oehpr

12 ms·

91.
by oehpr 4y ago
My point was NOT say that a human could have made that mistake. Obviously a human would not have (except for all the times a distracted human would do exactly this). My point was that the standard "Release all footage of accidents and
92.
by oehpr 4y ago
Fair question. But the points Electrek put forward seem pretty reasonable. FSD needs maps to operate, the tests were done on a private field, so the FSD stays off. I'm currently taking these propositions as true, but if they're fa
93.
by oehpr 4y ago
Help me out then. Because as far as I'm aware, the baseline assertion is that fully self driving cars are safer than humans behind the wheel. to REFUTE that you don't just say "look at this one example" because the asser
94.
by oehpr 4y ago
Err... yes? This campaign is explicitly calling for the ban of FSD on the grounds that it failed to react to an obstacle on the road. So yes it matters rather a lot.
95.
by oehpr 4y ago
So, moving past the outrage. Any speculation as to what's happening here that's leading to the failure? Why does Tesla feel the video is defamatory? Is it mis-representing or being dishonest about the test? edit: I did some more r
96.
by oehpr 4y ago
I'm not exactly a booster for tesla or anything. But are you sure this is the standard you want to set? Would humans pass this standard? If you released dash cam footage of most human accidents and asked "could an inexperienced 16
97.
by oehpr 4y ago
Google used to have something on their front page to the tune of "What other people are searching right now!" To sort of add a lively "Here's what's trending!" kinda thing They pulled that feature really fast w
98.
by oehpr 4y ago
no >and to say let’s just ignore this because things I don’t want to happen are is ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world. Right. Better then to make it so we can't ever hear, record, or react to the realities of a dif
99.
by oehpr 4y ago
Ah right, the robust guardian of our human freedoms! Politics! I want my technological barrier back please.
100.
by oehpr 4y ago
I think your response is valid. Pedantic, but valid. I read into Carmack's post and interpreted it as him meaning "advertising", and then used the same nomenclature he used. You are right to say that this is imprecise. Honest
101.
by oehpr 4y ago
It's funny how Carmack realizes that there's so much value that we're just missing, and doesn't realize the WHY of us missing it. We can't hear about it. There's a cacophony of self interested black hat actors
102.
by oehpr 4y ago
I mean, in this case, no one's forcing. More like advocating. And git is a very flexible tool with a lot of generic functions. Pull requests themselves are a prescriptive style of using those generic functions. A "Branchless&quo
103.
by oehpr 4y ago
I looked it over, but the properties provided prevent us from organizing and prioritizing the tickets on things that matter to us. Doesn't look like we can add properties to issues. So, if we have some kinda numerical metric, call it &
104.
by oehpr 4y ago
>and then it's right back to being centralized and trackable. I haven't been following IPFS very closely recently, but this doesn't track for me at all. So people pin some content on a big node. Once you download it, now i
105.
by oehpr 4y ago
How on earth did selecting coherent, focused, modularized libraries become taboo for so many programmers? I will never understand. Nor sympathize.
106.
by oehpr 4y ago
Arn't their wok induction stoves? Something like this: https://www.amazon.ca/Commercial-Countertop-Induction-Cooker... Honestly I don't see why you couldn't make a curved emitters anyway. Or just several emit
107.
by oehpr 4y ago
bitwarden has a feature that fixes this issue. https://i.imgur.com/eQe2Cq6.png More generally. Just coming up with a random word and assigning it rather than a specific name, and looking that word up in your password manage
108.
by oehpr 4y ago
>2. Dishwashers are expensive to people not on tech salaries. All upfront costs are difficult; a smaller upfront payment with a recurring monthly/quarterly subscription payment is much more manageable for many people. I really think
109.
by oehpr 4y ago
/s?
110.
by oehpr 4y ago
>So digital watches were mere technological toys rather than significant improvements on anything that went before. I don’t happen to think that’s true of cellular comms technology. I think it's funny how for a brief moment there th
111.
by oehpr 4y ago
Because we have still not fixed "trust" on the internet. We're perpetually at the mercy of Sybil. If you come to a small town and try and defraud the locals, you'll rapidly find yourself in jail, or worse. Small towns ha
112.
by oehpr 4y ago
Wu.. WOW That was a hostile response for what seemed like a reasonable position. Tell me samhw: If I told you I had a bunch of echos in my garage. Would you be wondering why I just said "I have a bunch of voice commands issued to my ec
113.
by oehpr 4y ago
Though, you gotta figure it's tough to be a moderator when you have a massive report queue, full of toxic behavior. You come across this post with just a plain "Fuck off", not much more or less toxic than anything else you ha
114.
by oehpr 5y ago
Sure, but... the pictures here don't have alpha channels.
115.
by oehpr 5y ago
no, ferdi was just a fork of franz, stripping out the monetization stuff. Rambox... I don't know? It hasn't reached much success in HN. But as a strange coincidence they posted this article 5 days ago: https://rambox.me
116.
by oehpr 5y ago
my... I see you have adopted an appropriate name. By this logic I could just spend all my budget on telling the public a movie is great, then show them a grey rectangle for 2 hours and get rave reviews. If this is not the case, then to what
117.
by oehpr 5y ago
yes. That's a net zero. That's the point. If the point is carbon, then net zero is net zero. This is what dTal is saying. We shouldn't tax an activity that is net zero. So it seems the real point is that it's "dirty
118.
by oehpr 5y ago
As a sideline on this conversation. I'm VERY interested in dTal's point and if it stands up to scrutiny. To me, it makes sense. The carbon in the air now is from carbon that was sequestered . It was in oil, it was in trees, i
119.
by oehpr 5y ago
A -> B, reduction of carbon is reduction in standard of living. B -> C, reduction in standard of living requires a powerful central authority (rather than our current one being sufficient) C -> D, a central authority will become ho
120.
by oehpr 5y ago
even worse is spreading this attitude is something that only aids a scammer. Fear and shame at reputational harm prevent victims from alerting authorities, about alerting their friends. About getting help. Worse than being wrong. Worse th

More ›