Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Because driving in current conditions requires theory of mind to predict what the other idiots on the road are going to do.
I don’t see why that’s the case. By following current trajectories, it’s easy enough to extrapolate and anticipate possible collisions. It’s similar to how a dog can catch a ball without needing to know about air resistance and gravity. Also, that implies that all drivers are mindful which I think we can find enough evidence to disprove.
I think Tesla are approaching it from entirely the wrong direction by having a fast car and then gradually adding self-driving features to it. It makes more sense to have slow moving autonomous vehicles (without any driver assistance) and learn about their failure modes before then grappling with the extra problems from travelling at speed.
It’s like teaching a learner driver – you don’t go full speed and then hand the controls over to a learner.
And never will, full self-driving being a techno-utopian fantasy that requires strong AI.The only difference between Musk and Holmes is therefore the degree of deception in the grift.
Self driving certainly seems like a tough problem, but I don’t see why it would require “strong AI” (presumably human-level general intelligence). Certainly, there’s plenty of creatures with much smaller brains than us that can navigate perfectly well (e.g. a squirrel finding their way through a maze).
To my mind, the big problem with Tesla’s AI is that they’re just using video cameras and trying to identify everything visually which as CAPTCHAs demonstrate is something we haven’t solved with computers yet. Fitting LIDAR, although expensive, gives much better 3D information about the surroundings.
I’m still holding out for flying cars though – I’m sure we were promised that as kids.
On page 41 of the report,
On page 41 of the report, where the 172% figure comes from, it clearly states “Traffic counts” (although that’s listed under the “assessment period” heading which appears wrong). In contrast, the Enfield study was produced from longitudinal resident surveys.
You did imply strongly that the Garudnia was misrepresenting when you stated “I dont think the think tank report is half as positive about LTNs as the Guardian claims”. However, I do agree that they (Graduian journalists) don’t do in depth fact checking as that doesn’t seem to be a major factor in modern journalism, but I’m not aware of instances where they just make stuff up like certain other news organisations.
I think your issue is more with the Centre for London Think-tank than the Gnarduia
That still only gives percentages, though. We don’t know whether that 172% increase is from 1000 trips to 2720, or from 18 trips to 49 (which could be much more affected by statistical variability).I’d expect the raw figures should be available from the council
The report (https://www
The report (https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CFL-StreetShift-LTNs-Final.pdf) gets the 172% figure from traffic counts from https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/ltns/
It doesn’t look to me as though the Gradnuia is mis-representing the report at all.
Didn’t see a link in that
Didn’t see a link in that article to LA’s crosswalk collective: https://crosswalksla.org/
I don’t usually bother trying
I don’t usually bother trying to bypass paywalls, but it’s easy enough to get to their article. It’s got an interesting bit about how Copenhagen initially had LTN issues back in the 80s
https://www.ft.com/content/2a1c7d1f-d012-4679-b413-f9a19a110471
I wonder if this will get
I wonder if this will get picked up by other news organisations.
Saw that FT covered it a week ago, but it’s paywalled.
Woman pleads guilty to harassment after covering car in underwear“She proceeded to send pictures of the affected car to its owner and his family.”
Tom Jones was playing the Salisbury Guildhall at the time. No buildings harmed, but a worthy addition to the list of reasons why a driver couldn’t possibly have avoided a hazard.
Might lead to a brief loss of attention
You can’t park that there,
You can’t park that there, mate!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/brislington-traffic-live-lorry-ripped-7180974
If its a decent API implementation there is no proprietary information to leak, apart from the specs themselves which have already left the stable…..That’s true for public, documented APIs, but not necessarily true for private APIs. I seem to remember Microsoft used to (still does?) make use of private APIs for its own software and force other software manufacturers to use their more limited public APIs. (There’s also the whole shenanigans between Google and Oracle about whether APIs can be copyrighted and/or patented).
However, I suspect that this case is more of a case of needing a licence/agreement to use the API and Shimano are cancelling that. It makes me wonder what would happen if a 3rd party reverse engineered the protocol/API and then sold products based on that – would Shimano try to sue them?
