Self-driving vehicles aren't perfect, but that isn't a reasonable standard.

What matters is that they have a better safety record than human drivers.

These trucks are even safer than other SDVs because they're driving fixed routes that have been mapped, with every sign and marker in the database.

They're also safer than human drivers because they drive slower. Human-driven trucks usually drive the speed limit, which is 75 mph on the Texas portion of I-45. A self-driving truck will go slower to minimize fuel consumption, so 55 mph. A truck going 75 has nearly twice the kinetic energy.

My guess is that I didn't use those exact words and was reconstructing it from memory. Probably used "man and wife drove off a bridge GPS" The AI results:

"Overview of GPS-Related Bridge Accidents

Recent Incidents

Two notable incidents highlight the dangers of relying on GPS navigation when driving near unsafe bridges:

Philip Paxson Incident (2022): Philip Paxson drove off a collapsed bridge in Hickory, North Carolina, while following Google Maps directions. The bridge had been unmarked and unbarricaded since its collapse in 2013. Paxson drowned after his vehicle fell into a creek. His widow has since filed a lawsuit against Google for negligence, claiming the GPS directions were outdated and dangerous.

East Chicago Incident (2015): In a similar case, a man drove off a closed bridge in East Chicago, Indiana, while possibly following GPS directions. The bridge had been out of service since 2009, yet the driver managed to bypass several barriers, resulting in the death of his wife."

The east Chicago incident is the one I was trying to reference at the time. Boom found. Easier, quick.

The reality of the situation is this. DDG and others are returning many self similar redundant useless links. Is it my job to continuously guess at which proper wording delivers the sacred results for a legacy web search? My job to search through many links that are not relevant? If so, what is your reasoning? Perhaps you have the time, I didn't. Got in, got out, verified by typing East Chicago GPS incident into DDG first result? https://eu.jacksonville.com/st... Point is, web searches aren't supposed to need some sort of exact prompt or they return the same thing over and over. And now that seems to be the case, the AI generated answer, although not always 100 percent accurate, is markedly superior to them.

Yes, I took the answer and cross referenced it with names and dates it provided. In this case, the AI search was 100 percent correct.

It is true that AI generated answers can and are wrong at times. Sometimes hilariously wrong. It isn't perfect.

Then again, many pages of the same incorrect story even when I provided the details I knew, is not only not correct for my search, it is 100 percent useless. There have been complaints that web search is down. It is, and it deserves to be, because it is a waste of time.

Intuit spent $3.8M on political lobbying in 2024.

Client Profile: Intuit Inc

Most audits are for people with Sched-C or K-1 income.

Those aren't "poor people"

Top income brackets are ten times more likely to be audited than people at the bottom.

What triggers IRS Audits?

Yup, and it already is. Web searches are already useless, and AI is turning out to be eating into those web searches. Definitely an increasing problem.

Example - I use DDG for searches.

In a recent search for someone who drove off a bridge maybe 12 years ago because their GPS "told" them to, DDG (and Google since I tried them as well) returned page after page of the same results. News stories about a guy who drove off a bridge in 2023. Just from every news provider. Useless.

I knew it was a man and wife - still the same results using standard web searches

DDG lets you generate a result via "AI". 5 seconds later, I had the answer.

So the first poster and then me of the subthread is wrong? If you want to know what I was responding to, it was this referring to Youtube: "Trying to ban it or whatever seems pretty useless, but it's silly to deny that it functions as social media.

I mean it's literally in the name, "You" post videos, others watch them, comment on them, react to them, share them, etc.

No, you don't have to use it that way, but you can, and it's built into every corner of the service."

Okay, let's dissect that. If I think it is not social media I am silly. Well I'm silly anyway.

It has "you" in it which ipso facto means it is social media. If that is his definition he can have it.

My point in all of this is that proper social media like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Slashdot and some others are designed as much for the comments as the content.

How many people go to Facebook or Twitter to lean how to do woodturning or rebuild an IC engine? How many people go to Youtube for just the comments? The comments are just there. It's the same here in the different direction. How many people just read the news on /? The comments are the most important part.

To be certain, I have no issues with what cascadingstylesheet posted, I disagree, but people do disagree at times.

If a person mentions the comments as part of the definition of social media, the comments are fair game to bring into the discussion.

On Youtube OTOH, I seldom go to the comments other than a few woodworkers I follow and interact with personally.

My emphasis. And you don't consider that "social"?

No, did you miss the part about interacting personally with them. I might look at the comments, (probably should have phrased that better) but my interactions are via personal email back and forth, sharing tips and tricks. I'm not going to ask questions about what angle his or her bevel grind on his chisels are, or to correct him on the species of wood he was turning on the lathe in the public comments. I spoke of a relaxed definition, so maybe we need to include personal email as social media as well?

So we've set the table. I'll finish it up with Amazon Reviews. Amazon reviews allows posting videos or images, it allows you to review, others to react or ask questions and you to respond. I've done all three.

By cascadingstylesheet and maybe your outlook, that makes it by definition, social media. I'm pretty certain he wasn't thinking about Amazon reviews when he wrote his definition though, Anyhow, we're dealing with definitions, and if you want to believe it is social media, have at it.

My definition of social media is that it is made for people to post comments on various things, as well as garner likes - generally for the endorphin buzz people get to putting people on blast if someone posts to the contrary. Youtube uses likes and dislikes it for possible flagging, and keeping tabs on subscriptions, because after so many subscriptions, the creator gets monetized. Seems like more an accounting method for a business model than anything else.

