This is about electing the governor.

It is a statewide election, so gerrymandering is irrelevant.

Same with my Toyota Innova.

I have to tap "Agree" before I can use the car.

After tapping "Agree", it turns on the radio, so I also have to turn that off again. Every time.

I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to, since the terms and conditions aren't listed on the screen.

The human bottleneck will remain. But we need to get away from the "test and fix" amateur approach we currently use. We need to do "secure by construction and design" instead. It just costs money and requires actually qualified engineers. It is known how to do it though.

So? Lidar plus camera fails a lot less than camera alone. I have no idea why you event try to do FUD here.

Observable evidence from about 40 years of research into this say he is exactly right and that the additional sensors make a huge difference. Your entirely invalid claim is that computer vision can be as good as human vision. No idea where you take that from, but it cannot be actual research, because actual reality is that nobody knows.

There are tons of things computers can do that humans could do first. But what we basically always find is that there is a way to do it without insight, often by brute-forcing things and mixing that with some algorithms (that have no clue what they are doing).

Hence basically most cases where computers replicate human skill, we are pretty sure they do it differently.

You mistake what "safety" means. It just means accident rated below an acceptable threshold. It does not mean perfection at all.

Yes. The expectation is that in Europe, in the not too distant future, human driving will essentially go away because of insurance cost.

I've enjoyed a few three-martini breakfasts on my way to the office in my Model Y and it's shocking how well the whole system works.

Another thought came to mind. Let's assume we have intentionally fired and targeted rockets, and choice is between the Moon and the Sun.

I would choose the Moon, for the reason of recycling. We can likely recover materials from those rockets later. Many of them highly valuable once remnants of meteors that hit our planet's surface run out and before we start asteroid mining/if we discover some significant obstacles to mining asteroids in the future.

Shoot it at the Sun, and it's gone for us. We cannot use it again.

IMHO it makes sense to do keep them at least hypothetically recoverable in the future at no cost to us. Moon is worthless. It's an old, dead rock in space with no atmosphere and no magnetosphere. It eats massive asteroid collisions regardless. Even six to seven digit rocket shots at it would change nothing relevant from our perspective. If anything, I'd try to concentrate the rockets falling on the Moon in hopes of making it more concentrated batch of resources to more easily recycle in the long term future.

Story implies they didn't aim at all, it just took itself out?

Am I reading it wrong, or is story lying? I will admit I didn't verify.

Honestly, a bit confused here. The problem with space debris is that they stay up there, requiring a lot of tracking resources so that new launches don't get hit by it.

If this one went into Moons gravity well and crashed there, that means it's not a problem any more. Trash has been taken out. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Texas is also a loser. At least according to his orangeness.

Alongside this "audit" of data centers, Texas is planning to build one next to a Buddhist monastery. I'm sure if I decided to build a data center next to church it would be denied even before I got my last word out of my mouth.

Texas has plenty of wind and sunshine.

They should be installing wind turbines in the Panhandle and solar panels in the Trans-Pecos region.

Someone should explain supply and demand to Governor Abbott.

Really, why is my day about to get "even shitter"?