Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Elon Musk reveals Elon Musk was wrong about Full Self-Driving (techcrunch.com)

theweatherelectric writes: Sean O'Kane for TechCrunch writes, "For nearly nine years, Elon Musk has promised Tesla vehicles had the hardware needed to support a self-driving car. This week, he made his latest admission that many are not. Musk said on a conference call Wednesday evening that Tesla cars equipped with so-called Hardware 3 will need an upgrade before they can support unsupervised self-driving software the automaker is still developing. These Hardware 3 vehicles, sold between 2019 and 2023, are equipped with the older version of the computer that powers the company’s “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” driver assistance software. 'I think the honest answer is that we’re going to have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those that have bought Full Self-Driving,' he said. 'That’s going to be painful and difficult, but we’ll get it done.'"

Comment bat guano (Score 4, Interesting) 117

Sounds like when a bunch of scientists met because the planet was running out of bat guano then used as fertilizer. A bunch of them started working on the problem of fixing nitrogen, which led to the haber-bosch process and other processes which led to today's fertilizer industry. A good book about it is called "The Alchemy of Air:", subtitled "A Jewish Genius, a Doomed Tycoon, and the Scientific Discovery That Fed the World but Fueled the Rise of Hitler".

Here's the book's summary:

A sweeping history of tragic genius, cutting-edge science, and the discovery that changed billions of lives - including your own.

At the dawn of the 20th century, humanity was facing global disaster. Mass starvation, long predicted for the fast-growing population, was about to become a reality. A call went out to the world's scientists to find a solution. This is the story of the two enormously gifted, fatally flawed men who found it: the brilliant, self-important Fritz Haber and the reclusive, alcoholic Carl Bosch.

Together they discovered a way to make bread out of air, built city-sized factories, controlled world markets, and saved millions of lives. Their invention continues to feed us today; without it, more than two billion people would starve.

But their epochal triumph came at a price we are still paying. The Haber-Bosch process was also used to make the gunpowder and high explosives that killed millions during the two world wars. Both men were vilified during their lives; both, disillusioned and disgraced, died tragically. Today we face the other unintended consequences of their discovery - massive nitrogen pollution and a growing pandemic of obesity.

The Alchemy of Air is the extraordinary, previously untold story of two master scientists who saved the world only to lose everything and of the unforseen results of a discovery that continue to shape our lives in the most fundamental and dramatic of ways.

Comment Re:OK, taking private to public is sketchy (Score 1) 73

but then they went back to public later, for the most part.

So what happens to content that was posted on a subreddit while it was private? Is it made public, or it stays hidden? I would hope it stays hidden, or else that's a pretty big privacy violation. Even moreso for any subreddits that started off as private.

Comment Re:Alcohol is a (pleasant) poison (Score 1) 93

It's not even pleasant for me. I can't stand the smell or taste of alcohol. And it generally gives me a headache if I imbibe it anyway. So now I generally do not.

I think a lot of people are like me and don't enjoy drinking alcohol at all, they do it mainly to "fit in" at social gatherings, due to lack of self-confidence.

Comment Re:Legit? (Score 1) 66

If by "some guy" you mean Mises, father of the Austrian school of Economics and/or Tom Woods, famous historian, author, podcaster and austrian economist then yeah I'm more inclined to respect their arguments and opinions than yours. But that's also because I've read their works and they routinely use sound reasoning and logic. I can't say the same for you at this point.

If you wish to refute their position, perhaps you could begin by explaining either:

1) how and why the broken window fallacy is wrong.

2) how and why the broken window fallacy does not apply to war.

Do that rationally with solid reasoning and I and others may begin to take you seriously.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.

Working...