Many heists have inside help.

Funny you mention that. My male relatives worked the limestone and coal mines in Pennsylvania when I was a kid, and they were in pretty bad shape when they retired - if they made it that far. I vowed I wouldn't do that, it beats you up and wears you down to a nub.

Mining only takes a few people to do now what it used to take hundreds to do. Thank goodness for that.

I'm not certain how the voice actors are going to adapt. Even if they "win", they lose. Unless they somehow make it illegal to use synthetic voices, if the Industry finds itself in too much of a PITA using real people, they'll just use synthetic voices from the start, and make the issue irrelevant. Those who know how to work with it can make it sound pretty good.

tl;dr answer. My definition of social media is the postings at heart are designed to interact with each other, Post reply, reply, ad infinitum. Not a person posting a video that is not there for any reaction at all.

I would counter that a news site that allows comments on their posts is also social media under the guidelines that comments ipso facto makes it social media.

Now despite you thinking that me posting what a person watches on a platform that is going to be restricted is irrelevant to the conversation, and being uncooperative as you claim - let me ask you a question.

Let's use Facebook as an example. Accepted as social media. A person posts something there. The reason they post is for the comments that follow. Someone posts that Kamala Harris is actually a man, and the comments erupt. People get an endorphin buzz from the comments, either positively or negatively.

On Youtube OTOH, I seldom go to the comments other than a few woodworkers I follow and interact with personally. These people I now know pretty well. Rest of the time I watch the video, and move on to the next one, which accounts for almost my entire experience. Kind of like watching television.

Question one - your accusation of complete irrelevancy that you are being so generous with me (forgive me, I'm not too bright) - please explain to me like you would an 8 year old child. If you can show me that what I wrote is off topic, I'll apologize, and leave you alone, never to bother my better, and stop being uncooperative, and claim that Youtubeis the very definition of social media, and must therefore be blocked from the children. The we need to go after any site that allows comments, because that is the metric.

Here's a question. If Youtube eliminated all replies and responses, and just posted videos - would they still be social media?

You prove my point. Your analysis of me is exactly what I said about left and right. You think I am incoherent because I don't march to the orders of whoever rules you. You might be intelligent, but you aren't thinking. It isn't even necessarily that I think I'm always right. I can be wrong, but it isn't because some conservative or liberal told me what is right or wrong.

A lot of conservative people tell me I'm a leftie. You seem to claim otherwise. I claim neither, but as I noted before, I'm politically unreliable. At one time, I'd be parked on the center. Even then, some of my thought would be a little right or left of it. One of us cannot be wrong, as Leonard Cohen wrote. I'm pro abortion, pro raising the minimum wage, anti-death penalty, pro gay rights and marriage, and pro trans as long as it involves consent of the person transitioning - which means that person is legally allowed to give consent at 18 years old. I'm pro universal healthcare including mental health issues, but not the overuse of medication. I'm also a committed atheist.

On the other hand, I am very pro law enforcement and very strong military supporter, and a strong advocate for parental rights as long as no harm is being done to the child. I'm pro gun ownership - but not the way the ammosexuals (gun nuts) are. I also advocate for allowing people to understand that their favorite hate target, C-suite people, are also humans with all the good and bad characteristics of all humanity.

You can do you, of course, and if it allows you to think you are a superior being, then never question the politics of whom you serve and obey. It's much easier to do that. But consider that when you go around accusing people of being incoherent, you just might be looking in a mirror, as I noted before, your post proves my point perfectly.

Not much I can do about that, nor do I care about converting the faithful. Just that maybe there is a young person out there who might want to actually think rather than march to what they are told to think.

Tubes have a distortion that makes for a sort of "warm" sound. I like it. Tubes, when they are overdriven also have a distortion many like.

They haven't gone away completely, but when NOS tubes are gone, the technology that was once the only game in town isn't going to be here any more.

These things always devolve to the very successful dehumanization of the other. The counterexample is the cryptoliberals demand that public schools can transition children, and the parents have no right to get in the way of that, or even know it is happening.

How far does the ruling that Public schools have more authority over children than their parents do? https://cbn.com/news/us/are-sc...

Incrementalism. You've probably noticed that every time one of our two political parties is in office, they overreach badly? If schools can make medical decisions contrary to parental beliefs, they have every right to force your child to take Ritalin, a mind damaging drug that functions as a chemical straitjacket. Incrementalism "Little Johnny has been very well behaved lately, I wonder what the change is? " Sorry Mrs Smith, that is privileged information!

"Are you giving him Ritalin?"

"I am not at liberty to confirm or deny that Mrs Smith!"

"You'll hear form my layer"

"You'll hear from Child protective Services, Mrs Smith! We know what is best for little Johnny, and you are being an abusive parent."

Miss Pretty is already on the phone to CPS.

Might seem specious, even slippery slope-ish, as at the present moment it is illegal. But as my experience with my son showed me, schools want all males on ritalin. And when I stood them down when they tried to force me, they even got threatening. Crazy thing was he wasn't a behavior issue, but he was a big lad. But they tried to have every male child in school put on it. If they could, you can bet your bottom dollar, they would force it.

p.s. I am politically unreliable, as I tend to analyze the issues before forming my opinion. That makes both sides hate me. I don't feel the need to go into therapy or ban people who hold different opinions - does that mean I need therapy?

What is your name for censorship then?

And here we go - you just made a case for censorship of social media for everyone. Adults can get addicted, so we must limit what they can see and do.

Yet here you are on Slashdot.