Where is Firefox on Windows Store? I don't see it.
1,220 karma · joined May 16, 2011
> Key line: "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." Romney's wording of this statement in a prior speech was even stronger: "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."
> The claim originated in a Bloomberg News story, which the conservative Washington Examiner construed to mean that Jeep was struggling and considering moving some or all manufacturing from the U.S. to China as a result. When the Romney campaign was questioned about this statement, aides conspicuously stuck to it.
> In an important way it is the opposite of the truth. Between the 2009 bankruptcy filing and 2012, Jeep had robust growth. Its manufacturing in the U.S. was expanding and it was hiring workers. Its overseas sales also picked up, and it was considering re-opening shuttered factories in China. These facilities were not going to replace domestic manufacturing -- they were for making certain models of compact SUVs specifically tailored to the Chinese market, which are impractical to import from the U.S. So the statement, "Jeep is doing poorly and so will move manufacturing to China," is false, while "Jeep is doing well and may resume manufacturing in China," is true. (Furthermore, the deal that left Fiat with a controlling share of Chrysler emerged from talks begun before Obama was president.)
The article focuses on the failure of the class action settlement, due to the "perfect being the enemy of the good" (librarians and individual authors objected to the settlement because they hoped Congress would pass a law to free orphan works, but what actually happened is that no progress has been made).
Links, for those interested:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1570984506/
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=U5uLAgAAQBAJ
Interview with the author: http://www.yellowstonepark.com/unnatural-deaths-yellowstone-...
He was ultimately acquitted on a technicality: http://icelandreview.com/news/2016/07/06/pink-geyser-project...
Some valid points were raised in the man's defense (e.g. the food coloring dissipated fairly quickly) though I can't say I approve.
On a side note, it seems any mention of the controversy has been scrubbed from his Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Evaristti
Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ngram_Viewer
https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/64hmu2/watch_live_pr...
> Last year, the AlphaGo that played against Lee Sedol was v18. The Master that achieved 60-0 was v25. Which version will play this time?
> Scott Beaumont: The exact version of AlphaGo will have to be introduced by the experts working on the project, but it will be the newest version. Defeating Ke Jie is no easy task, and AlphaGo has been continually improving. Also, we hope to continually improve Go as an art, through the wisdom of the players and AI in cooperation.
(Magist/Master was the handle under which AlphaGo played 60 online blitz games last December: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo#Unofficial_online_matc... )
As the article illustrates, our languages are full of ambiguities. Human communication is limited in bandwidth and which features are preserved when we use lossy compression to shrink an article to a summary or title depends on priorities. For example, your suggestion:
> Legislators drafted ambiguous statute and company's interpretation lost out
emphasizes who is at fault, business or government, but loses what the dispute was (overtime pay), where the case was located (Maine), why there was ambiguity (the Oxford comma or lack thereof), and how much was at stake (millions of dollars). There's also something to be said about making it sound catchy (like the alliteration with "Maine" and "millions").
You could put all that back in, of course, but at the cost of more bandwidth consumption. And since everyone has different priorities (for example, someone else might want to know that the company was in the dairy business), there's always more to add until we reach the point where we're just reading the entire article.
So yeah, that's a good insight, but the top HN comment shouldn't be that the article's headline could be interpreted differently.
> "Privacy rules for ISPs are important and necessary, but it is obvious that the more substantial privacy threats for consumers are not the ISPs," the advocacy group said. The bigger threat is posed by "the largest email, search, and social media companies."
By which they're obviously referring to Google and Facebook without naming them. CTIA, the mobile broadband lobbying group, cited this statement in their argument:
"even a prominent privacy advocacy organization asserted that it is 'obvious that the more substantial threats for consumers are not ISPs,' but rather other large edge providers."
I think that, while "large edge providers" may presently collect user information, there is greater potential for ISPs if left unchecked and harder for users to avoid.
I didn't say you did. I suppose you could interpret "I don't think it's safe to say X" as referring to your speech, but I read it as "I don't think X".
> If you want to debate Elon Musk's tweets and not what I'm saying, respond to Elon. If you respond to me, please respond to what I'm saying. You've totally wasted my time, and all the readers of this thread.
Well, I never asked you to debate it. It's a relevant because the TechCrunch article that we're discussing does imply that Autosteer or Autopilot is principally responsible for the 40% reduction in crashes, and in my first comment I expressed my doubts on the claim.
I would agree that "a combination of AEB and autosteer" is possibly the real reason behind the reduction in crash rate, but I would point out that while we already have strong evidence that AEB alone can lead to a large reduction in crash rate we cannot prove or disprove that Autosteer's impact is comparable.
Thanks for explaining. The NHTSA report says:
> ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package, either installed in the vehicle when sold or through an OTA update, to calculate crash rates by miles travelled prior to[21] and after Autopilot installation.
> [21]: Approximately one-third of the subject vehicles accumulated mileage prior to Autopilot installation.
So yes, cars which never had Autopilot installed were not counted, but they obviously did count cars from calendar year 2013 which later had Autopilot installed or else they wouldn't have said "MY 2014".
I don't think it's safe to say that the bulk of the miles driven "before Autosteer" happened between March and October 2015 on cars which had AEB systems available.
> Finally, who said the reduction in crashes is Autosteer alone? Not me. It appears to be a combination of AEB and autosteer. That's what "some of the AEB benefit is in the earlier figure" means.
It's implied by Elon Musk's tweet and all the press articles I've seen that Autopilot/Autosteer is responsible for the 40% reduction in crashes, as I mentioned in an edit to my previous comment.
I don't follow the statement about sensor availability. That doesn't seem to change the fact that all the miles driven "after Autosteer" benefited from AEB, while at most a small fraction of the miles driven "before Autosteer" would have had AEB available.
Given that we know AEB systems do reduce frontal collision rates by 40% for all cars, as the NHTSA report stresses, that implies we cannot attribute the reduction in crashes "after Autosteer" to Autosteer alone.
(Which matters because articles such as the one posted are claiming a cause-and-effect relationship between the introduction of Tesla Autopilot and a reduction in crashes, but if a significant portion or even all of the reduction is due to AEB systems that other cars have also started to adopt then we're mistaking correlation for cause.)
If AEB did lead to a 40% reduction in crash rates for Tesla cars, as it did for other car models, I suspect that moving the dividing line by five months later wouldn't change the figures much: you would still have a lot more crashes prior to AEB and fewer after.
Did Tesla cars have AEB prior to Autopilot installation? If not, then this suggests the 40% reduction in crashes may simply be due to the installation of an AEB system. What effect Autopilot's other features may have would remain uncertain.
Neither do I understand the difficulty finding examples of Google working with other companies: Chromecast, Android, the Play Store, and Google APIs are all examples, and much more relevant to an AI assistant at that.
> By early 2015, Fairfield thought they were getting close: The cars were clocking full days at Google’s testing grounds without needing human takeovers. They had driven 1.2 million miles on public roads and could pull over for emergency vehicles. They could detect and brake for squirrels, and read hand signals from cops and construction workers. They knew when to honk politely (Just making sure you see me here) and when to blare it (You’re about to slam into me!). Then the team spent the next year putting another 800,000 miles on the fleet’s collective odometer, to fine tune everything. And it gave 10,000 rides to employees and “guests.”
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Y_Combinator
> The newer firmware certainly delivered higher peak throughput: up to 800mbps or so, if you click your mouse just fast enough at just the right point of one of the easiest tests. I'm not sure that's an "upgrade." The improved peak throughput comes at the cost of stalled connections, peaky and unpredictable ceilings, and tremendously degraded throughput in the more demanding 10K tests. This would be a downgrade for someone with 100mbps or 200mbps cable, in my opinion.
It's almost clickbait.
I agree autonomous cars hold great potential. But that is precisely why Tesla should not ship a "beta" feature with lives at stake, as that risks squandering that potential. If this is the response to a single Autopilot user killing himself in an accident, imagine the potential backlash if more accidents crop up. Or worse, an Autopilot user kills someone else in an accident.
Critics of Tesla's Autopilot are not only concerned about the danger to Tesla drivers, but to the industry as a whole ("Jaguar engineer: A mishap with Tesla's Autopilot could set back self-driving cars by a decade"): http://mashable.com/2015/12/12/jaguar-semi-autonomy/#QMl5uUB...
Tesla argues that the data it collects from Autopilot users is worth the risk because it can help Tesla develop true self-driving cars faster, but other companies pursuing self-driving cars (including Google) have opted for more controlled testing instead of conducting a grand experiment with customers and the general public.
> Michelle Young, who lives in The Moors, Kidlington, says they did try to solve the mystery.
> "A neighbour did try to ask them where they were from but they didn't speak any English and we didn't get very far," she said.
> Baz Daniels, who has lived in Kidlington for more than 20 years, said he had been in touch with a friend in China to try to get to the bottom of the tourist influx to his village.
> "Kidlington is apparently being marketed by Chinese tourist agencies as a beautiful English village on the way to Bicester Village shopping centre," he said.
> "Many of the visitors live in cities, and love to see things like the hanging baskets and little flowers in people's gardens.
> "Visitors are now actively asking to add Kidlington to their tour itineraries," he added.
It sounds like the real mystery is how it got started and why it hasn't stopped.
Yes, that's exactly what the article said:
> Michelle Young, who lives in The Moors, Kidlington, says they did try to solve the mystery.
> "A neighbour did try to ask them where they were from but they didn't speak any English and we didn't get very far," she said.
In recent years, Google Pixel C, Nexus 9, Nexus 7 (2012), that Project Tango tablet, and Nvidia's own Shield devices (TV, tablets, handheld). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra
Not the best-selling lineup, but a fair amount of developer mind-share thanks to Google's penchant for Nvidia SoCs and Nvidia's own outreach.
Facebook's acquisition of Oculus was announced only a few days before Michael Abrash publicly joined the company. Not sure when Abrash made the decision to leave Valve for Oculus. He did shine a positive light on the Facebook acquisition in his welcome post, but as you suggested it's not as if he was going to badmouth his new employer either way: https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/introducing-michael-abrash...
Palmer Luckey, it seems, was at the very least aware of Facebook's interest and informed of the buy-out, though it sounds like Brendan Iribe handled the business decisions.
This was the best source I could find on what went on behind the scenes between Zuckerberg and Iribe:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/oculus-rift-mark-zuck...
> Discussions ensued over the next few weeks, during which Facebook offered roughly $1 billion, which Iribe considered low. The deal seemed to peter out until late February, after news of the WhatsApp deal hit: Facebook had agreed to pay $19 billion for the messaging service. That got Iribe’s attention. “Hey Mark,” he wrote in an e-mail, “we should talk.”
> They agreed to meet. “Come up and see me,” Zuckerberg said, according to Iribe. “I’m not going to waste your time.”
> Iribe met with Zuckerberg for brunch on the patio at Zuckerberg’s Palo Alto home on a Sunday, in March. They ordered pizza, and Zuckerberg made a new offer: more than $2 billion in cash and stock. It was rich, considering that Oculus had not yet released a consumer product. Zuckerberg promised that Oculus would operate independently within Facebook, just as Instagram did and WhatsApp would. There would be games, sure, but eventually much more: news, sports, movies and TV, cat videos—everything. “I want to do this, and I want this to be the future of Facebook, long-term,” Zuckerberg said, but Iribe would have to act quickly and promise not to shop the deal.
> Oculus, by this point, had a board of directors that included four venture capitalists, one of whom was Andreessen. The board would have to approve the deal. Andreessen hated the idea of selling so quickly, without talking to Facebook’s competitors. “Don’t do this! Don’t do this! Don’t do this!” Iribe recalls Andreessen saying during a late-night meeting at his house after Zuckerberg’s initial offer. (In light of his role on Facebook’s board, Andreessen recused himself after Oculus’s founders began negotiations with Zuckerberg in earnest.) But the board approved the deal.
> It was sealed at Zuckerberg’s house just three days after his and Iribe’s Sunday meeting, over a dinner featuring mushroom risotto and scallops. The meal, Luckey recalls, was “so good.” And Facebook was the right fit. “I knew I was going to want to work in V.R. for the rest of my life. Anything that can make the industry big and successful … that’s a supercool world that I want to live in.”
At least the Oracle vs. Google case revealed that he was actually a paid consultant for Oracle and Microsoft. It might be bad form to attack his character rather than his arguments, but it does save time when dealing with Müller.