Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:It's not Waymo's fault (Score 1) 111

I can tell you exsctly how many human drivers would respond in a situation like this, because I've seen it happen and have heard about it enough times: the driver would have accelerated away from the incident at high speed.

They would have done that after slamming on the brakes in a vain attempt to avoid hitting the dog, possibly losing control of their vehicle, and possibly causing a collision with other cars or objects. If their reaction failed to cause a serious accident, then maybe they'd have sped away.

Comment Re:One dog and one cat... (Score 1) 111

Many millions of those miles are on roads that never have animals on them.

Until last month, Waymo only allowed their cars to drive on city streets, no freeway driving. Even now, freeway usage is limited, only for selected riders (I'm not sure what the selection criteria is).

So, basically all of Waymo's millions of miles are on streets that often have animals on them.

Comment Re:Shuld the sue Waymo? (Score 1) 111

if it were a medical study on, for example, a robotic surgical system with 10% of the mortality rate of a human surgeon, there would still be concern if, every now and then the system removed a patient's appendix at random during heart surgery.

Sure, there would be concern, but unless you're dumb you will still pick the option with the 90% lower mortality/harm rate. Yeah, it's good to investigate and fix the problem (assuming fixing the problem doesn't increase the mortality rate), but you should still use the provably better option.

Comment Re:Unleashed animal runs into street? (Score 1) 111

The real question is if it simply failed to notice the dog or if it noticed the dog and didn't even attempt to stop.

Also, why it didn't attempt to stop (if it didn't). If it didn't attempt to stop because it correctly determined that attempting to stop would risk causing a more serious accident with other vehicles on the road, that's not only good, it's better than the vast majority of human drivers.

Comment Re: They warn about the dangers of Socialism (Score 1) 56

Really? A Nazi hellscape is pretty damn close to a Stalinist hellscape is pretty damn close to a North Korean hellscape is pretty damn close to a Pol Pot hellscape. The first of those is right wing. The rest are left wing.

HahaHAHAHhAHAHAHahhAHAHahHAHAHAhahAHHAHAHAHHA

*wheeze*

HahaHAHHAHAHAHAHHAhAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Comment Re:Conclusions (Score 1) 111

We know the dog was unleashed, hence the fault is completely with the owner of the dog who didn't take care of them.

False. That's not how anything works. You might have been ok there if instead of "completely" you used the word "most of" a little to the left of there.

And the owner should be fined $500 as well since San Francisco as strict dog leashing laws.

This part is correct.

Comment Re: Unleashed animal runs into street? (Score 1) 111

Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should have walls around the beach because someone might walk into the ocean and drown.

We often do have fences around the beach, especially in areas frequented by a lot of people. They can slow down a child enough for an attentive parent to notice and maybe catch up before they enter the surf or fall off a cliff.

Comment Re:Human validation with history? (Score 1) 80

As far as trying to drag this argument into the COVID vaccines, that sounds like a horrific weak-ass excuse to dismiss the problems that have risen from those particular emergency-authorized solutions.

What problems? You mean the ones that are way less risky than unvaccinated exposure? Whatever, antivaxxer.

Comment Re:One silly law causes problems (Score 1) 63

Should we then apply the same logic to very fallible human drivers?

The entire positive side to bureaucracies and committees and governments is that they have enough people in them to do multiple things at once.

Usually when someone says something like what you said and I quoted above here, they are trying to argue that human drivers shouldn't exist. Maybe this is true, for some particular set of truths, but there's always a number of ways you can look at a situation. For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are currently driving in, because cars are a terrible mode of transportation in the cities where most people live.

Comment Re:Wow... (Score 1) 60

First Street very likely doesn't have some magic model that can predict the future better than anyone else.

When you get a mortgage you have to pay for a flood survey. Even my house 700' above the village where the bank is.

Your flood risk is absolutely predicted by the flood history of your location. The bank writing the mortgage has the skin in the game which is why they make the buyer pay for the flood survey.

It sounds like First Street might be liable for damages based on pseudoscience if these Realtors bring a case. It would be interesting to see them present solid evidence that they prospectively beat the existing flood models and survive a cross-examination.

If they've published a peer-reviewed paper then I missed it.

Comment Re:If you want to do business (Score 3, Funny) 42

Cheaper to just pay the bribes.

In America it's known as K-street. Or "donating" to an Inauguration Gala. Or hosting a high court judge in a European palace for a couple of weeks. Or giving decision makers absurd private sector salaries when they 'retire'. Or giving the Governor's wife a $200K no-show job. Pick your branch, there's a way.

In India the system is less formal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC

Working...