The dummy in no way looks human in the context I’d expect a self driving system to have. Humans don’t have a way to move their legs back and forth that way while remaining stationary (unless on a treadmill I suppose).
You can infer that it is meant to represent a human, and thus likely to move across a crossing, but there’s no reason to expect a computer to read it as a human right?
The most obvious characteristic is distinctly not human (Legs don’t work that way), so it looks like some weird windmill, or one of those hot air moving men.
Yeah true, only cars and humans are allowed to be on roads.
Everything else is magically repelled away. Like debris, crashed cars that don't look like cars, animals, stuff that fell of that truck, a soccer ball kicked from nearby field...
I don’t think that was the point I was making at all.
This seems exactly like a case where computer algorithms would function worse than humans. It is not surprising (to me) that those exist.
For instance, put a sign that flashes “Skydivers will land 100m in front of you in about 5s, break now” and human beings will have 100% success rate in avoiding it, and computers will not. (Or any other situation that relies on written communication that is not usually used on the road).
There’s plenty of situations where human ability will perform better than computer models (and vice versa).
I think you are being too generous with what a self driving car should be able to do.
If you were moving a house and was caring a big box across a street. Its not unreasonable to expect that you will be able safely make it across the street, even though you don't look exactly like a normal pedestrian.
And it is not unreasonable to expect a self driving car to break if there is any type of a obstacle in their path, especially if not classified. We are not talking about some wacky scenario. A bird might be flying across a street at windshield level. A ball might be kicked onto the street. A hey-bale might falloff onto the street from a tractor driving ahead. A huge box with legs is crossing a street.
I am not expecting a child to be hiding behind a parked car jumping out in front of incoming car to be a scenario that anyone could catch.
My question is why those car dont break when there is object infront of the?
Throw a dummy in a powered wheelchair. Surely the car isn't biased against wheelchairs. Or put a pendulating dummy in crutches. Or one that walks with a Duchenne Gait (as in muscular dystrophy) There are dozens of situations where humans don't "walk like humans" and your bias is showing if you only account for "normal" gaits.
Yes, this sounds straight out of a dystopian future novel.
Missing an arm or leg? You will be hit.
Extremely short or tall? Hit
Walk with a limp? Hit
Pink hair? Hit
1) I'm not joking. I think the OP legitimately didn't think about the humans that don't look like they expect them to look. That's a huge problem across all of tech - not just our lack of imagination about the wide array of human experience, but us assuming that we have thought of everyone when we clearly haven't
2) I think this part gets trickier
How do you tell an AI not to do irreversible things? How do you indicate that this is a plastic bag blowing across the street and it needn't cause a traffic jam, but that is a plastic tarp hanging off a barricade that we can't drive through?
How do I indicate that this is a piece of cardboard we can drive over but that is a human person wearing a Halloween costume made of cardboard?
It's not an easy task, and I'm very sympathetic to the very real technical challenge they're facing
I'd expect a car with an automatic braking system to automatically brake when a "weird windmill" or "one of those hot air moving men" moves predictably to intersect its path.
They have a great group of people. I’ve worked with maybe 6-7 of them directly, and they’re all on my list of people I’d actively want to work with again, across a pretty wide set of skills.
The ones I just know of are also people friends say are both great at their stuff and good to work with, so I have high hopes they’ll make some awesome stuff.
The tasks are not the hard part. Alignment is a lot easier when you’re all close. I went from a distributed team (4 offices spread between EU and US) to a team that’s all co-located. The speed and quality of alignment is miles different.
There’s stuff we outsource (easy to describe tasks), but the stuff that needs tight iteration loops is so much easier when you can just get up, walk a few meters, and talk about it.
The Linux kernel is willing to sacrifice the time of individual developers on the altar of project efficiency. That works for the Linux kernel because there are a huge number of prospective developers, and on balance the project doesn't generally care if any specific developer wastes some time or duplicates some effort.
That, by itself, isn't an argument that remote work for a given company will work.
Linux kernel is also famous for a ton of input coming in, of which not a small percentage is discarded. It's quite an expensive model. For any 'normal' software project you have single teams responsible for single features. Not tens of teams competing who gets to create the version which gets accepted.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea to have competing delivery teams. But it's quite expensive.
The Linux kernel as a whole is developed by people who rarely see each other in person, but there are several caveats that make it hard to generalize from that.
* Individual parts of the Linux kernel are often developed by people who do work together in an office (e.g. I used to sit with a bunch at Red Hat).
* Top-level Linux folks do meet in person fairly regularly, especially at LF events.
* Collaboration via email etc. is the primary workflow for the kernel, so there's no in-office cabal that has to learn new habits (and likely will resist doing so).
I'm also tired of hearing how silly startups can't do remote, but I don't think I'd hold up the kernel as an example that they could/should emulate.
A significant part of it isn't though. For example, engineers writing a device driver for a piece of hardware are most likely sitting with each other and near the HW guys.
What is your argument? Those sound like two very different types of product development that I would expect to work very differently in nearly every conceivable way.
