> As someone who rarely takes photos, and never photos of importance
Even people who do take photos often would probably gladly sacrifice some image quality to loose that massive thing on the back of the phone. The thinness of the phone almost make it look worse as long as that camera sticks out like that; like a huge watch with a thin strap or something...
There is this astroturf new news outlet in Poland called Infopiguła. I follow that, 9 minutes per day and that's it for politician news for me. I just ignore anything else, politicial or world, knowing I'll find out about it anyway if it's important.
But you can also just cut out news completely. There are edutainment channels on YouTube you could follow instead. You have hacker news. I watch other sources, just not "newsy" news.
There is one VERY IMPORTANT rule for choosing channels/podcasts/content to watch. I only watch people presenting with positive energy, in a calm manner. "Scary" way of presenting, or clickbaity titles give more followers, but I feel bad from watching them. Just like when I'm low I sometimes play an audiobook read by Eckhart Tolle. I wonder why it makes such a difference?
Is one of those ideas connected to the other one? Historically, being one of the most powerful people in the world is not even a minor barrier to most people ignoring the things you do, crazy or otherwise.
We can ignore everything that doesn't affect the way we act. Sure, you need to be informed enough to go "okay, I'm going to join La Résistance" when necessary, but other than that, you only need to focus on things in your sphere.
This is nuts. I remember reading that Hollywood gave up on underwater filming after near death accidents on sets of The Abyss and especially Waterworld making such productions too risky and expensive so they resorted to VFX faking long underwater scenes after that. Obliviously Cameron didn't get the memo.
James Cameron, maker of The Abyss, probably got the memo. But the memo read “You’re going to need to make much more successful movies before they let you do that again.”
James Cameron has done a huge number of truly amazing things, but he and Ed Harris both nearly drowned during filming of The Abyss. Hopefully he learned from his mistakes.
Yeah not to say some of his knowledge isn’t hard won. Niels Bohr approved.
Looks like in Cameron’s case it was a double fault situation. No alarm on the primary, and the safety person didn’t check his emergency gear. That guy shouldn’t have been punched he should have been fired. And had his license suspended.
What a great movie that is! Who can forget that rat breathing liquid oxygen (or whatever they called it), and the water creature making her face to say hello. It seems sort of forgotten now (perhaps it's just me?) compared to other good films from the same era.
> Who can forget that rat breathing liquid oxygen (or whatever they called it)
I remember seeing the movie as a child with my parents and I was quite appaled by that scene (I hate seeing animal abuse). My father ensured me that was just some kind of effect trickery (I think he believed so himself). Later I found out that it was indeed real.
Whoever wrote the production portion of the wikipedia page for the Abyss did a really good job capturing the sort of bleak "the best way out of this situation is forward" circumstances that arise from taking on a project at the limit of your capability like that.
Following the parent comment's idea, it'd end up in a table being the best choice 100% of the time.
Because the underlying assumption is that accessibility and the ability to grasp the data that is being conveyed isn't completely dependent on the audience. If I happen to prefer a static chart, an animated chart might still convey the intended thing in a stickier way, to a wider audience.
> (GDPR) is the best-known European standard. After all, it’s hard to miss the opportunity to reject cookies on European websites. But there’s far more to data security.
We should not be bragging about that "security", those cookie pop-ups are just a pointless annoyance. At least I guess we can all agree that there is far more to data security :-)
Yes, it has tons of regulation which at least from my experience is very difficult to implement. I used to work for a company that basically barely knew what info they stored about anyone; and they also had long relationships with tons of clients. It was virtually impossible to follow GDPR in that company, but for some reason they wanted to show everyone that they were "best in class", since they handled a lot of financial info etc. It basically just ended up with some fancy web-pages proclaiming that we were serious about GDPR, but nothing else materialized.
The cookie-banner just seems like a very strange "security" measure; but GDPR seems very strange as far as I can tell. It was sparked by the "forget me" campaign a few years ago I guess, and most people probably agree with the intent, but it has led to very strange set of rules.
> that basically barely knew what info they stored about anyone
Aha, might have been the core problem, wouldn't it?
> It was virtually impossible to follow GDPR in that company
So, sounds like the regulation worked exactly like expected? If you're not following proper procedures for storing data, it should be hard to comply with a regulation that is trying to force you to have proper procedures for storing data.
