India like the US, Canada, and UK is not a democracy but a Republic.
The UK is a Republic? I guess you better go halt the upcoming coronation, then.
You do realize that the monarchy in the UK is just a figure head now, no?
And yes, they're a form of a Republic via a Parliamentary system and Constitutional Monarchy.
> India doesn't recognize fundamental rights. it's not in their system of government.
Without this as part of a democracy, 51% can take the rights away from 49%.
India like the US, Canada, and UK is not a democracy but a Republic.
Even then, this isn't required for a Republic or a Democracy to function. The Greeks and Romans did it for several hundred years each without recognizing any "fundamental rights". So again, you're projecting Western values and ideas.
In a pure democracy, 50.00..01% of any group can control the other 49.999... by simple votes. Republics don't allow that by instituting representatives but even then the basic definition of a Republic does not define how the Representatives are chosen.
For instance, with the United States - the House of Representatives was comprised of people directly elected. However, the Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures, and POTUS was elected via the State Legislatures as well. It was not until the 1900's when various reforms were made to combat corruption that more direct elections were instituted. Even then, there has long been a fight between the States and Federal government over how to apply the U.S Constitution. Early judicial rulings typically held that the U.S Constitution was primarily only for the Federal government; as such the individual member states had more freedoms. It was not until the late 1800's and 1900's that much of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional provisions was bond to the member States by SCOTUS.
So please learn your history and what the terms mean.
Self driving cars are nothing like nuclear power. One nuclear accident can have very wide ranging effects and costs hundreds of billions of Euros.
A single self driving car can't do any more damage than a single person with a car.
The question isn't how much damage can be done, but who is at fault?
Can a company risk the liability associated with that damage? What if their entire fleet suffers similar consequences closely together?
A more apt comparison is the Boeing 737MAX situation and how that has financially effected Boeing. It'll be similar for self-driving tech manufacturers.
And in that respect, Tesla with their auto-insurance program seems to be willing to put their money where their mouth is and fully owning the potential liability; something that much like having EV chargers to be able to sell EV cars will likely be required to push out any kind of fully autonomous driving system, regardless of what tech is used.
He’s just pissed that he went the wrong way (LIDAR), and that Tesla is running circles around them.
You can take a fully autonomous waymo taxi today in phoenix az, no backup driver no remote: https://waymo.com/waymo-one/ afaik tesla doesn't have anything similar.
Tesla doesn't yet for a variety of reasons, including legal reasons. While they're legally allowed to advertise level 3 autonomy they're really level 4 or 5. They're holding back for a variety of reasons - the largest is that they're operating in conditions far different and more varied than Waymo is, and since they're going all out for supporting all conditions in an equivalent manner to a human, they won't be able to advertise or enable it to such until they fully get there. That said, they'll also get there far faster.
Waymo runs fully autonomous taxis in Phoenix Arizona today https://waymo.com/waymo-one/ If you're into this sort of thing there's a fairly interesting interview with their CTO by Lex Fridman at https://lexfridman.com/dmitri-... (he's also made several interviews with Musk and is an AI researcher himself).
So a vehicle that is operating in basically sunny conditions, nearly always dry paved roads...essentially the happy case for everything, versus one that is also already operating using a different tech but running in nearly any weather and road condition and road type...
Reminds me of the recent Tesla FSD (pre-beta) vs GM SuperCruise comparison where they said that SuperCruise was better; however, they left out that one can't take the GM SuperCruise onto even the test tracks to compare is with other systems because the test track isn't in the extremely limited database of mapped routes that GM put into SuperCruise.
Sure Waymo may get there eventually, but they've got an extremely long road ahead, and they're barely done packing for the trip. Meanwhile, Tesla is half-way to the destination.
The problem is that more data is always valuable, but you hit dimishing returns. 100k miles of average roads will catch a few things that 10k miles won't, but 1m won't be much better and 1b is probably only a few percent better than 1m.
Also, it doesn't matter how many videos you have of workmen directing traffic, if you don't have any way to decode that into useful instructions. If you cannot obey handsigns from police officers, you are not self-driving. Waymo and Tesla are working on two very different things which only appear similar at first glance. "self-driving" and "assisted-driving" are not the same thing (despite Tesla mis-using the terms).
