Yes. There essentially wasn't any feedback mechanism.

It wouldn't avoid any of the hassle of Rust, it'd basically be Rust but with fewer features and a slightly more C like syntax.

100% of the problems C people have adapting to Rust are to do with getting their head around the borrow checker/lifetime model. Everything else is very straightforward.

(I'm not saying Rust is without flaws, it has plenty, but they're nothing that's not in C too.)

You should try it on PC hardware. That people have been able to get Linux working tolerably well on Apple hardware is a testament to their fortitude and bullheadedness, given how hard Apple has made it. I like Apple's laptops, and I'd rather run Linux than OS X, but it's just not worth it. Running Linux on a PC laptop or desktop is great, though. Suspend/resume and even hibernation work perfectly on the desktop Debian machine I'm typing this on.

Waymo's accident record is strong evidence that they will be.

And it's often the fault of the local businesses. If I want to buy "unsalted mixed nuts", my local store doesn't carry them any more. (It used to, but it stopped.) So now I buy them on Amazon.

Is that what they're doing? It seems to me that the appropriate action is to report the event to the regulator and have them follow up.

Do you have a link to information about what police are or aren't doing?

Oh, I should have mentioned: It was a semi-automatic rifle, with a high-capacity magazine (though the magazine was an internal tube, not a replaceable box). It even had a polymer stock though it was dark brown, not black.

Heh. My dad used to keep a rifle and ammunition in his school locker. He'd carry the rifle into the school and put it in his locker every morning, and reverse the process every afternoon. Why? He hunted jackrabbits every afternoon, on his way home from school. The local farmers paid a bounty for jackrabbit ears because the rabbits ate their crops. He tried using a shotgun for a while, but the shells were a lot more expensive, so assuming sufficient skill to hit fast-moving rabbits with a rifle, it was the better choice.

Simpler times...

This is Beverly Hills, and school districts are funded by property tax revenues. This school district has money coming out of its metaphorical ears.

That, of course, is also a problem, that some school districts are lavishly funded and others struggle mightily. But if the Beverly Hills school district weren't blowing $5M on questionable safety equipment, they'd be blowing it on something else.

Dude, I wish I had mod points! This is the best laugh I've had all day.

I think the whole notion of applying a behavior-management program designed for individual drivers to a company operating a fleet of robot drivers makes no sense. It's a different situation, and calls for different regulatory strategies. I'm not saying there shouldn't be regulation of autonomous vehicles, just that it should be tailored to address that problem, rather than applying a solution designed for a different problem.

And, frankly, California's strategy seems like a good one. They're allowing systems to be built and tested on public roads because the systems will, when fully operational, yield enormous benefits to the people; safer roads, lower-cost transport, recovery of vast amounts of space currently devoted to parking lots, etc. They're also overseeing this testing, requiring regular reports, being ready to intervene and impose additional requirements or revoke permission to operate, etc.

Are those mechanisms relevant or useful for regulating autonomous vehicles? It seems to me that you're applying a system designed to incentivize and manage the behavior of individual human drivers to an entirely different context. That doesn't make sense.

What does? Well, pretty much what California is doing. There's a regulatory agency tasked with defining rules for licensing self-driving systems to operate on state roads. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or evidence of failure to behave safely and effectively results in the state rescinding the license to operate. Of course, not every failure is of a magnitude that justifies license revocation, and how the maker of the system responds to problems is a key factor in determining an appropriate response.

In this case, Waymo had a significant problem. Waymo responded by immediately suspending service until, presumably, they figure out how to address the problem. Assuming they fix it, that's reasonable behavior that doesn't warrant much response by the regulator, except perhaps to look into Waymo's design and testing processes to see whether this gap is indicative of others.

This all makes a lot more sense than trying to fit policies designed for humans onto machines.

Thanks. I guess this requirement goes away when the system graduates out of "test" mode?

I was looking for a reference. Luckily, ObliviousGnat was actually helpful.

You might like mathsgear as a source of delightful trinkets, if you've not seen it before.