Third year?

Wow... in my third year of animation I knew how objects move.

Mind you, I'd been working professionally for 2 of those years.

This guy hasn't got a clue. Both the pendulum effect and the way objects move in the air is completely off. The pendulum is especially sad, since most 3d animation programs have a default movement curve which perfectly simulates that sort of motion.

*engineering

Impressive and make no mistake; members of salvage crews have died trying to save such vessels and prevent such disasters.

The marine engineers and software simulation guys who model the ships so that the tow/pumps/counter flooding plan can be put together are key...

Congratulations! Your video, Goat Simulator: Waste of Space, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 16 Badge!

Actually, I would say I have a pretty good understanding of machine learning. I'm a software developer and while I don't work on machine learning day-to-day, I've certainly read a good deal about it.

As I've already said, Tesla's solution is not autonomous driving, completely agree on that (which is why I said the video is probably fake or the driver was just messing with people).

A stock market simulator is a different problem. It's trying to predict trends in an inherently chaotic system.

A self-driving car doesn't have to have perfect prediction, it can be reactive as well as predictive. Again, the point is not whether self-driving cars can be perfect. They don't have to be, they just have to be as good or better than the average human driver and frankly, that's a pretty low bar.

That said, I don't believe the first wave of self-driving vehicles will be passenger cars. It's far more likely to be freight (specifically small freight, i.e. courier vans).

I guess we'll see what happens.

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

Your video, Goat Simulator: Waste of Space, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 17 Badge!

I know someone who was truly infuriated that Goat Simulator was a success. For them, people choosing to play a deliberately badly made game was the final sign of imminent societal collapse.

I'm going to send them a little email.

Bizarre, I watched that and had the complete opposite reaction.
Guess I'm more cerebral in my mass murder simulators.

Do rival taggers come by and beat you up for defacing their art?

Do you have to run from angry homeowners?

Do the cops shake you down because they see all the paint on your hands?

Not much of a simulation.

I have tried to do this in helicopter simulators, so many times. I would say I had a 25% success rate.

I never got sold on motion control. It just has never been precise enough to feel like anything more than a gimmick to me. Maybe just confirmation bias, but everything I tried on Wii just felt really weird, clunky, and plasticky. I'll admit that I haven't really tried much of anything since then (and Wii is really old news by now).

Anyway, all the demos here looked cool for their 3D immersion, but my old bias against motion control kind of put a bit of an unfavorable spin on everything -- at least to me. Fine, small-scale motor skills are just going to be really hard to simulate with two wand-like things, even when they have multiple degrees of freedom and seemingly pretty solid accuracy.

...But, I'll admit that the archery mini-game looked like a really fun adaptation of that that wouldn't necessarily require *extremely* accurate fine control. Moving out of gimmick territory and into "ok, that could actually be extremely entertaining".

You said...."1. Nobody can say for certain what the F-35 is capable of or not capable of." then went on to write tomes and tomes about what's it's capable of, most of which has been contradicted by the testing, but you would rather believe what some test pilot said it may be able to do some day in the future if they fix all the problems or what your flight simulator games represented. HA!!!! Good one.

There's a HUGE difference between random vegan's self serving idea of what is and what is not good nutrition and factual historical data about the existence or non-existence of dogfighting since WW1. The cracked.com was simply a follow up entertainment article delineating 5 notable dogfights since WW1.

Smell ya later.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

The first time this will probably come into consideration in the real world is consciousness uploading. It's not far fetched that we will eventually have the technology to take a snapshot of all of the atoms in our bodies and simulate that arrangement on a computer of some sort.

It would be exactly like your consciousness if it's simulated with 100% accuracy. And again, who can say that we'll never get to that point? But when your biological self dies, will you really be immortal if the original consciousness is destroyed?