upstream providers of which optus has singtel and china mobile sent bogus routes
they didnt validate it correctly and it cascaded the router tables
so basically fail Optus
deploy IPv6 throughout network and use RPKI
https://radar.cloudflare.com/as4804?dateStart=2023-11-07&dateEnd=2023-11-07
SingTel transit routes are unsafe since its not signing or filtering
this is what happens when you run a company with consultants...
And I have a 90 mile per gallon ice vehicle with a manual transmission and itâ(TM)s made entirely out of aluminum including the frame which is a monocoque.
No production vehicle on Earth matches this description. This would either be a prototype or custom built vehicle. And I'll bet it doesn't have air bags, side impact beams, crumple zones, computerized driver assist, anti-lock brakes, and so on. In other words, one step up from a moped. And most people are not about to put their children in something that's unsafe relative to every other production vehicle allowed on the roadways of western nations.
So show me the crash test data to demonstrate that this miracle vehicle doesn't kill everyone inside when it's involved in a 60mph multi-vehicle collision with a rollover event. You're bringing this up to try and win an argument, but it fails as soon as anyone starts actually thinking. Because in the real world, it doesn't work.
I think this is a great idea but since the local government cant even sync the time that devices come on correctly to prevent load spikes with devices that are only 1 year old I dont hold out too much hope
GPS on each light or even PTP implementation is far more sophisticated than these lowest cost device but high energy cost short sighted idiots can manage (and thats when costs directly effect them they still can not manage it).
regards
John Jones
In this case, there were two humans and one AI.
The first human walked into the street into the path of moving cars.
The second human drove their car into the human that was walking, hit them, then fled the scene.
The AI did precisely what the police said you should do: stop the vehicle immediately and wait for first responders to arrive to handle the situation.
Your argument is things would have been better off with ANOTHER human involved? After two humans CREATED the situation and the only one to do things correctly was the AI?
Your personal bias against AVs/AI is having you make arguments that are laughably absurd.
Not a lot of human drivers who remain undistracted for any length of time these days. All I see are phones and makeup and touchscreens and eyes everywhere but on the road and immediate surroundings. Would a human driver in place of AI have avoided this accident? I give it 1 chance in 20. Would a human driver in place of AI have panic-pushed the accelerator when they saw a human being thrown at them, thereby causing significantly worse injuries to the pedestrian? I give that 1 in 2.
The pedestrian has about 1000% better odds of surviving this with the AI driver.
A human WAS in the other car and not only FAILED to anticipate the need to stop for the jaywalking pedestrian, but then proceeded to flee the scene after striking the pedestrian with their car.
A human in the next lane is no more likely to be paying any better attention, nor to behave any more logically than the autonomous vehicle, which did exactly as it should in that situation: stop as quickly as possible and if contact cannot be avoided, remain in place pending response from authorities. The AV drove forward just as any driver would. Most humans these days have their noses buried in their phones that they wouldn't notice a woolly mammoth shitting on their windshield. God only knows how much damage your average driver would do to the pedestrian in their panic accelerator punching following the accident.
this just goes to show what a complete failure the windows store (app store) is.
without Active directory they would be DEAD
why not donate them to a library ?
You're absolutely right. Which is why Michael Scott should have sued Garmin when he drove his car into a fucking lake in Dunder Mifflin Infinity.
In The Office episode "Dunder Mifflin Infinity", Michael Scott has a GPS installed in his car and drives it directly into a lake when it tells him to turn, despite Dwight's numerous warnings that they were about to drive into a lake.
According to this lawsuit, Michael Scott should have sued Garmin. Dumbest shit I've seen all day. These people sued Google because Google has a lot of money and will probably throw some at them to go away. What Google should do is mount a massive defense against the lawsuit and counter sue for legal fees to discourage this type of litigious crap rather than rewarding it with a settlement.
"to pin it all on the driver is just wrong unless you're hinting at suicide."
What if, instead of the bridge being washed out, there were a child standing in the middle of it and the vehicle killed the child? Who is responsible for ensuring that the road is free from hazards prior to the vehicle traveling across it? (hint: it sure as shit ain't Rand McNally)
Why did the street view vehicle not drive off the bridge?
Google Maps provides pathways between start and destination, and attempts to optimize said pathways to reduce travel time or gas or whichever options you select. Google Maps does NOT provide any warranty or guarantee that the pathway provide is free of obstacles or hazards.
Put it this way: if that bridge were okay but there were a child standing on it and this driver hit the child, who it at fault? Google Maps for telling the driver "here is a pathway to reach your destination"? Or the driver for failing to observe a driving hazard in the roadway? How about if Google had reports there was a child in the roadway? Would the driver have any fault for hitting the child then?
Google provides a feasible route. The driver is - and always has been - responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is operated in a safe manner, which includes watching for and appropriately reacting to hazards. If the bridge had washed out an hour ago, everyone would agree it was the driver's fault for failing to watch for a road hazard. If it had washed out a week ago, everyone would agree the driver should have been watching the road and taking appropriate action to avoid hazards. But a little more time passes and suddenly the driver is absolved of their responsibility and we find someone else (conveniently someone with deep pockets!) to blame?
Absurd bullshit. Mostly performance outrage by people who just hate Google. Love Google or hate Google; map providers do not take on any responsibility for the safe operation of motor vehicles.
use OSMand and contribute soemthing to the world rather than google https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OsmAnd#To_record_and_submit_GPX_tracks
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/
F-Droid Free
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand
Google Play
https://itunes.apple.com/app/id934850257
iTunes App Store
You sure? Assume that current models are accurate and dark energy will expand the universe for infinite time. Further assume that QM is correct (it sure does seem to be) and everything at the quantum level is simply a probably field leaving literally anything possible - even if the vast majority of possibilities are indescribably improbable. Over the course of infinite time, quantum fluctuation will produce every possible configuration of matter and energy in the universe.
Kurzgesagt recently covered this concept here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
