I don’t think the problem is necessarily PCs being inefficient. IMO it is more likely that it is simply much harder to optimize for random hardware combinations that people run, and that there is a lot of pressure on devs to optimize console gameplay (likely at the expense of optimizing PC gameplay, perhaps devs also see less of a need to since most PCs are better equipped than consoles anyhow, that and deadline pressure)
Others may not necessarily agree, but at least anecdotally, a sizeable portion of drivers I see make all kinds of mistakes (law of averages dictates more of them are so called "neurotypical" than not no?).
"Acting Unexpectedly" can often mean following the actual laws and general guidelines for safe and/or defensive driving. I would hazard a guess that sometimes doing the intuitive thing is, in reality, unsafe and/or against the law. If the car does this in 99% of circumstances, and still gets rear-ended, who is really the problem here?
1. The other people are causing the dangerous situation, not you. That is not justification for you to do so too.
2. Most of the time it is a false perception. You only notice the people whizzing past you, not the people driving the speed limit along with you because they never pass you (a variant of survivorship bias). This of course depends on where you are, but most people in fact do drive around the speed limit.
Another thing is, by driving the speed limit I am reducing the average speed on the road. So any driver whose heuristic for choosing a driving speed involves some kind of averaging will drive slower because of me.
> This of course depends on where you are, but most people in fact do drive around the speed limit.
Counterpoint: Google Maps thinks you can drive an 86-mile trip from from Springfield, MA to Albany, NY in 80 minutes, a route which is patently impossible if you're driving the speed limit; you cannot drive 84 miles on I-91 in 76 minutes, an average just over 66 mph, on a road with no segments 65 mph segments, without exceeding the speed limit.
But also, this claim just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Cars take up a lot of space. You can't just drive through them, you have to take affirmative action to change lanes and pass them. You'd find yourself behind people driving the speed limit pretty often, which you will notice.
That is no counterpoint. I am talking about people, not Google Maps. Also, the standard freeway speed limit is 65 MPH AFAIK, so I-91 seems like an exception that Google Maps is not accounting for (and perhaps human drivers as well).
> You'd find yourself behind people driving the speed limit pretty often, which you will notice.
I assume you're implying that you're always driving above the speed limit and you and you're saying you don't find yourself passing people. There could be many reasons for this. You could be in one of the exceptions that I mention, or you could be driving at times and/or along roads without many people. You could also be selectively remembering things; you are much more likely to remember passing people if the incident is frustrating and less likely if it is not frustrating.
> Also, the standard freeway speed limit is 65 MPH AFAIK, so I-91 seems like an exception that Google Maps is not accounting for (and perhaps human drivers as well).
You cannot average 66 mph without going over 65 mph, and the states involved don't post speed limits over 65 mph. You cannot get this result with by a simple oversight under the assumption that speed limits represent the speed people actually drive.
Consider what inputs might lead Google Maps to such a conclusion.
I've heard that. In driving safety class they taught us that the speed limit is safer. I tried to look up a credible source either way and came up blank. Do you have one?
I go by feel. If it feels much safer to speed, I do. Otherwise I'm in the right hand lane, usually a safe stopping distance behind a big rig for aero gains.
I think the speed isn’t where the focus matters. Obviously speed is a factor in severity and a driver who is bombing down the highway is probably more dangerous than your average bear, but safe follow distance is the thing people just overwhelmingly do not practice or care about. If you’re able to react in time if something happens in front of you, that’s what is going to keep you out of (preventable) trouble more than if you’re sticking to 60 instead of 70 on the highway.
The unfortunate thing is people take your propensity to maintain a safe follow distance as an invitation to cut aggressively in front of you, potentially across multiple lanes.
It sucks all around, but I don’t think AVs are the solution and I definitely don’t trust any company producing AVs is delivering a product that does what it claims. Waymo doesn’t acknowledge in this about the part where their vehicles have human operators take control when the car doesn’t know what to do. I assume they’re not including that data. That’s going to skew the result. Even if the car is super safe in most driving conditions, ignoring what is arguably the least safe conditions the car can be in in your data analysis is fucked and intentionally dishonest.
If somebody is whizzing past you and you are going the speed limit then they aren't going 5mph faster than you. I've never been on a road where everybody is consistently speeding by so much that it could be perceived as "whizzing."
If I am reading this correctly then I think it is simply preventing the companies that buy ads on Meta from using Meta’s own generative AI features to make certain types of ads. It’s not really feasible to accurately block AI generated content anymore with good accuracy afaik.
