Is this LLM output? It's not supported by your source, which only says that activating the hazard lights is permissible, not that pulling over is impermissible. In fact, your source says: "We note that Subaru indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle, the system will bring the vehicle to a stop. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might, depending on the circumstances, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, i.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident."
HW4 vehicles with recent FSD software will pull over to the shoulder, activate hazard lights, and stop if the driver becomes incapacitated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFlQz0qNwU
But the OP says this driver's car was model year 2020, which makes it HW3. All versions of FSD for HW3 (including 14.1 lite, the latest version, which came out after this incident) will stop in the lane with hazards on: https://x.com/JonBbC_TechGeek/status/2086347029018501183
With all due respect to Steve, under 1 minute isn't that impressive. You can get there just by doing the beginner's method (a handful of different move-sequences) rapidly. The people who really study Rubik's Cube algorithms in depth can do it in a few seconds.
I remember a TV program showing someone breaking the one minute record for the first time. I could already do it at that point, I'm sure many others could as well.
I had a friend - David - he could do it insanely quick. He's basically who I am thinking of in my post since he was also a genius at guitar, and could play beautifully. And he taught me basic PHP.
We spent a lot of time on your site on random Friday nights (him playing guitar) hahah, good times.
More of a yo-yo guy myself. I could walk the dog, pendulum, what-have-you. Around the world if I'm feeling saucy
Also: Gross, wtf happened to it???? If you can't say publicly, just blink 3 times
>melatonin should be consumed in doses an order of magnitude smaller than the smallest available dosage.
It's available on Amazon in doses as low as 100mcg: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MJL2GTC Are you saying this because you believe the correct dose is on the order of double-digit mcg, or because you're under the impression that the lowest available dose is single-digit mg?
the lowest otc dose I previously witnessed was 1mg, perhaps my phrasing should have been "smallest commonly available dosage", because the correct dose is indeed in the vicinity of 100mcg
>They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names—only after we brought this to their attention.
I find it bizarre that they felt the need to specify "Asian". What does that have to do with anything?
Latin alphabet transcription of East Asian languages tend to be incredibly lossy and there tends to be a lot of ambiguities.
That Vietnamese surname of Nguyen is formally written as Nguyễn in the current script, or as 阮 in the old adapted Hanzi script, and practically pronounced somewhere around "gwen". Most other EA countries tend to do equivalents of "阮" -> "gwen", and East Asian cultures generally prefer Last-First ordering, which tend to put more information in the first name, and so there are going to be tons of last names in Latin that end up being barely unambiguous to be a form of identification.
These can be a problem if email addresses are going to be formulated as e.g. "阮 必成" -> "Nguyễn Tất Thành" -> "Gwen Tat Than" -> "t.gwen@example.net", even if the surname is going to be that much long(although Nguyen in particular is just identical even in Vietnamese).
(Japan may be less affected thanks to having default 2+ char random surnames farmers made up in modernization efforts, but there are still the 灘(nada) highscool, the 津(tsu) city, etc etc that can be NLP problems)
Yes, but why specify it? Why not just say „they confused 2 people with the same name“? Adding „Asian“ doesn’t add anything to the story other than flagging Apple as casually racist
Even if Westerners maintained the characters for the names rather than transliterate them, there's still the problem that common surnames are used by literally hundreds of millions of people of Chinese descent, and there are a lot of commonly-used given names as well. I think in all of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese almost all given names are 1-2 syllables in length, so there's even less space for disambiguation, even before you get to the additionally ambiguities introduced by transliteration and dropping of diacritics.
Japanese has several advantages:
1. Both given names and surnames often use more than 2 syllables. This makes it more familiar to speakers of European languages, where multi-syllable words are no big deal.
2. English speakers find Japanese easier to pronounce and remember due to its simpler syllable structure and use of globally more common sounds compared to the other languages.
3. Unlike the other languages, Japanese names are always given in Given Name, Surname order in English media, while names from the other languages are inconsistently transcribed in either order.
4. Japanese is the "default" East Asian culture for the West in many ways, since it's the one that at least the US has most deeply engaged for the longest time. Many, many cultural exports that actually originated in China were introduced to the West via Japan with Japanese names. Also, Japan has been an advanced industrial economy since the late 1800s, while China only achieved that status a few decades ago.
