Looks like the standard must have changed, and my information is out of date. In the past, there hadseparate standards for cars and light trucks (e.g., https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1... ).

I stand corrected.

The direct fuel injection does seem to cause more trouble than it's worth. Small gain in fuel efficiency, large increase in maintenance cost.

Leave direct fuel injection to the diesels and race cars.

GM's transmission problems are due to other issues.

Out of the list of the ten richest politicians in America, 3 are Democrats and 7 are Republicans. So looks like Republicans have the edge. https://247wallst.com/politics...

Biden and Obama would need to be about an order of magnitude richer to make the list.

That's happening across the world. It just hit China and Japan a few years earlier than it's hitting us.

Here too.

Unless you're losing faster.

Nope.

Trucks, including the light trucks sold to consumers, are a separate category in DAFE. You don't average trucks in with cars.

Not sure who you're listening to, but I don't hear a lot of people saying that. The technique of trying something, discovering what goes wrong, fixing it, and trying again seems to be working as a development strategy for SpaceX.

People do, however, make a lot of fun of Elon's wildly optimistic predictions of how soon products will reach market (and how soon he will be flying people to Mars. I think we can safely say that he will not launch people to Mars by 2024.)

How many hours of an Asian font designer'(s) time can you buy for $20k? It'd be funny, if it turns out that firing the font company pays off in less than a year.

If San Francisco is operating under laws similar to other states, they already have the power to tax snacks. It is typically not very popular and causes enough backlash that a city trying it often gives up or scales back their snack tax plans. Suing these companies puts the industry on notice that they should improve their practices, even if the city is unlikely to succeed. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think their odds are good, interstate commerce doctrine probably applies.

Owner's fault. I won't wreck my car to save a dog either.

I've run over a couple that I likely saved by straddling them. One clearly lived as it was running for home after the tumbling trip under the truck. I hope it learned a valuable lesson.

The last fatality left me with the following choices. Hit the dog, Slam on the brakes and get rear-ended, drive into the ditch which made up the median, or swerve into the right lane and hope the car in that lane just behind me could manage to miss me. The dog took the hit.

The ability to delegate tasks to an AI and relax as it reliably achieves them (or comes back to you for help if it cannot) is something that everyone wants from AI, and that marketing hype keeps suggesting that we have from AI, but that AI is nowhere near capable of. Not even close.

A significant part of the current AI bubble is driven by this extremely optimistic and outright false belief. People get really impressed by what AI can do, and it seems to them that it is equivalent or even harder than what they want it to do, so they convince themselves that it can.

But it can't. AI hallucination completely ruins this. You give it very clear instructions, and it will get 2/3 of it right, and also do something the exact way you told it not to. This gets even worse with implied behaviors like "and don't delete my entire hard drive while doing this."

AI can be helpful, but not in this way. Proper utilization of AI requires that you understand its limits and operate within them. It is outright reckless to give AI the authority to take action on your behalf (at all), and stupidly reckless to skip confirmations. Without you examining each command it generates, there is no force ensuring that it did it right, and it absolutely will do wrong things that should be simple for it to do right.

What seems most depressing about this isn't the fact that the bot is stupid; but that something about 'AI' seems to have caused people who should have known better to just ignore precautions that are old, simple, and relatively obvious.

It remains unclear whether you can solve the bots being stupid problem even in principle; but it's not like computing has never dealt with actors that either need to be saved from themselves or are likely malicious before; and between running more than a few web servers, building a browser, and slapping together an OS it's not like Google doesn't have people who know that stuff on payroll who know about that sort of thing.

In this case, the bot being a moron would have been a non-issue if it had simply been confined to running shell commands inside the project directory(which is presumably under version control, so worst case you just roll back); not above it where it can hose the entire drive.

There just seems to be something cursed about 'AI' products, not sure if it's the rush to market or if mediocre people are most fascinated with the tool, that invites really sloppy, heedless, lazy, failure to care about useful, mature, relatively simple mitigations for the well known(if not particularly well understood) faults of the 'AI' behavior itself.

There is zero value in some big scary climate risk number also being disclosed, because A that risk accounted for if you are studying the details anyway and does not help you make a rational decision, because it literally does not affect you beyond the places where it is already baked into the numbers.

If you don't care why the insurance is so expensive or unavailable (e.g. high risk of flooding) then maybe you also don't care about why the house's price is so high (e.g. nice location, good construction, etc). No need to even look at the house. Just treat the whole damn thing as an abstract exercise in numbers.

OTOH, some people might actually care about details. Maybe because they're considering living there?

There's nothing that screams 'trying to con you' quite as hard as a participant in a nominal free-market scenario trying to preserve ignorance and information asymmetry.

So... what is the purpose of the beeping alerts, then, if there is no danger to which you need to alert humans?

Just remove the beepers entirely.

It's a catch-22, and always has been.

Dictatorships are tyrannical no matter how intelligent the leaders are. And given the power structure they have, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the dictator even cares about the people at all.

On the other hand, most people are idiots. They are extremely vulnerable to fake facts and other forms of manipulation, so their voting power isn't actually a form of political power held by the people so much as held by the people who manipulate the people.

What we actually have in America is an oligarchy that pretends to be a constitutional republic. Yes, we vote, but regardless of how many people participate the small group of rich people get everything they want. This is the inescapable result of the general stupidity of the majority of people (not to mention general laziness, apathy, and the very real and pressing need to spend their time earning a living instead of studying up and staying on top of politics).

So we get ruled by elites no matter what we do. The blow is softened a bit in a democracy due to regular rotation of the publicly-visible power-holders, but even then, most of the power is held by un-elected, un-appointed, rich people who only care about the country inasmuch as they have to in order to protect their own wealth.