I can't recall where i saw it, but a long time ago i saw a comedy skit(maybe) that had a large spike coming from the steering wheel in order for people to drive more carefully.

@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.

Woah, woah, you're way overstating it. The tech is nowhere near ready for full hands-off driving in non-ideal driving scenarios. For basic navigation Google relies on maps and GPS, but the crux of autonomous navigation is machine learning algorithms. Through many hours of data logged driving, the algorithm will associate more and more accurately certain sensor inputs to certain hazards via equation selection and coefficients. The assumption is that at some point the algorithm would be able to accurately and reliably identify and react to pedestrians, pot holes, construction areas, temporary traffic lights police stops among an almost endless litany of possible hazards.

They're nowhere near there though and there's simply no guarantee that it will ever be sufficiently reliable to be truly hands-off. As mentioned, the algorithm is just an equation with certain coefficients. Our brains don't work that way when we drive. An algorithm may never have the necessary complexity or flexibility to capture the possibility of novel and unexpected events in all driving scenarios. The numbers Google quotes on reliability from its test driving are on well mapped, simple to navigate roads like highways with few of these types of challenges but real life is not like that. In practice, the algorithm may be safer than humans for something like 99% of scenarios (which I agree could in itself make driving safer) but those exceptional 1% of scenarios that our brains are uniquely able to process will still require us to be ready to take over.

As for Tesla, all it has is basically auto-cruise, auto-steer and lane changing on request. The first two is just the car keeping in lane based on lane marker input from sensors, and slowing down & speeding up based on the car follow length you give it. The most advanced part of it is the changing lanes if you indicate it to, which will effectively avoid other cars and merge. It doesn't navigate, it's basically just for highways, and even on those it won't make your exit for you (and apparently will sometimes dive into exits you didn't want based on lane marker confusion from what I've read). So basically this is either staged or this guy is an idiot.

So, I don't want to take anything away from these dogs. They are smart, extremely trainable and handle adverse environments with ease. Kudos to them for this "feat" of outer worldly doggie duties.

But lets not kid ourselves here, the dogs are NOT flying the plane. The yoke is locked and they are simply pushing down left or down right to "steer" the plain. Impressive for the likes of dog... but not flying.

Flying involves so much more than tilting the yoke. Way finding, fuel/weight calculations, the ability to take off and land, stall evasion, emergency outs, the ability to understand weather forecasts and weather patterns, etc, etc, etc.

If the pilot unlocked the yoke those dogs would have nose dived into some English ninnies garden in less time than it would have taken them to eat a treat.

Up voting for the dogs... down voting for the schmaltzy human commentary.

When the entire crowd taunts a candidate running for public office, you kinda know that you're a bum steer...

*Seriously, the clip ends with "Let me respond"... \= |

Well, I must admit you have a point. I don't think that way, growing up around animals that were food, and doing the work ourselves, not hiding from it, but most people don't have that experience.
My opinion is that ending the intolerable suffering some animals are subjected to is more important than ending meat eating, so I suggest trying to convince people to use smaller, family farmed meats that are more likely to have proper, 'humane' treatment and death....but not by shaming them with images of abused animals or blaming them for eating the wrong thing. That only gets people defensive. Simply explaining how the better treatment creates a MUCH better, tastier, 'cleaner' (of hormones and anti-biotics) meat that's worth the extra effort, and extra cost, should work better. Appeal to people's unwavering belief that they deserve better, and steer them in a direction that also works for your goal.
I don't think you'll ever convince a high percentage of meat eaters to go vegetarian, much less vegan, and I think that guilt and shame make people want to fight about the issue rather than do anything. But that just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)

All this said, I've realized that I'm fighting against my own interests, because if most people went vegan, meat would be much cheaper and better quality (it would have to be to sell). Oh well, not the first time. ;-)


EDIT: I've just realized something else. You should never use the 'we don't kill people like that' argument, because we absolutely do kill people when it suits our purposes, like prisoner executions and wars, and also including for food (in a way) in places and times where societal pressures hadn't made eating people 'taboo'.

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Love this song *promote

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?

There is now such thing as Rise of the Far Right. The Right has never changed. It the RISE of THE FAR LEFT which has push this country in the wrong direction for the last 6 decades.

The Kochs are just trying to steer the country back to its origins.
There is no radical right. There is only the RADICAL LEFT.

True, but consider just how far Bernie can take us with both sides of congress bought and paid for, and I'm ready to let him steer the car, knowing that so many others will be riding the brake and pulling us out of gear constantly. We won't get too far into socialism, but a little bit might go a long way.

When Stephen Colbert made his Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation joke the trending hashtag was #cancelcolbert, not #iwronglyfindthisjokeoffensivebutwouldneverseektosilenceitsauthor. Control is the agenda of the StinkyJeWs, page by page, paragraph by paragraph.

Let's say you're a writer for a videogame being developed by CompanyA, which in turn is owned by MegaCorpX. Some leaked bit of dialogue or a screenshot of an immodestly dressed character rubs the stinkies the wrong way and off they go, shrieking and howling: #megacorpxisracist, #firechaosengine; articles pop up on Kotaku and Polygon lamenting the state of misogynistic gaming culture, in which perverts and serial harassers like ChaosEngine are still allowed to dominate the industry and keep POC and female voices out in the cold. #boycottcompanya, #chaosengineisapaedophile, #megacorpxfundsrapeculture

Sure enough MegaCorpX doesn't like the negative, if ludicrously inaccurate, publicity and the word comes down the totem pole: the game's cancelled, or the plot has to be rewritten, or you're fired, tough luck. You really mean to tell me that no censorship has occurred at any stage of that process?

I shouldn't have to remind you that corporations aren't people. They're steered not by principle but by market forces. If I shove a boulder off a hill and it rolls into your house, I don't get to say "Well it's nothing to do with me, the rock could have swerved aside, it could have stopped halfway down or it could have turned around and climbed back up the hill. It was entirely its own decision to flatten your home."

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

Part of me wants this to happen.

Seriously, the world is already pretty fucked with climate change etc. It's probably too late to steer around the iceberg, so fuck it, full steam ahead and let's sink the whole fucking thing and get it over with.

It's not even 9am here and I'm at work.... too early to start drinking?

Thanks

Bandit is a steer, so screwing the cows isn't a concern, it's really all about the money. It takes about a hectare of grazing land per animal (see http://www.mla.com.au/Extension-and-training/Tools-and-calculators/Stocking-rate-calculator for the gory details) if you raise them outside, compared to a few square metres if you keep them chained up.

I'm a little surprised that this is allowed in a civilised country.