5. Japanese transcription into Roman characters has remained consistent for a long time (helped by the simpler phonology). Chinese and Korean have been cursed with several incompatible transcription systems over the years - although Pinyin has been winning out for Chinese, there are still many names with legacy transcriptions, not to mention the other Chinese languages needing their own transcriptions. Vietnamese does exclusively use Latin characters, but the diacritics and unfamiliar pronunciation makes them harder to remember.
They are definitely trying to get you to think that Apple (the company perhaps single-handedly responsible for developing Chinese manufacturing) is racist
I’m not saying they’re racist but I will say that them using Chinese manufacturing isn’t an argument against it. Most top level leadership, which include the people who would have initiated this investigation, actually have a small representation of Asians [1] compared to the rest of the business [2].
But what makes that necessary context? That can be communicated clearly without specifying Asian, „Apple confused 2 people with the same name“. Adding Asian sort of excuse Apple for the mistake, which is strange for OpenAI to do? I would tend to believe they are implying some casual racism
Because confusing two people because of having the same name is much less likely for European names than for Asian names (there are only about 100 Chinese family names, for instance), so it's an indirect dig that Apple wasn't paying attention (since they presumably employ a lot of Asians, and thus should know better). There's no need to bang on the racism drum, it's pretty tiring.
You seem to have the restrictiveness backwards? The MIT license (uutils coreutils) is less restrictive than the GPL (GNU coreutils), and the AGPL is more restrictive than the PostgreSQL license.
And it doesn't violate the PostgreSQL license to license the rewrite more restrictively. That's part of what makes MIT-style licenses less restrictive than the GPL or AGPL: they allow for more-restrictive relicensing.
I think licensing will have to be re-invented, because now it's trivial to just say: claude, do a "clean-room implementation", so that noone can accuse me of stealing code.
That's what LLM companies have done for years anyway. Inline completions are trained on licensed code. And nobody cares! ;)
OK. But it's essentially the same concept. Just that auto hold will go a step further and apply the park brake to hold the car in position indefinitely rather than just for a few seconds.
There have been many deaths over the years where drivers forgot to engage the park brake, then stepped out and got run over by their own vehicle. Including, sadly, Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin. If his car had had Auto Hold then he would very likely still be alive today.
The only scenario where this could have a negative effect on safety is where you, the driver, were used to driving a car with the feature but got surprised by its absence when driving an old car. But as I facetiously illustrated in the post above, this is not a valid argument against new safety features. Any accidents that this scenario might cause are far outweighed by all the ones that will be prevented in the long run.
Nowadays cars engage the electronic parking brake (and P on the gear selector) when you open the door. Which has caused another crash, there's a video of a lady stuck at a rail crossing who was screaming she couldn't get the car going, she had opened the door and in the panic didn't notice the car did all that.
Anton Yelchin's death was more annoying, it was a design defect that pushing the gear lever all the way to the top didn't put it into P (like cars of the 80s, of even 50s), the gear lever acted more like a 4-way button, and drivers needed to push it twice (or 3x?) to go to park. Unfortunately his car was probably not new enough to have auto-park when driver door is open. His family got a settlement from the manufacturer..
You have not illustrated anything about the validity of any arguments. You have only expressed a feeling and said some things that sound like reason to you.
Which to be clear is all I did myself, but I did say it that way honestly. "there is no way that..." doesn't pretend to supply any proof, just the reasoning.
Neither of your attempted counter-examples actually amounts to the same sort of reasoning.
Except in a way you are also right and that rightness actually supports my point. I would equate you seatbelt nonsense with bicycle helmets, where it is quite up for grabs if they have been a net positive, because both the riders and the drivers are falsely trained to think the cyclists are safer and don't need to worry as much. There are not many real studies, and the few that exist, you can make them say whichever side your emotional belief wants.
But I wasn't quite going there. Operating a vehicle is operating a vehicle. Until such time as the driver, or rather mere user, bears absolutely no responsibility, like riding the bus or a train , or maybe an elevator, then "there is no way" yes a simple assertion, that it's good to train everyone that they are riding in elevators where they only need to maybe press one button to say what they want but beyond that it's out of their control and so out of their responsibility what happens after that, because we do not actually live in that world yet.
I had to drive a rental car for a bit recently, after getting rear-ended, and I was shocked to discover that it defaulted to recirculation mode every time it was turned on, regardless of whether you'd turned it off the previous time. I felt light-headed in it a few times before I realized I needed to manually turn recirculation off every time. Horrible behavior, and I don't doubt that it's responsible for many accidents.
reply