BugsJustFindMe

> "I wonder how much of it comes from the clock speed bump (4.93 GHz from 4.26 GHz, +15.7%)"

About 15.7%.

> "If it were largely clock speed, I worry we'll find that thermal throttling makes these numbers only generally available in the lab"

Going from TSMC's 3nm N3P to 2nm N2 process reduces overall power consumption and thermal output by more than 15%. The reason they're able to boost the clock is because they have new headroom. It also increases the thermal density, which means the heat that's generated needs to be moved more quickly, which is probably why they also have new thermal management.

> "Information saturation also results in accidents, ..."

Information saturation is another way of saying attention incapacity.

I said favorable circumstance, not favorable conditions. I mean the person in front of you doesn't stop quickly or veer into your lane very often regardless of whether there is e.g. fog or some confusing signage. Knowing what to do in a confusing situation is a hard problem, but avoiding a crash when someone stops abruptly with full visibility requires mostly safe management of speed, distance, and lane exit options, which people are terrible at.

Why would I fail to include driving with untreated narcolepsy in my definition?

> as a set of behaviors

I think you're thinking about "set" and "behaviors" incorrectly here. The definition wouldn't need to state "and doesn't fall asleep", because abstractions like "being attentive" and "anticipating things that might go wrong" already cover that.

I'm curious about your story!

> How long do you sit in a bath?

I'm an American and my answer is at least an hour, maybe more, depending on how I'm feeling. I usually listen to an audiobook. Baths are for hanging out and relaxing in.

My primary concern is with your treatment of "unsafe" as meaning nothing less than "dead".

Brought to you by the same madhouse as:

The all potato diet that really does work: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in...

and

The half-tato diet that doesn't really work: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2023/06/23/half-tato-diet-anal...

> "~5,500 person-years worth of driving between crashes"

That's between fatalities, not between crashes. The reported injury rate is 62 times higher than the fatality rate, and the overall police-reported crash rate is 170 times higher than the fatal crash rate.

The article uses robotaxis as its example self-driving group, but it's not an article about robot vs human taxis. It's an article about self-driving vs non-self-driving vehicles.

The nice thing about a future where all cars are self-driving (this probably will happen) is that it won't only be the taxis that get replaced.

Remember, I'm responding specifically to how good people are at driving, not how likely they are to die while driving. How likely a person is to die is mediated by all kinds of things that have nothing to do with how good they are as a driver, like airbags and seatbelts and crumple zones.

In thread context, you're conflating a bunch of things, and it screws up your position as each additional conflation gets you further and further from your headline statistic into "??? -> Profit" underpants gnomes territory.

1) Fatalities vs non-fatal injuries. Not the same thing.

2) Crashes that caused injury vs crashes that did not cause injury. Not the same thing.

3) Crashes that did not cause injury vs crashes that could not have caused injury. Not the same thing.

4) Crashes vs unsafe behaviors that could cause a crash. Not the same thing.

5) Being "safe" in the sense of "enjoying fortunate circumstance" vs being "safe" in the sense of "actively contributing to safety". Not the same thing.

Here is a thought experiment for you to consider:

If you run a red light and the cross traffic brakes and swerves around you, so no collision occurs, were you driving safely? No, right? Then why would you think that fatalities are the true measure of driving goodness?

1) What makes you think she has insurance coverage?

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science

You cannot measure driver goodness (skill and vigilance) by looking at crash statistics, because crashes are definitively circumstantial. Most very clearly bad/dangerous/unskilled/unvigilant operations of automobiles do not lead to crashes.

It's a category error to say that everyone else are good just because they're not the worst you can imagine. It doesn't matter what your worst 0.05% do. It doesn't make most people actually good drivers.

> "The majority of drivers are good, but some drivers are really bad."

I take issue with this. The majority of drivers are "mostly fine as long as circumstances are favorable", not "good". People for the most part do not even know about the concept of defensive driving let alone practice it. Even the best people are fundamentally complacent in basically everything they do. They zone out sometimes, they get too close, they don't always look where they're going. They don't get into more collisions because the world doesn't throw more obstacles at them, not because they're good at driving.

Don't worry. That's not why.

Except for all the other ones.

> "Researchers did not have access to participants' locations because the medical data had been de-identified."

Not even including the country is an unfortunate over-deidentification for something like this. It would have been medically useful and individually non-compromising to know how the groups align with national legal requirements.

Nobody who cares about UX adds virtual knobs to flat interfaces.

The word "people" doesn't stop at the one person wearing the glasses. Don't pretend that Meta's corporate data governance decisions aren't also by people being assholes.

What you're describing is not a Meta or a glasses problem. It's an asshole problem. IMO, devices should not be responsible for people not being assholes. People should. The glasses become significantly less useful as mobility aids if you decide they're not allowed to have cameras in them.

For all the talk about Meta Ray-Ban glasses being used by creeps and assholes (no debate, they certainly are), the one anecdote I care most about is that a friend of mine who is blind absolutely loves his pair as a mobility aid. Things worth thinking about.

Meanwhile OpenAI resets everyone's weekly Codex limits back to 100% seemingly every other day as a kind of game.

Speed Disk for Mac was even better because it used fun colors and _really_ showed things moving around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUKvTe1q7CE

This reminded me of PostSecret.

tl;dr:

Every minimum-wage supporter would actually be fine with the extremely reasonable position of paying everyone in proportion to the replaceability of their actual work and then letting businesses that don't know how to provide value just go out of business. Raising the wage floor is just an imperfect-but-actionable proxy for that because nobody is willing to honestly explore curbing the excesses of the executive and investor classes.

> "What do minimum wage supporters expect to happen with people whose labor does not produce >= $minimum_wage worth of value?"

Can I assume that you're referring to the executives? Just kidding. Of course you aren't.

You can either mandate that people get paid commensurately with the difficulty of replacing their actual labor (as opposed to merely of their position[0]) or you can raise the floor and hope that it approximately achieves something close enough, but you must pick one.

[0]:

The position of CEO of a company has great value, someone needs to make those decisions. But the actual labor of a CEO can often be trivially done by even the least intelligent and least motivated employee. They are eminently replaceable. And yet the CEO gets paid in proportion to the position rather than their labor.

Right now executive pay is artificially high relative to their actual labor as "the cost of doing business" and laborer pay is artificially low relative to their actual labor as "the way to stay in business". Why does that seem ok?

Obnoxiously missing in this article, as in every fucking one of these goddamn articles, aside from a hyperlink to an original publication, is any comparison at all with the extremely-known cardiovascular harm caused by the sugar they replace. You don't even need to do any more research. We already have the numbers for it. Just present them side by side.

> when are we going to acknowledge this catastrophe that we are barreling towards?

Not to be a total downer, but probably never unless all the Republicans in the US suddenly disappear? Like, remember who the "we" is in your question. Remember what policies they stand for and what methods they employ.

You've engaged with a straw man and allowed it to gain false legitimacy. Debate on the subjective merits of cocaine vs sugar is a complete derailment in a conversation about whether tricking people is ok.

Ignoring societal conversations about the relative merits of sugar vs cocaine, you appear to have skipped/missed/ignored/misunderstood some very important words in my comment, and it has caused you to believe that I said something I did not say.

I did not say "putting cocaine in food" is bad.

I said "putting cocaine in your food without telling you" is bad.