I would imagine they did lobby against this, likely fighting tooth and nail legally. However I do not think the EU is as easily swayed, especially as EU regulators are generally skeptical of the business practices of large US multinationals. IMO, and possibly objectively, the EU is generally more pro-competition and pro-privacy, it is also much harder to buy out politicians due to the parties being really fragmented and it would appear more difficult to unilaterally impose the will of these corps on their citizens.
especially as EU regulators are generally skeptical of the business practices of large US multinationals
The singling out of US multinationals is a bit of a myth, it's just more visible to us tech people and since the revenues are larger, the fines also tend to be larger. But they also fined Daimler, Scania, DAF, Philips, Volvo, Deutsche Bank, etc.
"The" EU is not a monolithic thing, there are liberal and conservative factions. Depending on the topic the resulting consensus can move quite a bit on that spectrum...
Not to flame but this is a very mis-informed opinion. Multiple sources[1][2] show that millennial homeownership rates when adjusted for age are lower across the board.
Some highlights from these sources:
[1] Today the millennial homeownership rate is 43 percent, well below the rates of generation X (67 percent) and the baby boomer and silent generations (77 percent). An important feature of millennial homeownership that often gets muddled in the media conversation is that it is increasing, and with few minor exceptions, it has always been increasing. The oldest millennials turned 18 in 1999, and every year since then there has been a net increase in the number of millennial-owned homes. Since the Great Recession, the millennial homeownership rate has grown faster than any other, particularly in the last five years while the economy has expanded quickly. Today, millennials are the least likely to own a home, but they are the most likely to purchase one.
Millennial homeownership is rising, but it is rising slower than it did for previous generations. The chart below (see link) compares homeownership rates for each generation as they age
[2] If we isolate the effects of delayed household formation proxied by changes in marital composition (i.e., we assume the marriage rate was the same as in 1990), we find the hypothetical real homeownership rate would have been 39.1 percent, 9.8 percentage points higher than current levels. As of 2021, there are 44 million young adults ages 25 to 34, meaning there would be 4.3 million additional homeowners.
The third chart in the apartment list link ("Homeownership has been in decline for decades") is exactly the plot I wanted. That chart makes the gap not look so dramatic as either your numbers or the paragraphs surrounding the chart: millennials are within 10% of the boomers at the same age. For the youngest and oldest millenials it's more like 5%.
I'm curious how this has changed since the article's publishing in 2020. Anecdotally, I know a lot of millennials who bought their first home since, but I don't know how widespread that is.
I think some amount of gap is reasonable, especially for the 20s cohort: less likely to have kids, more likely to want to live in a big dense city. Looks like millenials are closing the gap once they hit mid 30s or so, right around when they have their first or second kid and move to the burbs or further. I just can't see being worried or upset about that.
Likely involves their most senior devs bypassing normal deployment procedures / access controls. In this case, to be able to edit their live production environment instance instead relying on Workers KV / other impacted internal services (which a lot of their infrastructure relies on) Which would then enable a proper rollback. The aim being to restore service as quickly as possible to minimize the customer impact.
Working with some large companies this sounds likely. They'll typically have all changes occur in a testing environment and get pushed to prod via automation.
In theory this is beneficial as it helps fund the ICANN and keep it independent. But the reality is that these are effectively money printing machines, effectively out of reach for all but large corporations, which bring questionable value to the internet in general.
I selfishly hope that we can establish a free TLD, or at least one which just directly funds ICANN operations instead of benefitting rich middle men.
Wouldn't having a demonstrably false accuracy rate, but simultaneously claiming to be 99% accurate in all circumstances constitute making knowingly false statements, and perhaps even malicious disregard for truth?
I personally hope this will be the course of action we see being taken against these AI detector services. It is well-known to many that these are essentially snake oil salesmen, and it has been damaging in other contexts too, such as in academic settings where students are penalized for similar false accusations.
As LLMs continue to improve, it would seem that it is only going to get more difficult to accurately distinguish between content which is AI generated vs human generated, so barring some kind of AI-detection breakthrough, these services will continue to plague students and writers with horrible false positive rates.
It all comes down to available resources. It takes capital and motivated founders to create new vet clinics. Few will want to spread themselves thin enough to cover many clinics unless they are in the same geographic area, and even then the market has saturation limits. However, if an entity essentially resembling Chase bank in terms of capital resources comes into your town and either buys out or undercuts you drastically until you appear to be uncompetitive, and you can't make your mortgage payments, or cover your whole staff and equipment, what are you supposed to do? PE can starve you out, they have the resources, these small businesses do not. There is no competition in this instance, just a slaughter.
