I bought one of these to play with xcp-ng, but I didn’t do enough research or I’d have known that there’s problems with jasper lake, and they won’t have a working release till end of year.
This is neat. I had a similar idea of tracking what we read online in the browser. In addition to just recording time spent and links followed, I would also archive every article read to automatically build up a personal library of the articles themselves. Additionally, light weight note taking on the articles themselves ala hypothe.is
Unfortunately a new baby has drained all my time for such pursuits.
So right now, the Chrome Extension tracks all link clicks as well so the visualisation actually builds relationships between articles/ blogs/ anything else you read on the internet.
I also had another idea that once we build our Knowledge Maps, we should be able to compare and share it will one another.
For instance, I'd love to see what our software engineers around my age/ experience are reading and the insights they are drawing from articles.
Obviously some sort of security/ privacy mechanism will need to be implemented as well.
I’ve bought a uni USB-c to DisplayPort cable before. Support was helpful: had some trouble getting it to work with my laptop in Linux and they sent me another cable to make sure it wasn’t a cable issue.
Parking tickets are much more reasonable to delegate than a moving violation.
You don't have to stop the violator, because they're usually not present, and you can leave the ticket on the vehicle.
The circumstances that lead to a finding of violation are subject to less dispute. Cyclist claims light was green, citizen enforcer claims light was red, is harder to prove vs parker says time was 5:30 and citizen enforcer says time was 4:30. Some parking tickets are more sensitive to location -- if the vehicle is very near the boundary between acceptable and not acceptable, perhaps an escalation to a sworn officer is in order, but parking in a red zone / parking in a bike lane / parking in disabled without a visible permit is usually clear cut.
Wasn't talking about a particular infraction specifically, just in general giving citizens police-ish powers seems open to abuse. For example, it gives you something that you can hold over someone's head/blackmail them with, "gimme X or I'll submit this ticket". There's also the possibility of lying in various forms (e.g. photoshop or otherwise fake a picture to submit).
These problems exist to some extent with professionals too, but it's easier to work on the trust angle with a small pool of salaried people that presumably want to keep their jobs for a long time, as opposed to a large pool of random citizens for whom this is a side gig or volunteer effort.
It isn't, but the problem I see is this: With so much power there should be a requirement of proof. No problem for parked cars, just take a picture. And for cyclists going through a red light? An always-on camera? Without proof I do see an increased potential for irate "enforcers" to take it out on someone. I tend to think that those who are going to volunteer are going to be a self-selecting subset of the population who take "law & order" more seriously and react more strongly to violations.
I see the use of “autopilot” name bring brought up a lot. Thinking about what an autopilot in an airplane does, labeling Tesla’s system autopilot is actually pretty apt.
It’s unfortunate that there’s a disconnect between what autopilot means colloquially vs what it actually does on a plane.
...Flies the plane safely with zero input from the pilot (hands off the yoke) indefinitely? Lands the plane on its own [1]? I'm well aware that autopilot systems need input directions for desired altitude and air speed, but the semantic distinction people try to draw between "real" autopilot and Tesla's autopilot capabilities have never made sense to me.
> the semantic distinction people try to draw between "real" autopilot and Tesla's autopilot capabilities have never made sense to me.
Typical airliner autopilot flies along a list of 3D waypoints and manages airspeed to avoid falling from the sky or overstressing the airframe. It's a fairly trivial system since it does not have to find its way around a complex, constantly changing environment like a car does. It will happily fly into mountains, other airplanes or dangerous environments like thunderstorms.
All decision-making depends on pilots. Autopilot itself is nothing more than a simple cruise control that relieves pilots from things like manually maintaining constant altitude over six hours on a transatlantic flight. Any hobbist with a Raspberry PI can built a similar GPS-based waypoint following and speed scheduling for a car, but it's useless for road traffic, because roads are not straight, long empty stretches that can be navigated by driving from one waypoint directly to another waypoint 100 miles away.
Car autopilot must be able to make decisions (follow the road, react to obstacles) to be useful, and that makes it fundamentally more complex than any existing airliner autopilot.
I think what you're missing is that Tesla's Autopilot is not done. It's clearly labeled "Beta" when you enable it in the car.
The goal of Tesla's Autopilot is to take you from your garage to your parking space with zero input. Therefore it's exactly the same as a plane's which takes you from runway to runway.
Just because it's a work-in-progress doesn't mean it's named wrong.
You can safely take a nap while flying a plane on autopilot, the device is more than capable of navigating a course with no human supervision for extended periods of time... which is not possible with the same technology on the ground, with all the trees and stray children running around.
So while the technology may be the same, calling it "autopilot" is not; in the one case it can run on auto, in the other it can not.
That's a strange claim without any evidence to back it up.
It's the first video on their "Autopilot" page. There's absolutely no mention of features that don't exist yet in the video.
You have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for any mention of full self-driving. I'd believe your claim if the video was under the headline of "Full Self-driving", but it isn't.
I wonder if it would be more intuitive to display a projection of the 4D scene in 3 dimensions (then projected onto a 2d screen), rather than a 3D cross section of the 4D scene.
The pi and e example seems more complicated than it looks. If you ask a human who doesn’t know about pi or e, how much effort would it take for them to figure out the next digits? Seems like they’d have to rediscover the math first (or I suppose, perform a google search)
Yes, it would be a hugely complicated undertaking and probably impossible for most humans with little academic mathematical knowledge. But the point is that it would be possible, which indicates that the problem does not necessarily lie in the amount of data but in the algorithmic approach itself.
ML is a great tool that is creating very real and tangible value, but it still has ways to go. Just adding more computational capabilities and more data will only bring marginal improvements.
Can you highlight where in the TOS they say this? I’ve used LastPass for several years and this would be concerning if true. I didn’t seen any such language in their ToS: https://www.logmeininc.com/legal/terms-and-conditions
> You may use our Services only as permitted in these Terms, and you consent to our Privacy Policy at https://www.logmeininc.com/legal/privacy, which is incorporated by reference.
pp:
> When you use our Services, we receive information generated through the use of the Service, either entered by you or others who use the Services with you (for example, schedules, attendee info, etc.), or from the Service infrastructure itself, (for example, duration of session, use of webcams, connection information, etc.) We may also collect usage and log data about how the services are accessed and used, including information about the device you are using the Services on, IP addresses, location information, language settings, what operating system you are using, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data to help us support the Services.
> Third Party Data: We may receive information about you from other sources, including publicly available databases or third parties from whom we have purchased data, and combine this data with information we already have about you. We may also receive information from other affiliated companies that are a part of our corporate group. This helps us to update, expand and analyze our records, identify new prospects for marketing, and provide products and services that may be of interest to you.
> Location Information: We collect your location-based information for the purpose of providing and supporting the service and for fraud prevention and security monitoring. If you wish to opt-out of the collection and use of your collection information, you may do so by turning it off on your device settings.
> Device Information: When you use our Services, we automatically collect information on the type of device you use, operating system version, and the device identifier (or "UDID").
and
> Some specific examples of how we use the information:
> * Conduct research and analysis
> * Display content based upon your interests
> * Market services of our third-party business partners
and
> 4. Information Sharing
> ... We may share your personal information with (a) third party service providers; (b) business partners; (c) affiliated companies within our corporate structure and (d) as needed for legal purposes.
and
> Examples of how we may share information with service providers include:
