The levers which incentives wages closing the gap on the “super inflation” are probably more realistic than the levers that would cause the prices of everything to deflate.

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

Considering he asked twitter programmers to print out their pull requests Im not even sure he’s not cosplaying a programmer

If a 45 year old not wearing a costume and strung out on Ketamine says trick or treat at my door, they’re getting candy.

What am I, the fucking Halloween police? ACAB.

I completely agree that if there are tools that can allow a vehicle to “see” better than a human it’s absurd not to implement them. Even if musk could make a car exactly as good as a human, that’s a low bar. It isn’t good enough.

As for humans: if you are operating a vehicle such that you could not avoid killing an unexpected person on the road, you are not safely operating the vehicle. In this case, it’s known as “over driving your headlights”, you are driving at a speed that precludes you from reacting appropriately by the time you can perceive an issue.

Imagine if it wasn’t a deer but a chunk of concrete that would kill you if struck at speed. Perhaps a bolder on a mountain pass. A vehicle that has broken down.

Does Musk’s system operate safely? No. The fact that it was a deer is completely irrelevant.

Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it’s flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It’s hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.

Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don’t even understand to consume those inputs effectively.

But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to “see” better than a human? I want that!

If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.

The point here isn’t actually “should it have stopped for the deer” , it’s “if the system can’t even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?”

The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.

Each of them only does it once, and thinks it’s just a matter of luck when it happens to someone else

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, so forgive me, but I expect carefully reading the prompt is still orders of magnitude less effort than actually writing a paper?

Sadam in the tail?

Oh well that settles it

4 billion a year to house 86,000 people is $46,500 yr/person.

$3875/mo/person

Being honest, with a budget like that I could rent an apartment in NYC that I can only assume is quite a bit nicer than a literal homeless shelter

I’d always assumed photographers and directors and producers made the kinds of decisions around “will the subjects eyes be visible or obscured”. I didn’t realize the actors made those kinds of calls.

Lol the Fraser Institute is an absolute fucking joke.

To be fair, if they’re driven by an LLM I would still expect it to be wrong.

I didn’t realize that LoRa didn’t care about carrier frequency, that’s for sure the root of my faulty assumption! Thanks for taking the time to explain

I don’t think it’s “just” LoRa on 2.4ghz, because if it were existing lora devices wouldn’t be able to decode the signals off the shelf, as the article claims. From the perspective of the receiver, the messages must “appear” to be in a LoRa band, right?

How do you make a device who’s hardware operates in one frequency band emulate messages in a different band? I think that’s the nature of this research.

And like, we already know how to do that in the general sense. For all intents and purposes, that’s what AM radio does. Just hacking a specific peice of consumer hardware to do it entirely software side becomes the research paper.

If people hated the bill on it’s own, then shouldn’t it be less popular than Trudeau?

No.

Therefore anything connected with him is going to have an inherent downward swing of opinion due to the association? Right?

No.

These relationships can exist, but it’s not the case that they must exist. We know through polling what the favorability is of the CT: low. We know through polling how well understood it is: poor. We know through polling that people who don’t understand it are much more inclined to view it unfavorably. We already have a very straightforward explanation.

Adding in Trudeau is adding a 3rd variable into the mix to explain something that’s already been explained. And when you add him it, you have to start inventing justifications to make things align with his numbers.

It is the antithesis of Occam’s razor