I doubt we’ll be ditching our ell-wands or Windsors soon. I suppose you should be glad we’re not reverting to pre-decimal currency. Besides a laissez-faire muddle is the British way. Like the UK not being an imperial power – except having the British overseas territories (and Crown dependencies) – oh and sharing our queen.Besides it doesn’t do to be too revolutionary, just look where you could end up [time] [calendar]!
I always thought that the Discordian calendar made a lot of sense. To be honest, our current system of timekeeping is a complete mess – have a look at these falsehoods: https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca
How many different lengths called “mile” are there? How many of those are actually still in use? (at least 3 off the top of my head).Mile, nautical mile, country mile?
The mile, sometimes the international mile or statute mile to distinguish it from other miles, is a British imperial unit and US customary unit of distance; both are based on the older English unit of length equal to 5,280 English feet, or 1,760 yards. The statute mile was standardised between the British Commonwealth and the United States by an international agreement in 1959, when it was formally redefined with respect to SI units as exactly 1,609.344 metres.With qualifiers, mile is also used to describe or translate a wide range of units derived from or roughly equivalent to the Roman mile, such as the nautical mile (now 1.852 km exactly), the Italian mile (roughly 1.852 km), and the Chinese mile (now 500 m exactly). The Romans divided their mile into 5,000 Roman feet but the greater importance of furlongs in Elizabethan-era England meant that the statute mile was made equivalent to 8 furlongs or 5,280 feet in 1593. This form of the mile then spread across the British Empire, some successor states of which continue to employ the mile. The US Geological Survey now employs the metre for official purposes, but legacy data from its 1927 geodetic datum has meant that a separate US survey mile (6336/3937 km) continues to see some use, although it will be officially phased out in 2022. While most countries replaced the mile with the kilometre when switching to the International System of Units (SI), the international mile continues to be used in some countries, such as Liberia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and a number of countries with fewer than one million inhabitants, most of which are UK or US territories or have close historical ties with the UK or US.
Even worse is that you need a conversion table to go between U.S. MPG to UK MPG. Also, “mile” doesn’t even have an agreed upon short-form (it is supposedly “Mi” but no-one seems to use it). UK road signs often use “M” to mean miles except when they use it to mean metres. Imperial units make little to no sense and just sow confusion wherever they’re used.
I detest Imperial units – I’d get rid of them along with the monarchy.
Rich_cb wrote:
If you’re selling it labelled as 2×4 then you’ve got an imperial measurement on it anyway which is all that will change with this legislation. Same with pints etc. I’ve no issue with putting a metric measurement as well but when international standards are in imperial units it makes no sense whatsoever to not use those standards as they are.I don’t think the international standards are in imperial units and just because it’s called “2×4” doesn’t mean that it has to be measured in inches. Computer parts are often “mis-labelled” in MB or GB, but actually measured in Mebibytes (MiB) or Gigibytes (GiB).
Incidentally, the name “2×4” is confusing because that’s not the actual size sold – the “standard” used to be 1 5/8 x 3 3/4 inches and is now closer to 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches or 38 x 89 mm.
This highlights a problem with imperial units – it’s a bad idea to do calculations using them as you have to check whether it’s the actual size or a historic size. If you use metric units then it’s far simpler and everyone agrees on exactly what they mean.
Edit: It’s about time I started on my “cup size” rant with U.S. recipes. It’s so much easier to measure dry ingredients by weight than it is to use volume as some ingredients (e.g. porridge oats) may have different densities according to how the packet has been handled. Also, what cup are they talking about?
Rich_cb wrote:
IMO it makes sense to sell things that have standards based on imperial units in imperial units (eg lumber) and anything else in metric. More than happy to leave it to the free market to decide what people want. Doubt we’ll see much change at all.I’d go for using metric for everything just to avoid confusion. By all means call it 2×4, but have the actual size specified in mm (which I think it is anyway). Similarly, there’s nothing wrong with being sold a “pint” as long as it’s measured in ml.
Imperial units are awkward to use and have a dodgy name as well, so let’s just stop using them for actual measuring even if we continue to refer to a pint of milk etc.