Sure you may find that the general situational patterns are present in the first 100k miles and the next 100k miles doesn't give you that many more unique situations. That isn't the value. The value is that each additional 100k miles will repeat the same patterns in data that would show up with unique patterns; patterns that while the driving situation is the same the ability to recognize that is sufficiently different that it significantly enhances the AI to run it through.
That is to say; recognizing the pattern A-B-C among patterns E-F-G and H-I-J may be sufficiently hard that an AI that only examines A-B-C or E-F-G won't recognize the same pattern in H-I-J; even though all three contain the A-B-C pattern.
I believe that huge amounts of data are the only thing that can crack this particular nut.
That's quite an interesting claim. While remembering (via neural networks) every single situation that could possibly occur is certainly one way to handle said situations, there are very good human drivers out there who haven't driven billions of miles. Either those drivers are actually terrible (how do we measure that if they never get into an accident?), or there are alternative ways of learning that doesn't involve dumping mountains of raw data onto the learner.
WRT to humans - we learn most of what we need to for driving when we learn to walk at early ages. Driving builds on those skills and extends them to higher speeds, but the basics are there.
Moreover, a self-driving car shouldn't necessarily try to avoid once-in-a-billion situations. There's no feasible way for a car to know that a bridge might collapse right as it was driving over it, so training it on that might be counter-productive. We don't want cars to randomly decide to stop in front of bridges because they're concerned that the bridge might collapse. It's up to structural engineers to decide that.
The data collection allows them more to have a varied recording of the similar situations where the real life aspects change sufficiently that the AI can learn to recognize them much like human brains do. Human brains never stop learning in that respect either.
The vehicle can be registered in Nevada when it's bought there. And the trucking company can relocate its HQ in Nevada.
And if CA wants to try to prevent NV trucks from operating in CA, well, that's what we have a Constitution and Federal Government for.
All CA has to do is ban NV trucks from parking overnight in CA. Free to come in, drop off your load, pick up your next load, and then skedaddle out of the state. As long as the wheels turn, it's perfectly fine. But if you want to stop for the night, you better have CA plates and registration.
Yeah, that won't pass muster in the courts.
BTW, most trucks are registered in various states under US DOT and operate in all states. So it wouldn't be possible for them to regulate that way.
Regulating that is also something that CA would have the unquestionable power to achieve (some thoughts would be to tax the imported diesel at in state rates anyway (possible constitutional issue, but they can tax liquor and cigarettes, so maybe fine), tax the fuel when it's dispensed (almost certainly lawful), or outright ban ad hoc fueling operations). One could also do the same calculations as the trucking companies and keep the tax JUST low enough to not make it worth their while.
I'm not advocating for this position, just pointing out that what they ARE doing here is VERY unlikely to meet their state goal.
You do realize most trucking companies have pump stations at their own facilities, don't you? They buy the the fuel at a lower price than you get at the pump. They could almost certainly continue to do that and not pay the CA tax on the fuel being dispensed as it's a private unregulated dispensary used for their own vehicles. Where the fuel comes from wouldn't necessarily be within CA's power to regulate either.
His 2nd go was awesome and Apple became a powerhouse. But his 1st go nearly killed Apple and he was tossed out.
So, which is he? Exceptional leader or value killing loser? He did both at various times.
Both - kind of. His first go round with Apple he took it to the top of the industry (Apple ][), got arrogant, and then got too far ahead of the market (Lisa), came back with the early Mac, but got kicked out for being hard to work with - he wasn't very personable to the Board Of Directors and others that he needed to cull favor with in order to keep the company. He left, created Next Computing, learned from his mistake, so when he returned (via Apple buying Next) he improved where it mattered to stay in control. He was a genius in tech and marketing - far more than Gates ever was - the whole time.
The article you linked? You've completely read it wrong. Or you're lying.
I hear crap like yours from so many people. Who is disseminating this misinformation to you? And every time we investigate, it's so obviously wrong!
TFA:
It's still a well-known issue in the States. For example, when I lived in Michigan (Grand Rapids area) we had recycling ($4 fee per month too); found out later they collected it separately but it still was always just dumped into the landfill.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.
