play2computers

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by play2computers 5y ago

   I think that should very much depend on the severity and the statistical impact of the bug. As long as the long doesn't raise the deaths-per-mile-driven number above what humans would be doing, I would say it would be ok to just leave
2. 2.▲
   by play2computers 6y ago

   I wonder if there would be a way to make an argument that would appeal to the public just the same: We can't add backdoors to encryption because it would endanger our children!
3. 3.▲
   by play2computers 6y ago

   seems to be re-implementation of alfred with some recipes thrown in? what's the advantage over alfred?
4. 4.▲
   by play2computers 7y ago

   actually it's even simpler: don't let humans drive. Even today's rudimentary driverless systems are already vastly superior to humans in terms of events per mile driven. (i.e. pedestrians killed)
5. 5.▲
   by play2computers 8y ago

   While this is an interesting idea, I'm not sure such an approach is going to work long term. This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an impact on the project itself. To make a rather extreme example (Godwin says hi), i
6. 6.▲
   by play2computers 10y ago

   ESA is also using mumps...: http://www.intersystems.com/library/library-item/european-sp...
7. 7.▲
   by play2computers 10y ago

   i actually like it as well. not too unpopular after all it seems. sure, some things are a bit ugly, and language development is largely controlled by a single company (intersystems), but especially working in healthcare you can't get a