A bit like complaining that fraud is hard because of those pesky police officers. Yes, this is the intention.
> The cookie-banner just seems like a very strange "security" measure
The whole cookie-banner thing is vastly misunderstood by companies, and at best just malicious compliance. Again, not the fault of the regulation but the companies who don't put users best interest first, but their own. Hard to blame them though, that's the purpose of their existence after all, most of the time.
> A bit like complaining that fraud is hard because of those pesky police officers. Yes, this is the intention.
GDPR did not lead to any actual changes for the company, except they set up a fancy web-page about how serious we where about GDPR. That's the intention?
Many companies cannot possibly remove the info GDPR demands, as they barely know they have it, and they will use minimal efforts to fiddle with this stuff. From what I saw, GDPR is just another example of legislation, that looks good on paper; and the intention is certainly good. But no real change followed; at least where I worked.
The intention, I believe, is that it discourages from collecting superfluous data. The easiest way to address the GDPR is to not collect any data at all. If you do, then it becomes harder.
> as they barely know they have it, and they will use minimal efforts to fiddle with this stuff.
Big companies have a real incentive to act. I believe the GDPR has forced BigTech to make at least some changes, because it was better to make those changes than to pay the fine.
In my experience, smaller companies don't really care and don't really want to know, and tend to collect as muich data as they can just because they can and "it may be useful later". Many times they never use the collected data.
> is that it discourages from collecting superfluous data
Wouldn't that require some kind of actual policing? Here (in Norway) at least, police does not use any of their time trying to access random data systems looking for personal info stored in violation with GDPR. This is not something anyone fears, so as long as you say you are OK, you are OK.
> Big companies have a real incentive to act.
The company I worked for was almost as big as they come here in Norway (handled extremely sensitive personal information also). We are full of clown tech companies here as well (just like your 'Epic Health Journals' etc.). These kind of companies cannot comply with these types of rules, they cannot even make their own systems work properly.
> Wouldn't that require some kind of actual policing? Here (in Norway) at least
Maybe a dumb question, but have you actually reported the company to your DPA? I think the DPAs have some agency to perform investigations on their own, but currently they're mostly acting on user complaints, whistleblowers and self-reporting by the organization itself, so if none of the people involved (on either side) reports the organization, the DPA won't know where to even begin.
Seemingly you have a good inside view with clear evidence of breaking GDPR, so I assume you've reported this organization then?
It is super useful. We started a project with some hired consultants about a year ago. Did not engage much with that project, but when I was recently asked to get back into the loop and find out what these people had been up to, a quick view of the 'gource' visualization was all that was needed in order to know who was doing stuff, and how much they had been working on it etc. At least I knew who was just attending the meetings, and who was actually coding and so on :-)
It certainly isn't an alternative to actually digging into the repo and find out what has happened. But I wanted to find out something about:
1. How many developers have actually been working on this stuff
2. Has the guy who set up the wire-frame actually stepped back
3. Are there more developers doing stuff, then what we get the impression of, based on the weekly Teams meetings
All of these questions could be answered in 1 minute by starting 'gource' + increase the speed of the visualization for the past year. I was afraid that this newly hired consulting company was pretending to use less resources then they actually did, in order to sink their hooks into our company, which I could see instantly that they had been doing. I could also see that the "big gun" setting up the wire frame for the project, had not really been taken of the project at all, but had been helping some of the jr. devs all along. Something that would have taken some digging with 'git log' or 'tig'..
Exactly, it's a very quick way to get an overview. Just by looking at how many developers have been working on things + their frequency of committing code is very helpful. Tons of files appearing at once is a quick give away that something is either copied from another project, or some massive "technology" (read: library, framework) is added; which can be hard to maintain unless the stuff being added is very mature.
It is sadly. And unfortunately, it's still a commonplace measure even at the "best" companies.
They say "oh it's not the only measure" ofc. Anything to downplay it to ICs. But then you chat with your jaded manager and you hear echoes of the insanity that goes on in performance review calibration and you aren't so sure about those qualifiers anymore..
> showing a low-speed, closed-course theme park ride in order to build confidence around Tesla’s progress toward actual real-world driverless capability is almost too childish to call a fraud
This guy has lost confidence in Musk's promises.