My argument is: if a complex project like the Linux kernel, or MySQL, or CMake, or pretty much any large piece of open source software, can be written by remote teams, I don't see what's specific about typical corporate or start-up technology that would prevent that.
Not true at all. In 2017, only 7.7% of contributions were unpaid [1], and it's been dropping for many years: "from 14.6 percent of contributions in 2012 to just 11.8 percent" in 2015 [2]
Maybe I should have been clearer. The payments to the contributors and the targets of their respective companies are not always identical. A team from redhat contributing to the kernel might not be remote and will have their own performance measurement stratergies.
I really think that in the future people will use something like holoportation[0] to work at home or remotely across the world. Because like you say sometimes it makes sense to be present with a person to accomplish a task. It is very hard if they are trying to describe something when it would only take half a moment to visually look yourself and understand the direction the person is coming from. Holoportation looks very neat I really hope I get to try it one day.
[0]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d59O6cfaM0
> It’s not even Agile. Agile is about tight loop upfront planning, and avoiding last-minute distruttive changes and meetings...
That's an abomination definition of agile, probably influenced by scrum. In the agile manifesto it says nothing about "tight loop upfront planing", however it does explicitly say[1]:
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
> [...]
> Responding to change over following a plan
While that doesn't mean all planning is bad (it isn't and the manifesto acknowledges that), the planning is not the agile part, it's the leftover of the original traditional management, because it is necessary to a certain degree (e.g. for alignment but also for a lot of other business related tasks).
If you're running a pure kanban approach, you don't even plan in tight loops and I had much better experience with that (and a single team lead with a good strategic vision) than I had with Scrum. Scrum is just easier to handle for big (old) organizations and gives developers some protection from bad management.
> That's an abomination definition of agile, probably influenced by scrum. In the agile manifesto it says nothing about "tight loop upfront planing", however it does explicitly say[1]:
Sure it might be an abomination, but if we set the rhetoric aside for a minute we should consider the option that the context where Agile is applied isn't just RoR rockin' startups in the Bay. Lets call it dilution perhaps?
Besides, there's context. The Manifesto was drafted in a world still reeling in RUP and floor-wide teams marching towards quarterly releases.
That wasn't sustainable, but neither is "responding to change over following a plan" if that means moving targets every other day. That's a recipe for burn-out, and sprint commitments are sacred.
So yeah, context: respond to change means reassess every some sprint, not pivot 3 times a week.
/s (tongue in cheek people, life's too short for zealotry)
In Sweden, the government does the work for most normal cases. They send you a suggestion of “this is all we know about” and you just say “yeah, seems right” via SMS.
In Ireland you don’t do anything in the usual case, unless you think it’s wrong, everything is taxed at source by the employers/banks.
It seems a bit naive of the government to reveal to you your income sources they know about. If you have any hidden ones you can confidently not report them and pay less taxes than you would otherwise.
It's the same in Denmark and it feels right to me. It's not like they are doing detective work (per default). If you have a concealed source of income, I'd expect them not to know about it. Of course, you'd still be breaking the law by not reporting it and it could turn up if they notice something that doesn't add up somewhere.
I assume this would still be a crime, and you'd be held responsible for lying on the past forms in discovered. The only difference is, this is optimized for making the common case easier - the case of typical income of regular, honest individuals.
Do note that it the responsibility of the employer to report who is employed, so if anything is missing, then it will generally be the company that is the one in the wrong. Especially as the company also pay employer fees for employees, so it would be a flagrant case for the tax agency anyhow.
I too worked in France. I hated the long lunches, since it meant you left work at 6 or 7 in the evening. I’d rather be out the door at 5 (like I do now in the US) or 3-4 (like I did in some previous Swedish jobs) than spend the entire evening in the office.
I usually eat lunch at my desk these days and just leave an hour earlier.
Your lunch hour isn't really an hour, by the time walk somewhere or prepare a lunch. I can't use that hour to actually spend time with my friends or do anything meaningful. I'd rather skip lunch and just head to the pub with my mates at 5.
The upgraded membership is 60usd more than the normal, gives you 2% back on purchases, and they will refund it to you if you ask, so not sure how you could lose 100 on that.
Maybe it was 60. I literally asked the cashier: "I will not remember to request a refund. Will it be automatically credited to me if I do not meet the threshold?", and they told me yes.
I don't live in the US, but I hear endless stories about something called a "home owners association" or whatever else that seem to imply that in suburban situations, having substantial amounts of outside space might be pointless because you can't actually use it as you feel fit - e.g. something basic like stacking building materials outside might be considered Unsightly(tm).
So you have to actually go rural to do stuff.
Or is that something that's restricted to only a few special neighbourhoods?
I can't imagine even entertaining the idea of buying a home there. If my neighbour demanded I cut the grass or something daft like that and backed it up with a legal threat I'd either have to move out or just eventually go postal.
> having substantial amounts of outside space might be pointless because you can't actually use it as you feel fit
While front yards might fall onto that, backyards are pretty much off-limits to HOA, unless one does things that inconvenience neighbors, like obstruct their view or keep animals that are noisy.
