Emergency braking doesn't use ultrasonic sensors, it uses radar. Ultrasonics are far, far too short range to be of any use in all but the very slowest collisions.

According to Tesla's blog, they started removing radar in 2021.

It's good mostly for the owning class, though, since trickle down doesn't. Remember, the money is spent five times or so if it's handed to the poor, or only a couple of times if it's handed to the wealthy, before it sits around like a turd and stops employing anyone because it's no longer being spent.

Apple got to where it is now with the iPhone. Full stop. It was not a fluke, nor did it come out of the blue since the iPhone could not have happened without the Newton before it, because that was the motivation for Apple's investment in ARM.

As such, Apple should be continually casting a wide net to find the next thing. That means knowing that you will throw a certain amount of R&D money into the void and hoping that it will work out for you one day because you own the IP. This is, once again, a necessary and large portion of how the iPhone came to be such a wild success for Apple. The Newton was never a financial success for Apple even though they tried several iterations, and finally gave up on the platform entirely. But once the maturity of the mobile hardware had advanced sufficiently that the same OS that ran on the desktops could run on affordable handhelds, that experience and the foundation laid with the hardware could pay off. If Apple doesn't continue to make those attempts, then they are setting themselves up for eventual failure.

They obviously know this, and they have in fact pursued a reasonably diverse set of potential opportunities including automotive applications and AR, but as they are swollen with cash it is also reasonable to argue that they ought to be doing more. If they want the best chance at the next big thing, they've got to keep trying more new things. It also, by the way, employs more people...

It seems like the sensible fix is to make it possible to pull that data from one Mastodon server to the next, whether this creates a standard or not is irrelevant to the particular problem. With my complete ignorance of the codebase this seems relatively trivial as tasks go given that they already have syndication features in the platform, but as there are many things I don't know about it perhaps there's some reason why this is difficult.

Let me expand on my statement. In my last comment in this thread, and as I stated, I was calling out the moderators who sought to suppress my questions.

In my comment before that, I was first asking you to support your assertion about the necessity of slavery, and secondly (and at least to some degree separately) I was asking you to support the idea that he deserved some slack because he was old. He's supposed to be a significant character not only for his factual observations but for his moral ones, so I'm inclined to hold him to a higher standard than average. Even at the time there were those who were not slaves who yet opposed slavery.

You can't just say slavery was a necessity and expect to go unopposed, can you?

Some believe Jesus was an Essene, and they were into studying books, so if he existed and he was an essene then it's conceivable that he learned to read in the decades of his life where nothing was written about him.

I see that at least one of the people getting modpoints from this site is a proud defender of slavery. Keep it classy, B!zX.

They should check out the open bugs for Firefox or KDE sometime. Some of them are years old.

False. North America is a continent and what the GP was talking about was first the "American Colonies" of Great Britain and then it was the "United States of America". In neither case is one talking about the land which would become known as Canada and The United States of America. The nation is relevant because it was the laws of the nations involved which permitted the particular arrangement of slavery which we are discussing.

[citation needed]

Why? Old men have had a whole lifetime to learn not to be a prick.

Rail, ofc. Delete the bulk of the long range, high speed highway lanes and replace them with it. Most of the up front cost is the right of way, using the centers of highways makes it cheap. The nation was headed that way until the streetcar conspiracy.

That's partly the algorithm too, though. The speed sensitive cruise control systems should not permit you to choose a following distance which is so excessively close.

But then, that exposes a flaw of the whole system: IME, there is not enough road for all the cars which must use it at commute time to maintain a safe following distance. If they did, then they would be spaced out in such a way that there would not be enough room for them to actually be on the highway, and traffic would simply back up in the places which feed into it. As well, it would never be safe to enter the highway, because there would never be a clear space long enough to enter with safe following distance (and leaving it for the driver behind.) Vast numbers of onramps would have to be altered to address this deficiency. I suspect that mandatory and thus ubiquitous AEB is going to expose this flaw rapidly, with chaos at every onramp.

The best modern ABS systems are smart enough to lock up the brakes just enough to build up a pile of stuff in front of the wheel to aid in braking, then release just enough to let you steer.

In my 1993 Impreza the ABS would not slow the car down AT ALL in icy conditions. I had someone try to turn right while going way too quickly (with no warning, they didn't signal or anything) in front of me in a Toyota pickup going up Cobb in the snow on CA 175. Instead of departing the road for the shoulder like they were trying to, their vehicle turned 90 degrees left (blocking both lanes) and then slid to a stop. The pickup driver in the oncoming lane managed to stop. I barely even pressed the brakes and my ABS activated fully, and the vehicle did not perceptibly slow. It DID allow me to steer gracefully onto the shoulder AND back onto the road, at which point I released the brake and (no one having actually hit anything) continued on my way. This was a wonderful outcome, but it was based on my having had someplace to go. If the shoulder had been blocked or nonexistent, I would have had to have chosen between T-boning the driver's side of the Yota, or driving into the ditch.

Active stability control they are mandating will have this feature will therefore also have that. In fact the NHTSA is also looking at mandating it for heavy trucks, and in the bargain also mandating stability control. I don't know if our bus actually has stability control or not, but it definitely does have ABS, and the generation of Bendix ABS used in it in 1999 was capable of doing ESC.

Nobody is supposed to be driving on public roads such that such an event would cause an accident anyway. Even my car with no ABS and no ESC and a stick (it's an '08 Versa) is arguably excessively dangerous to do that sort of thing with because it has throttle by wire. With my 1989 240SX, which was an OBD-I vehicle, outside of malfunction the vehicle only did what you were asking it to do with the sole exceptions being the idle air bypass and the EGR, neither of which is capable of causing a significantly handling-affecting event. Then at least I was only having to worry about equipment failure or human error.

It's probably due mostly to our higher speed limits and faster vehicles. Yes, your top end vehicles are just as fast as ours, they are the same vehicles, but our average engine displacement is much higher so the torque figures are larger and it's much easier to get into trouble. And speed doesn't so much cause accidents, that's more reckless driving, but it does increase fatalities.

We have great collision testing requirements here, generally the most stringent on the planet in fact, but add enough energy and no strategically shaped piece of sheet metal will save you.