Waymo doesn't require a driver to supervise the car, they're supposedly running Level 4 cars. FSD requires continual supervision, you must be responsible and attentive at all times. How is this a reasonable comparison?
There's a big difference between "someone at central command can take over when the car signals" and "someone must watch the car constantly and take over when they see it do anything bad".
The disengagement events on recent videos of FSD are still the likes of "oops it almost turned into oncoming traffic" or "oops it almost ran into a pole", that's the sort of thing you have to catch before it happens, not after.
It's an SAE Level 2 system, they haven't indicated that's ever changing on current cars. They're even calling it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised) (also referred to as Autosteer on City Streets)" now [1]
A lot of companies have Level 2 systems. That's still a far cry from full automation.
Back in 2016, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stunned the automotive world by announcing that, henceforth, all of his company’s vehicles would be shipped with the hardware necessary for “full self-driving.” You will be able to nap in your car while it drives you to work, he promised. It will even be able to drive cross-country with no one inside the vehicle.
They have one of the best Level 2 self-driving implementations on the market. It’s so good that I don’t even question the FSD tag. That said, I would never let my family ride in a Tesla robotaxi running on the existing suite of sensors and FSD. Does anyone know what needs to happen for Tesla to reach Level 5 autonomy? I get nervous letting the current FSD handle complicated intersections.
We have a lot of really useful things to learn about life away from Earth even if you assume that life exists elsewhere.
How common is it? In what environments does it occur?
Does it start the same way everywhere? Does it end up going the same directions the same way everywhere? Does it use the same metabolic pathways and the same genetic material?
Even just a confirmation without taking samples or deeper analysis is enough to start on these questions. Right now we can't even really start.
That other, probably-related Hacker News user posted a response to a suicide crisis post that looks like a "four-paragraph standard ChatGPT response", complete with a "Lastly, " at the end. I hope that wasn't done just to increase that account's seeming legitimacy because wow, what incredibly bad taste.
"Chromecast with Google TV" has a perfectly serviceable remote with a mic, has an ethernet option (optional power adapter with ethernet port), and Apple TV, and already has the last item though sans AI-generated summaries
The "Chromecast with Google TV (4k)" is $50 to this device's $100. $50 is a really attractive price point, $100 immediately feels less like a casual buy. The previous device was also a nice tiny dongle, not requiring any real estate (great for the "TV hanging on the wall with no console" types), while this is a set top box. This feels like a huge step back for new purchasers.
It's not going to drive upgraders either?
More memory, better chipset - These are weird, hard sells for normal people. The previous device could already play 4k HDR streams as well as anything. It improves loading times of apps? So what? You can download more apps? Most TV apps are sized on the order of tens of megabytes, why do I need more storage?
AI features. I don't want any of these, who wants any of these? AI summaries: Shows already have summaries, but now I guess I can have them written by a machine instead. AI screensavers: You have to be kidding, that's not a selling point. I also assume all of this could have been a software update on the old device since it's probably on-cloud.
Smart home features. Again, they could just been a software update? And who wants to turn on their TV and browse through their Google TV's interface to get to their smart light controls or whatever? We have phones and we have voice assistants already.
I just can't understand this. Am I missing something?
It's an open secret that "cheating" (i.e. not having both feet planted) is ubiquitous, to the point that since 1996 the official rule is now "not naked-eye visible loss of contact, or visibly bent knee". You can watch any slow-motion video of racewalkers and they seem to lose contact on every stride.
And they seem to break that break even that very loose rule when they think they can get away with it. With cheap modern tech I am sure they could enforce the contact rules.
If I stop uBlock and shrink the window / enlarge the text so only the main column fits, there's only two inline ads. At normal desktop size though, there's also two sidebar ads and one overlapping box at the bottom. And the ones I got move.
They look like legit AdSense ads, and there's a "liquidnitrogen" comment on one of the related scripts.
For about the last year or so I've been getting pushed fishy articles on another nuclear propulsion company, Pulsar Fusion, via Google Now and elsewhere. AI-generated-reading articles on nobody websites. Something strange about all of this.
reply