I'm going to argue with that: No, the UN is not the "set of governments". That implies some hierarchical authority. You can say the US is a "set of state governments", but not the UN. The UN is also an incomplete set; it excludes Taiwan, for instance, because China had a civil war and the mainland winner threw a tantrum and still won't let the losing remnant join, 80 years later.

The UN can't enforce peace because it is not a cohesive set. If the US were organized like the UN is, individual states could block the US from doing anything.

At best, you can lump the five "founding" nations together, the ones with the security council vetoes, but then you have to explain why Taiwan is not even a member of the organization, let alone the security council with its own veto; and you have to explain why all the USSR's individual SSR remnants are not part of the security council with their own vetoes.

I'd much rather the UN wasted their time doing nonsense like this than trying to tame the boiling oceans. It would be even better if they tried to enforce peace, but that's not important enough for them.

That's why he said "That makes it usually cheaper to use a non-HEPA filter but a higher air throughput rate."

It's a tradeoff, like almost everything in life. Whether his "usually" is correct depends mostly on who wants to buy the system, and only they can tell.

You miss the point completely. The technology is there and unstoppable. Cutting down one company doesn't destroy the technology. Killing Napster didn't kill the technology, it just spread it around, decentralized it, then there were thousands of sites to control, and they never did manage to do that, did they? Killing Flock will do exactly the same.

Killing Flock won't kill the concept or the capability and more than demolishing Napster stopped music copying. I bet within 5 years, this scanning will be common in most dashcams and phone apps will be available.

Lashing out in anger without having a plan or knowing your target is juvenile.

Whoops -- accidentally moderated it. Undoing...

Maybe you should stop panicking lie a wee baby and think from the other end: things are working as well as they can, and the problem is a lot bigger than just snapping your fingers and hoping a genie shows up.

Fabs are expensive and big, and can't be built overnight. Even stupid ordinary homes take months to build, and fans are thousands of times bigger with thousands of times the utility requirements.

It's taxpayer money. Means they'll burn through it all the faster.

I do not believe the differences are so stark as to account for a jump from 6% to 22% and back to 6%.

That may explain the mechanism, but it still means they've got too small a sample size. There's no reason for Windows and Linux users to differ so extremely over four day weekends.

If it can jump from 6% to 22% for one day, and then presumably back down to 6% the next day, either they've got an almighty small sample size, or they're lying.

There's 8 billion people on the planet. Are you saying 7 billion a year do get drunk?

Out of those 8 billion, 7,999,999,999 did not make as stupid a comment as you did. Let's celebrate!

That may or may not be a defect. Human eyes are also not seeing in all directions at once, unlike Tesla's cameras.

And it has nothing to do with the CEO's lie that cameras cannot be safer than humans, when it is the automation that makes automated cars safer. Mount a lidar to your roof. Are you now a safer driver? No. It is the automation which is safer, not the lidar alone.

You skipped this quote in your hurry to apologize for the liar. Are you a politician?

"If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product ..."

"approximately match" also means "no better than". Even if you take it to mean "only marginally better than" it's still a lie. If cameras are only as good as human eyes, they still don't get drunk, distracted, or drowsy.

No, I settled with him being a liar, because it is not the lidar which makes automated cars safer than humans, it is the automation. He said cars without lidar cannot be safer than humans. He is wrong. Lidar may add safety, but it does not add as much as automation itself.