I never really understood how Musk can claim to be so close to full autonomy when these cars clearly struggle with basic things using the exact same system that supposedly drives by itself. Automatic high/low beam or detecting rain does not work very well. You wold think that a system that cannot detect oncoming traffic (high/low beam), or actual rain has some other problems when it comes to self-driving.
There's a Munro Live video from the event on YouTube where the host is talking enthusiastically about how the Optimus robots are going to take over all dirty and dangerous jobs and the whole time he's talking the video is showing a robot at the event failing miserably at picking up a small bag of chocolates.
The bag has clearly been designed to be easy to pick up, it's positioned on a custom made table top to perfectly space them out and make it easy and still the robot manages to lift two of them by mistake and topple a whole line of them with one ending up on the floor.
Optimus robots were remotely controlled by humans at the "We, Robot" event during Cybercab. They are not ready even for demo purposes.
It was clever trick because many attendees did not even think the possibility hose were teleoperated interactions because Musk did not bring it up. Some investment firms were clearly not amused by it.
It seemed pretty obvious to me. Yet, I was pretty impressed nonetheless, I mean, the sheer dexterity of movement of these things with a human-hand anatomy surprised me, I don't think I've seen it before, and didn't know carnival toys are at this level yet. Is it a commonplace technology? It seems like it must have some practical uses, to be able to operate an almost-human body remotely like that. But, as I've just said, I don't think I ever saw this, only clunky specialized robots with poor movement control. And Boston dynamics pre-programmed toys.
On the cars with matrix-led's the high-low has been solved very well. It used to be bad and now it's almost perfect.
Wipers, dunno, they used to be really bad but I have not noticed the issue in the past few months, maybe they have done something.
That said, I am still agreeing with you on "struggle with basic things", there are phantom breakings in the exact same spots this and other teslas have driven thousands of times. There are occasional cases where it would follow the wrong road-markings into a crash would I not intervene and so forth.
> with matrix-led's the high-low has been solved very well. It used to be bad and now it's almost perfect.
Yes, it works much better on my new Model Y (2024) than my old Model S (2014). But they didn't really solve the original problem, i.e. detecting oncoming traffic vs. street (or other lights) up ahead. The matrix led's darken these areas in any case, and neither street lights or oncoming cars complain of course. But it does not fill me with much confidence.
> Wipers, dunno, they used to be really bad but I have not noticed the issue in the past few months, maybe they have done something.
Then that software update has not come to Norway at least, here they still start wiping in dry conditions, and fail to detect actual rain; so they need to be manually started all the time.
> there are phantom breakings in the exact same spots this and other teslas have driven thousands of times.
Isn't this the problem with AI though? We've taken something we don't fully understand (neural networks) and applied them. We can give them a lot of training data to the point where they seem to be able to do stuff on their own. But when they fail, we really cannot do anything besides adding new nodes to our network and add more training data, and hope for the best. We cannot really say what went wrong, and fix it.
That's for safety if a flake of dirt or dust lands on the front window right over where one of the cameras are, it will do a wipe and try to get rid of the thing that is distorting the image. Or it will do it if you are driving straight into the sun sometimes, presumably because it's doing a best efforts action in case the visibility problem is further exacerbated by dust which can be cleared.
It's strange to me that actual helpful features are misinterpreted as flaws, but that's how it is with new technology I guess.
Failing to detect actual rain, yes I see that too a little sometimes. I think they should augment with audio detection. There is a microphone, obviously, for the speech button, and depending on how things are wired sometimes speaker cones can also be repurposed as microphones.
> That's for safety if a flake of dirt or dust lands on the front window right over where one of the cameras are, it will do a wipe and try to get rid of the thing
Not that dry conditions. I live in Trondheim, where it rains/snows well over 200 days a year, so it's not wiping off some dry dust of the camera area. It just starts wiping the clean window in perfectly fine weather. At other times it rains quite a bit and it does not come on.
The software update to soft click the left stalk to engage the wiper menu via the left steering wheel roller is a nice quick fix for these situations, so they are doing something.
I was not saying that there absolutely is always dust there. I was saying the system is doing a best efforts action just in case there is dust or snow or other debris there which there sometimes is. I'm guessing they have birds in Trondheim.
I haven't tried the roller for the wiper menu, thanks for the reminder. Less rain around here.
> I was saying the system is doing a best efforts action just in case there is dust or snow or other debris there which there sometimes is
I guess that could be the case; but they do seem quite random.
> I'm guessing they have birds in Trondheim.
We do, mostly seagulls where I park my car :-) But you're not dry wiping away anything they produce, that takes a good scrubbing.
> I haven't tried the roller for the wiper
It makes the experience fully controllable from the steering wheel using one hand, which is very good. One light press on the left stalk, and the menu pops up down on the left corner on the screen where you can roll to your preferred setting. I hate having to go into menus on the touch screen while driving.
Honest question, considering I have never driven or been in a Tesla, when you say “it would follow the wrong road markings into a crash would I not intervene”, are you not concerned for your safety when driving it.
As an owner of a Model Y -- I'm aware that its current implementation of FSD would do this. I don't pay for FSD, so it does not do it. Also, this is a bit like someone turning on cruise control and then just letting the car go off the road at a turn. Would you be too concerned for your safety to own a car with cruise control? No, you'd just either not use cruise control, or understand its limitations when using cruise control and steer as needed.
That only seems cosmetically similar to me. If cruise control would usually do the same thing but occasionally try to take a curve for me, I would consider it unreliable. Even if it always got the curve attempts it made correct, it is unreliable if its actions are not essentially a mechanical response.
Right, this is the difference between most car functions and then something like FSD. Reliability. Cruise Control always works the exact same, where the car will break/accelerate exactly as much as it needs to, to maintain the speed it is set to go. Same thing with ABS, where the brakes will be perfectly pulsated when heavy braking. Or differentials. Or pretty much any car system.
FSD is a little too wild west. I also lump ACC and LKAS in here, too. Phantom brake and bad directional input exist for those way too often.
But it’s a function you can choose not to use. My Model Y doesn’t even have FSD, I didn’t buy it. I could buy and use it, but I don’t. It doesn’t concern me that it exists, the Model Y has been an awesome car. If I did buy and use it, its limitations are widely known and I’d expect to supervise it if I used it.
I never paid for any of the autonomous upsells, so for me this is a lane-keeping functionality and I treat it as such, meaning it helps me but I am still fully responsible for my own safety.
It happens rarely enough, and as I mostly drive on the same roads, I know where it happens as well, usually I disconnect the thing before it gets to the problematic place.
So no, it's so much stressful as annoying. But it does remind me that the claims of self-driving is just horse-shit.
I'm struggling to see how you can be so calm about what you just said. To me, the idea of a system that works 99% of the time and doesn't work 1% of the time is utterly terrifying, far more so than a system that works only 50% of the time. 1% is small enough for a human operator to become complacent, but still many orders of magnitude greater than an acceptable risk factor. It seems like exactly the sweet spot that's going to maximise loss of life.
I know what (and where) the problematic spots are for the lane-keeping, so I use it in situations where the benefit is large and the risk is manageable.
There are many places where I won't switch it on and just drive myself.
Also 99% vs 1% depends on how you look at it. The main road I drive is about 200km long, in one direction it does not have any problematic spots. In the other it has 2 lets say 10 meter spots. By distance it's 0.01% problematic. It's not like Desert Bus where it tries to get you all the time.
Yes. Not only that, my car had the matrix led hardware for 2 years before the matrix feature was enabled in a software update. TBF, I was never sold matrix leds so there was no marketing let down.
Also the auto-wipers on my 2003 Saab were working better than the Tesla ones of the current generation.
That said, it's also funny to think that the only things I could complain about owning a Tesla are: wipers, self-driving marketing and Elon being a nutcase.
Before the last one is solved, I would not buy another one, but other than that it's a very good car.
Even Musk has lost confidence in Musk's predictions. He jokes about this. Tough crowd out there though, you being a case in point.
It's normal as a human to make predictions, and it's normal to come to the realization that some of one's predictions have been incorrect on the timelines. This is all just normal real life in the world of technology.
What actually is remarkable is the unstoppable progress that is being made. You can find counter examples, but look at the newer software versions this month, next month, and so on. Things are being fixed bit by bit.
At some point a reasonable person would realize that their past predictions have not panned out and would make their future predictions more conservative.
Even people who do take photos often would probably gladly sacrifice some image quality to loose that massive thing on the back of the phone. The thinness of the phone almost make it look worse as long as that camera sticks out like that; like a huge watch with a thin strap or something...