European starlings, or African starlings?
European starlings, or African starlings?
No. That is not how psychology works.
Certainly not. Since psychology doesn't work. Period.
See, what you're missing is simply that it's turtles all the way down.
Actually, comments like yours are the kind of "media hype" they've been getting... It seems to consist of more unsupported criticism than anything else. And more to the point, all the criticisms have been soundly addressed, in a nice convenient list, LAST YEAR:
You'll find a lot of the crap you're spouting is already in there, and already debunked.
I'm currently riding a 2013 Honda CBR1000RR. Always been on the Japanese sports bikes. was a Kawasaki man for a long time until I bought the abortion that was the '07 ZX-10R. Hated it from day one and should have just got rid of it but I kept thinking I'm sure I can get it to handle.... In the end I had an encounter with diesel which led to an encounter with the road and I now have a steel collar bone and one slightly second hand right wrist.
I also have daughters but I haven't had to convince them why I ride bikes. The eldest has a little 50cc with training wheels on it and she likes chasing the chickens with it. The youngest is even more keen. It helps that my wife rides as well of course.
My old man still rides on the road (ST1300) and competes in vintage motorcross. He races an old Maiko 500 from the late 60s and came runner up in the Australian Masters competition last year. Not bad for someone knocking on 70.
I also live at the bottom of a set of mountains with some amazing roads in them. I like to get up early on a Sunday and go for a moderate blast up there for an hour. Makes me feel alive.
Except as a human race we massively suck at conceptualising what risks truly are. Especially when the risks are distributed and applied at a population rather than an individual level.
It is easy for people to visualise the devastation a nuclear meltdown will cause. However we cannot visualise the damage done by using coal for power be it the radiation releases, the carbon releases or the toxins produced.
Even with the car concept I would argue that almost all people get in a car not understanding what the true risks are.
You know the building and the containment vessels are different things right?
But so so so worth it! What do you ride?
Not to mention that moving furniture is damn deadly too! Apparently 15 Americans are crushed to death moving their furniture every year! BAN THE COUCH!
Even better then. Games and photoshop are my only things keeping windows around.
Knoppix is a decent distro but will come with a higher culture shock than mint. Also while this will probably start a flame war I prefer the look of Cinnamon (Gnome) to the LXDE interface which is Knoppix's default. I tend to only use LXDE when I am running on something with really no grunt, ala an atom.
No startup is going to get handed $50m on an idea and nothing else. And no startup is ever going to be a bank, not unless your definition of a startup is any new business. If you want to found a bank you need to pull together long term investors to come together to build a new venture.
And 500k for a restaurant?!?!?! You need 3 months of rent for the bond (10k-50k), 20k for fitout, 10k for inital consumables costs, then give yourself another 20-30k money to run with. And that is going to get you a hell flashy restaurant.
I built my business to 26 staff before divesting starting from a $60k overdraft secured against my house.
That's what the GP proposed.
For a human, a skill test is OK, because we already know he's a human, and cities are built around humans. We can expect him to behave in a certain way, and we kind of know his possible range of abilities and limitations, even if not in a formal way.
There's a reason why we require other things, like a minimum age, because being a responsible adult is precondition to the test.
What they are doing right now is different. Still a black box test, but much more comprehensive. They are going to gather so much data that statistics are going to start kicking in, bc they should be able to somewhat "prove" that these cars are safer than regular cars.
That's just not true.
Humans, specially urban dwellers, are known to have a certain set of capabilities, in general.
Also, they are known to behave in a certain fashion, and to abide by certain rules.
For example, a human with tendency to kill everyone in his path, would just not be able to apply for a drivers license, he would be in jail, dead, or something similar.
That black box testing is only verifying very specific knowledge and ability. It doesn't do a great job at that, but its task is a lot easier than testing an AI from scratch. You could do that, if there was some "human like" validation test, you could take prior to getting a license.
You make a very interesting point.
With automation, it's a lot easier for us to accept a given amount of understandable failure, than a much smaller amount of inexplicable failure. That might be a roadblock against some forms of automation.
In any case, there's also economics, which do like statistics, and will make you choose the strategy that fails less, overall. For example, insurance companies might favour driving algorithms that crash less often vs ones that crash a bit more often, but for better known causes.
Variables don't; constants aren't.