279 karma · joined November 20, 2022
I am not saying that you're wrong, but I think there is more uncertainty with AI than there is certainty. If you claim to be certain about something then the burden of proof is on you.
It's insane to me that with the threat of climate change looming, the US spent trillions on foreign wars. In the aftermath of 2008, when money was free we spent trillions more on what? More efficient ways to sell shit people didn't need or couldn't afford?
We had two decades and trillions upon trillions of dollars to improve our system in so many ways and it was almost entirely squandered. Even the most politically and financially ignorant Americans can feel how crappy our system has been for the last two decades.
The question is, what will replace it? A human-centric economy that invests money into physical and human infrastructure? Or the meme of neo-feudalism with people working in Amazon cages and paying for Domino's pizza in installments.
It's pretty easy to see, even as someone with very little experience, the benefits of stereo vision over monocular. In addition to the depth stuff it's a lot easier/faster to create your point clouds from disparity maps.
> Whats the difference between a “binocular” camera and two “monocular” cameras?
For the camera itself, nothing. They are probably referring to the implementation. You can have two cameras side by side but unless you are using homography to estimate depth from the two images, then your setup is monocular.
> How does a “binocular” camera get better depth information?
A pixel in two images (with known separation) will have a geometric relationship that can be used to extract depth information. This is a lot faster than alternative methods with a single camera and multiple images.
> Is using multiple cameras to drive sensor fusion?
This is really just a question of semantics.
> Why is absolute depth a strict safety win?
Why is it better to have two eyes than one? You can be more certain about what you are seeing.
> If this is just a handwavey upper bound on safety, how do you know that such a system can’t be safe enough for its design goals?
If you had a system with infinite compute you could probably do enough math to calculate absolute depth with 100% certainty. I believe you can already extract absolute depth with something called bundle adjustment-- but it requires multiple images since you are relying on parallax effects. It is also computationally expensive.
> If humans with only one eye are able to drive, why wouldn’t mono surround vision be at least as good as that?
Computers are not humans.
First, liberal doesn't really mean much in America. Liberal for a lot of people just means "those people I disagree with". For others it means people who uphold property rights and American global dominance to be sacred.
In the north and midwest you have a lot of poor people who are still voting Democrat because their state legislatures have vestiges of union-affiliated Democrat traditions. We see the Democrats in Minnesota being much more pro-worker than in New York or California, places we traditionally think of a "liberal". These people are probably registered democrats for this reason, even though at the national level the democrats are almost as hostile towards labor as the republicans.
In the south you had southern Democrat politicians or Dixiecrats, whose constituents got pulled into the Republican party under Nixon. He used blue collar aesthetics to bring them in under the same umbrella as the wealthy. This makes a lot of sense when you think about the fact that in the south, race and culture is a greater source of identity than class for many people, especially the poor. People will see Joel Osteen as being cut from the same cloth as them because they think that they share the same values.
Lastly, there are a lot of single issue votes in the Republican party on guns and abortion. I don't think that there are as many single-issue Democrats.
It's really not. Don't deport people who file labor complaints. You can protect undocumented workers quite easily.
> Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.
I don't care if they came without a visa or overstayed a visa or literally walked across the border. I think borders are arbitrary and see very little difference anyways.
> I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration.
You are claiming something to be inherent when it is not. Illegal immigration does not create exploitation. Threat of deportation creates exploitation. If the threat of employer retaliation didn't exist, if illegal immigrants were educated about our labor laws, there would not be as much exploitation. It's really simple, I feel that you are being obtuse.
> This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate
Nobody thinks it is compassionate to "let" people live on the streets, they just don't think cops should forcibly remove the homeless. Compassion would be giving them housing and treatment, but you wont see many "liberals" supporting free no strings attached housing.
If by self-medicating you mean harm reduction by giving opioid addicts heroin then I wouldn't say that is compassionate, just the bare minimum. When the alternative is them overdosing on fent or dying from withdrawals.
I think you haven't really thought very hard about these things because your arguments are very tired and simplistic. The answer is not more cruelty, nor is it the half-measures you see in San Francisco or Seattle or whatever. The policy solutions are pretty simple and are supported by empirical evidence in many countries and case studies.
1. An unproductive shift from the actual topic.
2. Clear they didn't bother reading the article.
I don't think anyone has an issue with teenagers working at McDonald's, although I think they should be taught about labor protections first to avoid being exploited by a megalomaniac store manager. Which is a common occurrence since teenagers don't know any better.
I did.
> The problem seems to be driven by undocumented workers crossing the border. There are a lot of dangerous second order effects from having a porous border and this is one of them.
Ok? They are still children. Child exploitation is not an immediate downstream effect of having illegal immigration. It is a downstream effect of having an exploitative system.
> It's also interesting how they talk about it. "crossed the border". You won't find Mexico, undocumented or migrant in the rest of the text.
Yeah probably because the exploitation of children is much more disconcerting than people overstaying their visas or escaping violence. I think the only benefit that the added context would be to segue into arguing for stronger protections for undocumented laborers.
> Without a careful reading you'd think these are lower middle class American's sending their children to coal mines
Again, I don't care if it is undocumented migrant children or middle class Americans. I don't understand why you think this context would change the impression the article is going to give on readers.
I feel like the point you are trying to make is that "It's only the exploitation of people who came here illegally, so it's no big deal."
Minors should not be cleaning dangerous equipment in slaughterhouses. Not to mention the lack of labor protections, blatant disregard for existing labor laws, the fact that most of the children are undocumented... need I go on?
"In February, the Labor Department announced that it had found more than a hundred children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen working in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, in eight states, for Packers Sanitation Services, one of the nation’s largest food-sanitation companies. The facilities themselves are owned by major corporations, including Tyson Foods and JBS. (All three companies denied that they had engaged in any wrongdoing.) The children worked overnight shifts at such jobs as cleaning bone saws and head splitters with hazardous chemicals. At least three were injured."
> then they should make more money
Like this, this is such an incredibly simplistic response that it feels more naive even than a statement like "everyone should be able to live in a big city". If everyone simultaneously makes more money it just changes who is priced out. The current game is zero-sum, I am saying it should not be.
For housing in a city, it makes sense to me to always increase supply such that every place in the USA costs the same. This allows people to move freely, it allows people to congregate with other smart people and have "intellectual density", it allows wealthy investors to live next to struggling bohemian artists, and allows the average Joe to experience all of this just by virtue of existing in that place. I understand there are constraints on land but it's bizarre to me that people have accepted the idea that these places are just naturally "HCOL" locations and not that they have been homogenized and sanitized into this type of place.
> They chose to live in a high cost of living area.
Millions of people are born in HCOL areas and make their lives there. We shouldn't ask them to leave.
But in the US we are indoctrinated to believe that conspicuous consumption is the best thing we can do for our country. Saving hurts our economy and spending drives it forward. Every mainstream economist talks about savings rates like they are a bad thing.
The system has been engineered to simultaneously require people to save a majority of each paycheck in order to live well after they are no longer useful as laborers, but also we are constantly told to spend spend spend.
I say this just because I don't think that it is productive to place the blame on individuals within the system instead of the system itself. I think your analysis is correct though.
Hell, even if someone doesn't spend their whole life working we should still afford them that comfort. But to spend your whole life working and consuming and helping push forward the engine of the economy to only be left out in the cold is a real gut punch.
I think the author should have tried to improve their situation a bit more given that they lived in a prosperous time and place. But regardless they worked every single day and contributed to society. Is that not enough to at least be ensured a comfortable death?