There are a great many suburban neighbourhoods with no HOA. From what I can tell (at least in the Northeast), they're limited to neighbourhoods of well above median income—I would guess that the houses would probably start somewhere in the 7-800k range (which, in suburbia, probably gets you 5-6k square feet or more), and go up pretty fast from there.
HOAs and their restrictions seem very much to be a form of conspicuous consumption—"we can afford to keep our lawns all precisely the same length, and precisely the same shade of green, regardless of the fact that we're in a months-long drought"—as well as a vehicle for petty tyrants who enjoy enforcing their particular idea of what A Perfect House And Lawn looks like on everyone in their development.
It's very common in some parts of the country. AFAICT it's much more common in the south. There's definitely places in the northern states that have HOAs but it feels much less ubiquitous.
Also, IIRC many/most condos and townhomes often have something like an HOA that serves their common interests and joint expenses.
I've read of cases where people haven't been able to have a neat vegetable garden in their front yard, or xeriscape with a rock/cactus garden. Strikes me as crazy.
It is all about risk, ambiguity and individual circumstances. I dont think that is bad, but there is no clear record of what it even is we are meant to protect.
If you're in the business of "doing free services so you can skim GB's of data from users" or you "sell wholesale data collected without notice", the EU doesn't want you.
If you're doing a good job of keeping user data private except at the direct request of a user in a plain-language direct permission, then you're doing a good job to the GDPR. Slipups happen, and as long as you do your best to stop the bad thing, limit the breach, notify users, and be a good steward for their data, then it's all good.
As a US citizen, I try to make a point to only work with companies that adhere to the GDPR. I know they don't have to do so with me. But it tells me their internal processes are set up to respect the user's rights. And well, running dual systems for different compliance regimes is a tough sell - its easier to do 1 big system.
> as long as you do your best to stop the bad thing, limit the breach, notify users, and be a good steward for their data, then it's all good
If that regulator happens to like you. There is no schedule of offenses and penalties and due process, only an absurdly high maximum for selective enforcement.
And there are a lot of regulators. Some of them a lot more combative than others. That is my main reason for dislike for the regulations.
Overall I support the regulations, but I really wish the penalties had more documented structure than “We will fine you anywhere from 0 to an 8 digit number (in our case) depending on what we think is right”.
There is due process. If you think a regulator's decision was illegal, you can escalate to the courts. Some member states may not have the best justice system, but that's what the ECJ is for.
There is no explicit schedule – that could be gamed – but that doesn't mean regulators can act arbitrarily. Punishments have to be proportional to the infraction, similar cases have to be treated similarly... The GDPR just does not spell out how public authorities work.
It actually does say that punishments have to be proportional IIRC. I'm not sure if that actually makes a legal difference or if it was included to make the GDPR easier to understand.
And you pay for the lawsuit out of your own pocket. Now you need to run a business and fight a very expensive legal battle against the government. That same government that regulates your business.
I don't see why this changes anything. Lawyers still cost a lot of money. They might not seem like they cost a lot of money to Americans, but that's because Americans earn a lot more money.
>So what? If you have a grievance with an entity, that's the entity you have to fight a lawsuit against.
One of the grievances people have against GDPR is that they don't like how GDPR's enforcement depends so much on the individual person at DPAs. You'll still have to deal with the person afterwards that you sued.
Yes. Each party paying their own fees is a uniquely American thing.
> I don't see why this changes anything. Lawyers still cost a lot of money.
Prohibitively high lawyer fees are a uniquely American thing. The ECHR guarantees practical and effective access to the courts.
> One of the grievances people have against GDPR is that they don't like how GDPR's enforcement depends so much on the individual person at DPAs. You'll still have to deal with the person afterwards that you sued.
That Americans have against the GDPR. Given that the people who actually have experience with European authorities and law don't see these issues, it's very likely they don't exist.
You don't necessarily have to deal with the same person. Even if a DPA always assigns the same person to you, there is no oversight, that person is petty and cares more about harming you than about their job: We have rule of law and a functioning court system. And I can't help but find these continuing insinuations that we don't pretty insulting.
Precisely this. The cost and complexity of complying with GDPR is directly proportional to the scale and complexity of your data processing operations. If you comply with the principles of the legislation - collect the minimum possible amount of data, store it for the minimum possible time and process it only in ways that are essential - then compliance is very straightforward. Things only become ambiguous when you're trying to do something that the GDPR doesn't want you to do.
What's written on that web pages is clear enough for me and it's the same as my own understanding of personal data. It is rather abstract and I can admit that it may be not easy to understand for others without some good examples. But it's a complicated topic in general, that has to be studied beyond reading a single article or text of EU law.
You can infer that it is meant to represent a human, and thus likely to move across a crossing, but there’s no reason to expect a computer to read it as a human right?
The most obvious characteristic is distinctly not human (Legs don’t work that way), so it looks like some weird windmill, or one of those hot air moving men.