> The boat had a Garmin GPS marine system, and while Andrew said he hadn’t been familiar with Garmin units prior to that, it was easy to use, allowing him to figure it out quickly.
> Andrew Sherman has since upgraded his tech on his own boat.
> “I bought a Garmin unit because I was so impressed with Sascha’s,” he said.
Definitely written to remind us all that Garmin GPS are easy to use. Oh yeah, someone's life was saved, but don't lose track on the shiny touchscreen GPS haha.
> Personally, I’d rather be surrounded by a group of alcohol abusers than a group of psychedelics abusers.
Can you elaborate a bit on this take? We've all seen how far people abusing alcohol can go. Where as the worst I see from psychedelics users is that they can struggle to talk about anything other than how've they've somehow figured out the universe and that everyone should take psychedelics.
Psychedelics, namely ones like LSD and magic mushrooms, are known to cause psychotic episodes which turn violent. Their prevalence despite the rarity of the drug strongly suggest a high risk of unpredictable violent action.
Anecdotally, people are much more likely to have violent episodes when using alcohol than psychedelics. I'd be surprised if relevant scientific studies didn't support these observations.
San Francisco's budget for homelessness is over 500 million per year. If that isn't enough money to address the problem in one city we clearly need radically different solutions.
I feel it's destructive for people to hold this incorrect belief. People living into their 60s and 70s was very common for all of recorded history. By ignoring this, modern people are less incentivized to criticize and challenge their modern lives and the societies we live within.
Average person lives longer new. Literally deadly diseases are non-issues now. Whole classes of malnutrition related disabilities that used to be frequent basically don't exist anymore, to the point where many people don't even know it existed.
Nobody says no people lived to their 70s. Just like the fact that people live to their 100s now doesn't mean that it doesn't matter if most people live to their 100s.
Then again, I'd rather be young for 50 years than old for 70.
While technically true that extra sensors contribute noise, surely with the proper programming they should be helpful.
You just need to weight the information from you extra sensors appropriately based on your confidence the signal is accurate.
For example, if your lidar sensor is 99.999% percent sure there is an obstacle in front of you, surely it's helpful to take that information into account, even if it is a tiny bit uncertain/noisy.
Wouldn't that be more related to parallel processing power and throughout capabilities than feasibility?
More data in any situation where bandwidth is already maximized will lead to entropy and noise. However, if the capabilities were there to process all of that data in low latency scenarios with headroom to spare, surely adding additional sensors and data points would lead to a more complete model of spatial awareness for the car.
That's all hypothetical and reliant on ignoring the realities of running a business and tech development lol
A bit like our discussion here. More standpoints can ideally be merged into a coherent, more complete picture. The key is to sort out disagreements as coming from different backgrounds and biases and everybody admitting she is not 100% right. Otherwise it is a quarrel of stubborn knowitalls that can't agree.
Fusion is hard. As hard as getting humans to agree. Been there. In both situations.
And of course you can concentrate on improving one echo chamber, err single sensor. But you can never come past its fundamental limitations.
I think you're mistaken. There are still massive technological challenges. I have seen nearly no evidence that current self-driving car technology is even remotely close to matching the ability of a novice human driver. Sure while the "don't crash into things" algorithms may generally be fine, these systems seem to frequently deadlock in completely mundane situations. They also seem dependent on remote operator assistance when encountering non-ideal conditions, greatly limiting their maximum speed.
If anything, legislation and social acceptance has moved faster than the technology. That's the opposite what many of us observing this space expected 10 years ago.
At this point I'm starting to have doubts about whether the full dream of self-driving cars will even be realized within my lifetime.
I read this comment after taking a cruise in SF, which is a self driving cab with no driver. It basically reminds me of all the comments saying that VR has no future, written by people who have never tried VR and would get their mind blown by it if they tried the latest iteration. Maybe you should come to SF and try one of these self driving cars yourself :)
I actually do live in the Bay Area and spend a lot of time in San Francisco. I applied for the Cruise waitlist well over a year ago but have not been accepted. I've tried to organize with friends who have access but we rarely have a reason to go the Richmond or Golden Gate Park after 10PM. The coverage area is very limited.
I'm impressed that they're actually offering driverless rides on SF streets, but my point stands. The cars operate only on the slowest streets at the quietest hours. Any problem they encounter is handled by remote operators.
I'm not outright dismissive of self-driving cars. I truly want them to exist. I don't even own a car and dislike being behind the wheel. I just don't buy into infinite hype pushed by a revolving door of charlatans.
Also I do have a modern VR headset and celebrate the technology. But, to make a similar comparison, the metaverse "ready player one" vision is not within our lifetimes.
How does having taken a ride make you an expert? That's a ridiculous argument on a level with trying to shut someone who criticizes Facebook's algorithms down by saying I use Facebook and never had an issue.
But more importantly in case you're not aware it's not true self-driving at all, they're geofenced and both Waymo as well as Cruise have been shown to have issues with even minor changes like a construction site. The tech isn't there, we don't really have full self-driving and if we actually put a million "self-driving" cars on the road as the above user suggested, it would be utter mayhem with current tech. If this will change in the future is to be seen and from what I've observed progress has already slowed as per ninety–ninety rule. It's easy to have some autonomy functions. It's hard to have millions of fully automated cars. So far, we're nowhere near it.
Funny, because VR has no future outside of some niche areas. It's the new 3D TV. The average person doesn't want a computer strapped to their head all day.
I ALWAYS thought 3D tv was the biggest gimmick. I was the first to point it out. And I’ll be the first to tell you that VR is freaking mind blowing and your comment is going to poorly age.
"Aerial" isn't directly related to airplanes. It means in the air. Unless you consider low earth orbit outside of the atmosphere, which is somewhat debated.
I've obsessively played Factorio since 2014, probably logging over a thousand hours in it. I found Shapez a lot more finicky and overall way less fun. The challenges and progression in Shapez are mundane, the theme is abstract, and the UI and performance do not compare to the brilliant work done in Factorio. For what feels like a weekend project flash game, Shapez is very well done. But it doesn't compare to a project that's seen a decade of development from an incredibly talented team.
Another commenter mentioned Dyson Sphere Program, which is quite similar and also an impressive effort from its team. It introduces some refreshing differences for a seasoned Factorio player but doesn't yet have enough content/longevity.
