search results matching tag: understeer

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (18)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (0)     Comments (112)   

Man Rips Up His Cash Over Seat Belt Ticket

newtboy says...

I don’t understate or underestimate the impact or cost of obesity, I only point out that no one else has to directly pay for your care because you got fat by your own choice, but others might and often do foot the bill for the irresponsibility of not wearing a seat belt.
Discounting is a partial fix….by how much? How do they decide how much worse your injuries are because you didn’t wear a belt…and who decides…and what’s the cost of doing that math? I’m perfectly fine with people not being safe as long as they accept 100% of the risk….it should be wear no belt, get no injury recovery (or insurance coverage) period. Anything less makes the case for seatbelt requirements imo.

visionep said:

Quick google search, since I never really looked at the legal liability side pf this issue before.

Some states actually hold drivers accountable for not wearing their seatbelts and discount the payout for injuries, others don't allow insurance companies to consider whether the driver was wearing a seatbelt or not when looking at their injuries. (California discounts, Pennsylvania doesn't)

I think you are understating the societal impact of obesity compared to drivers getting more badly injured without seatbelts. To be clear I don't think the government should be regulating either.

Man Rips Up His Cash Over Seat Belt Ticket

visionep says...

Quick google search, since I never really looked at the legal liability side pf this issue before.

Some states actually hold drivers accountable for not wearing their seatbelts and discount the payout for injuries, others don't allow insurance companies to consider whether the driver was wearing a seatbelt or not when looking at their injuries. (California discounts, Pennsylvania doesn't)

I think you are understating the societal impact of obesity compared to drivers getting more badly injured without seatbelts. To be clear I don't think the government should be regulating either.

newtboy said:

Perhaps not, but we don’t live in a free society, nor a responsibility free society.

The effects are not low. The difference in cost of a serious car crash with and without seatbelts is in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Again, because you can be “at fault” through no fault of your own, and responsible for all injuries the other driver suffers, it’s not just smart but the only responsible move to be forced to wear them and minimize the shared risk.
It’s 100% unfair for the other driver to be allowed to take the high risk of not wearing it but you have to pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility….don’t you think?
The difference here as opposed to, say, obesity is the risk/consequences of the irresponsibly transfer to others regularly and often completely (at least financially).

If not wearing it was an automatic waiver for any and all bodily injury damages, fine, but it isn’t so being forced to wear it is the only sane and rational move. Because that choice can turn a no damage bump into injuries requiring life long care

Multi-Agent Hide and Seek

L0cky says...

This isn't really true though and greatly understates how amazing this demo, and current AI actually is.

Saying the agents are obeying a set of human defined rules / freedoms / constraints and objective functions would lead one to imagine something more like video game AI.

Typically video game AI works on a set of weighted decisions and actions, where the weights, decisions and actions are defined by the developer; a more complex variation of:

if my health is low, move towards the health pack,
otherwise, move towards the opponent

In this demo, no such rules exist. It's not given any weights (health), rules (if health is low), nor any instructions (move towards health pack). I guess you could apply neural networks to traditional game AI to determine the weights for decision making (which are typically hard coded by the developer); but that would be far less interesting than what's actually happening here.

Instead, the agent is given a set of inputs, a set of available outputs, and a goal.

4 Inputs:
- Position of the agent itself
- Position and type (other agent, box, ramp) of objects within a limited forward facing conical view
- Position (but not type) of objects within a small radius around the agent
- Reward: Whether they are doing a good job or not

Note the agent is given no information about each type of object, or what they mean, or how they behave. You may as well call them A, B, C rather than agent, box, ramp.

3 Outputs:
- Move
- Grab
- Lock

Again, the agent knows nothing about what these mean, only that they can enable and disable each at any time. A good analogy is someone giving you a game controller for a game you've never played. The controller has a stick and two buttons and you figure out what they do by using them. It'd be accurate to call the outputs: stick, A, B rather than move, grab, lock.

Goal:
- Do a good job.

The goal is simply for the reward input to be maximised. A good analogy is saying 'good girl' or giving a treat to a dog that you are training when they do the right thing. It's up to the dog to figure out what it is that they're doing that's good.

The reward is entirely separate from the agent, and agent behaviour can be completely changed just by changing when the reward is given. The demo is about hide and seek, where the agents are rewarded for not being seen / seeing their opponent (and not leaving the play area). The agents also succeeded at other games, where the only difference to the agent was when the reward was given.

It isn't really different from physically building the same play space, dropping some rats in it, and rewarding them with cheese when they are hidden from their opponents - except rats are unlikely to figure out how to maximise their reward in such a 'complex' game.

Given this description of how the AI actually works, the fact they came up with complex strategies like blocking doors, ramp surfing, taking the ramp to stop their opponents from ramp surfing, and just the general cooperation with other agents, without any code describing any of those things - is pretty amazing.

You can find out more about how the agents were trained, and other exercises they performed here:

https://openai.com/blog/emergent-tool-use/

bremnet said:

Another entrant in the incredibly long line of adaptation / adaptive learning / intelligent systems / artificial intelligence demonstrations that aren't. The agents act based on a set of rules / freedoms/constraints prescribed by a human. The agents "learn" based on the objective functions defined by the human. With enough iterations (how many times did the narrator say "millions" in the video) . Sure, it is a good demonstration of how adaptive learning works, but the hype-fog is getting a big thick and sickening folks. This is a very complex optimization problem being solved with impressive and current technologies, but it is certainly not behavioural intelligence.

Thai PSA: Boss Da Market

How the deadliest aviation accident in history was avoided

TIE fighter remastered-a short anime film

NirnRoot says...

Gotta say I liked the original more; it was more understated than this remake (well, aside from its metal take on the Imperial March theme ;-). The lack of dialogue was one of its strengths, and that's lost in this "remaster".

