imh

27 ms·

211.
by imh 9y ago
It's not as bad as that. It looks their methods could take that into account, they just don't detail anything. I copied the analysis from the report into my original comment, so it's clearer what they did. There's still
212.
by imh 9y ago
It should be noted that the 40% crash reduction they keep quoting is done with an extremely simplistic analysis and is only a brief paragraph of the full report. https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?star
213.
by imh 9y ago
>You're one of the only folks I've seen come straight out and make this point: that somehow a technology or practice that is objectively safer can still be "unethically safe" There are plenty of people making that cas
214.
by imh 9y ago
"Because I was driving with my eyes closed" or "Because I wasn't looking" would be the human equivalent. Imagine if the driver used the same excuse, when asked why she didn't see the pedestrian and take over.
215.
by imh 9y ago
I read the book nearly cover to cover. I can't recommend it enough, but it's an enormous time and energy investment.
216.
by imh 9y ago
It seems gross that they spend so much of this saying "yeah he died and it may be our fault, but statistically you're still better off as our customer." The atlantic had a relevant piece on the morality there this morning ht
217.
by imh 9y ago
>semiautonomous Autopilot Seems like an oxymoron that's getting drivers into danger. >Tesla said its vehicle logs show the driver’s hands weren’t detected on the wheel for six seconds before the collision, and he took no action d
218.
by imh 9y ago
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant, new relative to the other things commercially fielded. That's the part I had thought others had.
219.
by imh 9y ago
What was new about their autopilot? My googling is uninformative :-\
220.
by imh 9y ago
>And it was Autopilot that set off a race to develop advanced driver-assistance systems that can guide cars under certain circumstances and actively prevent collisions — though Tesla’s technology appears to have been surpassed by the sel
221.
by imh 9y ago
1) Can mods change the title to something not-clickbait, maybe even related to the content of the article? The author acknowledges it's trash and does it anyways, but we don't have to. Perhaps "The Webflow Tech Lead Guide&quo
222.
by imh 9y ago
There are some excellent ways of framing this problem already covered in the comments. I'd like to add another. As time goes on, people seem to be treating google searches less as database queries and more as a question/answer sys
223.
by imh 9y ago
Exactly. I may need to be a bit more explicit with a /s tag next time.
224.
by imh 9y ago
But regulations cost jobs! Uber could just move to another state! >The Phoenix area was added a year ago, and quickly became the company’s main testing ground, with 400 employees and more than 150 autonomous cars driving local roads beca
225.
by imh 9y ago
Driverless cars are also being tested in relatively nice driving conditions. People, on the other hand, drive in all sorts of conditions. X deaths per Y easy driving miles is going to translate to many more than X deaths per Y representativ
226.
by imh 9y ago
> The police may not have a good way to evaluate the vastly superior dynamic range of human vision compared to the camera. The solution is simple and even pointed out later in the article: > Note that the streetlamps are actually not
227.
by imh 9y ago
There's a range of light to dark you can see at once. Your eyes can adapt and move the whole range up and down, as can cameras. You're right that it takes time. But the width of the range at a given moment is wider on people than
228.
by imh 9y ago
The video makes it look like the woman popped out of the shadows and makes it look like this was unavoidable. But that's not what a person would really see. People's eyes have great dynamic range. Take this picture for example (no
229.
by imh 9y ago
It's not a function of seeing it the dark, it's that human eyeballs have really good dynamic range, which is exactly why they'd beat cameras in those conditions.
230.
by imh 9y ago
>This person is not describing gentrification Are you sure? > A large influx of people into your area is almost guaranteed to [lead to] possible demographic shifts that marginalize your culture. Gentrification sure sounds like an inst
231.
by imh 9y ago
I actually thought of rich ultra-competitive types (or "techies") pushing out locals.
232.
by imh 9y ago
There may be more than that. This one wasn't as heavily covered https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/14/second-fatal-crash-ma...
233.
by imh 9y ago
I may be misunderstanding things. Are pronouns not tagged as people? "Obama was the president" vs "I was the president" or "He was the president"
234.
by imh 9y ago
There was a time when you could reliably say "I'll just wait for it to come out on Netflix." It was an expectation that led a ton of friends to sign up. I am talking about the streaming service. I just left Netflix because it
235.
by imh 9y ago
I did the same a while back, and i suggest using an NLP library to extract parts of speech and parse trees and building a quick dirty solution. I did the same a while back and the strong solution isn't much better (took a week+) than t
236.
by imh 9y ago
That's one solution, but random notifications are still a problem. There are some apps where I want certain notifications, like "you have a new message," but other notifications are basically "hey! you haven't opene
237.
by imh 9y ago
I don't know law, but the mechanical turk term precedes amazon's use of it.
238.
by imh 9y ago
That's not entirely true. Causal inference is an enormous field and is just beginning to become more of a part of mainstream ML. ML is largely "minimize predictive error," but it's not limited to that.
239.
by imh 9y ago
Microsoft's own blogpost sure doesn't help ( https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/microsoft-creates-ai-can-read... ) >Microsoft creates AI that can read a document and answer questions about it as well as a person
240.
by imh 9y ago
ISLR is a simplified version of ESL.

More ›