I used to say I had no particular brand loyalty. Then I bought a couple of AMD cards in Crossfire and now I can wholeheartedly say that I side with Nvidia. The number of graphical issues, blue screens, etc... I had to put up with was absolutely ridiculous. When I ran a single card it behaved much better but still had a lot of issues. In short: the drivers were absolutely horrendous and this was on Windows which is presumably where most of their effort goes.

My problem is getting people to listen to my estimates instead of revolting when they hear something they don't like. I typically don't need to estimate long projects so my estimates are typically on the order of days or weeks. As a result I can usually spit ball my estimates pretty accurately off the top of my head. A recent example was a project that I said would take two weeks. My boss balked and said "Why will it take so long? I'll put down one week". Sure enough, the project took 2 weeks.

That's definitely possible and I'd even say likely. Valve does have a preference for PC and anything from them since HL2 on PC has required Steam if my memory serves correctly.

I was hoping for Half Life 3 but since it was launched under a "living room" moniker I was positive that it wasn't going to be. I also highly doubt they'll make Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive. Valve doesn't make any extra money off of SteamOS as opposed to someone having Steam on Windows. Also, it's just not Valve's style.

This is an interesting problem that I like to talk about fairly regularly. Society is going to go through a very painful transition as more and more jobs becomes obsolete due to technology. This is really something that a lot of people should be thinking about. How will society function when nobody can get a job because machines can do it faster, better, and cheaper? Profit based growth no longer makes any sense as we approach that point. What's the alternative and more importantly, how do you handle the transition?

To what degree? CMU had driven a bus cross country with very limited manual intervention when I was an undergrad nearly 10 years ago. The bus only worked on the highway and the "driver" told it when to change lanes and took over to exit the highway but it made most of the trip by itself. I heard this story from Takeo Kanade but unfortunately my Google-Fu is failing to turn anything up so it's possible I'm mis-remembering.

Google's self-driving cars have driven over 300,000 miles without causing accidents while in automatic mode. There are two accidents I'm aware of. One, the car was rear-ended while stopped at a red light. The other was when the Google car rear ended another Prius. In that incident the car was in manual mode.

The assumption you seem to be making is that driving AI needs to be perfect. I'll save you the trouble: it won't be. It just needs to be better than humans. That's something that any auto manufacturer should be able to prove quite easily and would likely become part of standard safety ratings.

A far larger concern should be users that decide hacking together their own driving AI would be fun or those that maliciously hack into other cars. Even these are likely to be relatively small concerns.

I hate when people do that. If you're passing just speed up a lot then slow back down once you're back in the slow lane.

Seriously? 100,000 miles? You realize that's along the lines of 6-7 years of driving for people 19+ right? I'm hoping I just missed a really obvious joke

From arguments I have with my wife on this topic, it's all about not being comfortable with the loss of control. She doesn't even drive yet she insists that manual overrides need to be available in case the algorithm messes up so the human can take over and salvage the situation. I've tried explaining that this is unrealistic anyway because in a vast majority of cases the human is just going to mess things up worse if they take over. The human will take over in cases when they shouldn't since they'll think the machine lost control when it's actually fine. The rare instance when a person taking over actually helps things will be greatly overshadowed by the instances when they screw things up.

People are just uncomfortable about not having control and are also disturbed by looking at things through a statistical lens.

Last I saw Google announced that they had over 300,000 miles with their autonomous cars. That was in August 2012. Still impressive but nowhere near millions.

I find DUI laws to be ridiculous. Just because you CAN take over the vehicle doesn't mean you will. The law should be reserved for those that actually have taken control of the vehicle. Of course, reality means that you are probably correct in your assessment so that needs to be considered.

When I looked up the laws in my state it maxes at about 1/3 of what I currently make. UI works well if you're within a certain salary range but going above that can make it extremely painful. With what UI would pay, I'd be bringing in barely enough to pay my mortgage and utilities forget about anything else. My house is actually pretty average to low end for the area I live in too so it's not like I'm living way better than the typical homeowner in the area. It certainly doesn't help that I'm the only income source for me and my wife.

As someone working at a company that does 2 of those 3 things I'd like to modify "listen to your concerns" to "listen to your concerns and actually consider/act on them". Listening is easy, actually doing something is difficult.

Yup, that's already part of the plan but thanks for the advice.