Motorcycle Drives Off Cliff

Digitalfiend says...

Exactly. In a different video he claimed that the steering "locked up"...um yeah, I think it's more likely he was going too fast and braked while trying to turn into the corner and quickly learned what understeer is.

Democrats Divided on Hillary and Bernie: A Closer Look

RFlagg says...

In the end she needs Sanders' supporters. Her job as a leader, is to reach out to Sanders and his supporters and get them behind her. I still think she and the DNC need to give him the primary Prime Time spot during the convention, and they need to give other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus a large percentage of the time during the convention. That move, along with a good progressive VP candidate (I think Dennis Kucinich for reasons I've detailed before) would go a long way to helping secure the nomination. And as pointed out by @newtboy, her supporters in '08 were Democrats, so it isn't nearly the same story as what Sanders is doing now. The Democrats will continue to vote for her, it is the independents that you need to turn out and vote against Trump. Trump is doing better than expected at getting the Republicans behind him, and their hatred of Clinton can't be understated. Not to mention of course fears of indictment and other issues ahead of Clinton, such as the likely hood the Republicans would try to impeach her first thing... even if they don't impeach her, they'll stonewall congress like they have against Obama anyhow. They need to get the independents out to vote against the Republicans and have a Senate change as well, and I don't see them really working to that end yet, which mystifies me to no end.

Chinese guys try to read tattoos

lucky760 says...

"If you're an undertaker, that tattoo would be okay."

That got my vote. Good stuff. I like their understated dead-pan delivery.

*promote

"I'm a vegetarian, but I'll bite you." LMFAHS lolol

"Wow", Understatment of the Century. Wait for it.

lucky760 says...

Hah.

His last line translates as "fuck your mother" (or more loosely "motherfucker").

I like him for the understated "wow," but I hate him for catching an exploding volcano on his camera then pointing it at the ground and turning it off.

Maybe he was afraid for his life, but you can't outrun a volcano. Ever hear of Pompeii, amigo? Keep the camera rolling!

(P.S. Didn't have to wait for it. Thumbnail spoils the surprise.)

Vintage Cover - No Diggity Jessica Rabbit Style

Zawash says...

She flirted shamelessly with me throughout the rest of the show - and yes, she's all that.

As a side note - the vignetting effect in the video must be understated - I can't seem to recall noticing anyone (or anything) else during that song.

And - she's not bad. She's just - drawn that way.

Payback said:

Almost downvoted...


... but... must... be... hap... py... for fellow... sifter...

Kevin Ward Jr. hit and killed by Tony Stewart

newtboy says...

As an ex racer I will say this is disturbing and should definitely be investigated as a criminal act.
First, watching the initial incident closely, Stewart definitely turns into Ward intentionally putting him in the wall. That's likely not criminal, but it should get him thrown out of the circuit, and watched closely by any other circuit he drives in.
Second, the point made in the description is quite valid but understated. He DID know that hitting the throttle would send the whole car, and especially the rear end, sliding to the outside of the turn. Any attempt to claim otherwise is completely ridiculous, he's a professional driver and he knows that. That means even if Stewart didn't intend to hit Ward, he did intend to drive dangerously close to him at unsafe speed wile sliding partially out of control. It seems likely he only intended to spray him with the dirt roost and/or scare him but burped the throttle too soon...that is not an excuse or absolution in any way.
Being on a track doesn't absolve you from behaving safely, or from responsibility for your deliberately unsafe actions. Killing Ward may have been accidental, but acting dangerously irresponsibly was not. An accident that happens when you are acting unsafely is 100% your fault and responsibility, it's exactly why we have the charge of manslaughter and not only murder. Hitting and killing him when you unsafely accelerate at him in a dirt corner was foreseeable by any reasonable person....I would almost certainly convict him.

What is NOT Random?

shinyblurry says...

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

Sagemind said:

hahaaaa, NO!
If DNA was made by a "Designer", then he was the worst designer ever.
DNA can be so broken and flawed, carry latent patterns, defective genes and so on. DNA may seem complicated to those who don't study and know it (Me). But it's being studied and we are gaining a huge understanding of DNA. What it's capable of, and what it's not, and where all the flaws and broken parts are.

Sorry Shinyblurry, if your God was the designer, then that would be conclusive proof that your God is far from perfect and in fact not very good at his job of creation..

Christopher Hitchens debates Scott Ritter on Iraq

bcglorf says...

Spoiler, Hitchens 'wins' the debate. I can't honestly say I've watched or listened to a debate between him and anyone were that did not seem to be the case. As often is the case though too, his grandest victory is understated, brief and easily overlooked.

Ritter thumps hard on the absence of WMD in Iraq to condemn the invasion, which on it's surface seems a strong argument. Hitchens casually references an unwillingness to be lectured on WMD's by those who cautioned against invasion for fear that Saddam would use those WMD on US troops. Scott Ritter went on Crossfire before the invasion to state that Saddam could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons and invading was too risky.

Two Examples Of Anti-Science Politics Side-By-Side

bcglorf says...

This can't be understated. If we could see the same anti-science lash back for the anti-nuclear and anti-GMO crowds that'd be great. Too bad a lot of the most vehement and vocal climate change warnings come from folks also trying to 'educate' everyone about how terrible nuclear power and GMO crops are. After all the last thing we need are energy sources and seeds that radically reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn each year.....

GeeSussFreeK said:

Other interesting anti-science partisan issues are GMO/biotech, nuclear power, evolution, big bang, vaccines, AIDS, fracking, organic foods, vitamin supplements, and a host of others. Note that many of those are pegged in liberal circles as well, anti-science is a bipartisan issue, just depends on the issue.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon