There's room for all sorts. While I've met engineers happy just building the widget with all details specified up front, my career has been taking incomplete specs and deciding how the product works to create holistic designs.
Soft disengage -- if the GPU fails it continues to drive via on-device model, alerts the user, and then disengages.
More generally, Comma's safety is handled by a microcontroller. The microcontroller limits steering torque commanded to a safe range for level 2 driver assistance and acts as a watchdog for the rest of the stack. Failure of openpilot causes it to disengage and sound an audible alarm.
I'd like to see DNS ownership combined with the time range and an owner-unique key so you can go to the website you intended to visit rather than whoever happens to own the domain at the moment.
Domains cost money to maintain. They can lapse, change, or be sold. Sometimes people make mistakes. So to my way of thinking they're great as a short-term named identifier but not as a long-term stable identifier. Would be nice to have both.
Will be interesting to see how Google implements a more open DSP wake-word detection. The requirement for it to work without the app holding a default role suggests needing to recognize multiple wake-words for each of the non-default apps that uses one.
From an openness perspective this is excellent. Technically it seems challenging with a DSP designed to detect a single thing using as little power as possible. Currently this balances doing as little work as possible to detect plausible utterances of the wake-word on the DSP while minimizing the costs of spurious wake-ups on the CPU. At the very least multiple wake-words seems to need the DSP to do more work and wake up the CPU more often.
Despite improving production (more tools! more assistants!) and bonus tractors (work harder! heroic labor brigade!) it's not enough to make up for phase 2's punishing 1000 tractors in 60 days, or roughly 16 tractors a day. Even if we give ourselves a full 120 days, that's 8 tractors a day and we seemingly cannot accumulate tools and assistants early enough to do that.
In my final attempt I managed to reach 1000+ tractors at the 120th turn exactly, only to be immediately shot by the workers. Task accomplished unsuccessfully.
There's some logic to wanting to assign responsibility for other's actions upon those who enable it. Like you say, to incentivize intermediates to police their users and those they do business with.
But the problem with deputizing intermediates is that it's too effective. It creates incentives to over-police and we have less rights against corporate policing than we do government policing. We would not have the internet we have today without the user generated content and moderation that section 230 enabled.
Like, as someone who grew up in the formative years of the Internet, I get it, but also, what we have is incredibly bad and it's very possible we'd be better off without it. The tech crowd does not want to admit that every single effing website that lets you post images has CSAM. Every one! The tech crowd doesn't want to admit an entire generation of our kids are screwed beyond belief by social networking. The tech crowd doesn't want to admit that Donald effing Trump got elected because our population is incredibly easy to manipulate.
Our society is very, very screwed up right now and it's very likely the principle cause is that we gave Google and Facebook complete blanket immunity, and that was an incredibly moronic thing to do.
If something needs Section 230 to exist, it shouldn't exist. Full stop.
Appreciate you sharing that. Agree with the overall concern with children using tech and I'd start with banning smartphones in school classrooms. Two observations:
Why stop with image boards? After eliminating all photo uploads, awful people still produced and shared illegal content. So then we eliminated unlicensed camera use. 'Course the real problem still happened.
Hacker News is made possible by Section 230... should it not exist?
This is false. Basically everyone that's argued this has been funded by tech companies. The reality is Section 230 is at best, an inconvenience for good actors, while being an incredible gift to bad actors. It lets a good actor avoid a possible lawsuit. (And law requires intent, Section 230 does not meaningfully protect someone who didn't intend to enable bad actors.) It guarantees a bad actor can profit off crime with impunity.
And I think the financial incentives in participating the Internet absolutely make it worth the risk for a well-run business, including one with UGC, to make reasonable risk decisions about their liability. (HN, selling no ads, nor hosting image or video files, probably has extremely minimal risk.) The marketing about the importance of 230 is crucially about protecting tech companies' immunity and ultimately, their bottom line, but it doesn't mean everything stops existing overnight.
But again, my position remains consistent: If it can't survive without Section 230, it shouldn't.
In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, Prodigy ran a message board and would have escaped liability for defamation by a third-party save one problem: they exercised editorial control by moderating content.
Hacker News faces the same risk.
Respectfully I prefer a world where Hacker News exists.
Back in my day the local telephone company used waxed lacing cable for that sort of thing[1]. These days it seems that polypropylene string is popular (search on "conduit pull string").
You basically want something that is slippery and will tend to not get stuck. I have used Dacron fishing line, but that is mostly because I had a bunch of it laying around.
I wanted to reach you regarding your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44547866 Would you be willing to maybe elaborate on the problems caused - I've planned to adopt Miro Sameks for an application?
DM me via my about me, if interested. Would be very thankful.
