanity has dealt with nuclear waste in the past and how it is still dealing with it, you may come to a different conclusion.

...and the Asse mismanagement [1][2] with costs of 4-6 billion EUR.

[1] English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

[2] German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachtanlage_Asse

Because I did not want to blame the whole people for it. But those in charge.

Shame on you, Japanese government. Shame on you.