Not in scenes with poor lighting, not in rain, not in fog, not in scenes with poor surface variation, and not at the ranges needed for safe on highway driving.
Sure. Problem is cameras are more similar to humans. So a camera based system will drive more like humans, and be less dangerous. If you use a Lidar based system and conditions are great for lidar, but terrible for cameras it's going to be very dangerous to mix autonomous lidar cars with human driven cars.
That's why you should have LIDAR and cameras, if nothing else so the car can use the cameras to predict and adjust to the condition-driven changes in behavior of the human drivers.
Unfortunately, optimizing for profit still puts too many people in a position where they go bankrupt or die because of lack of funds. It's not theory, this is happening today in the United States. We need reform.
I agree in general. But lets not forget, without the incentive to make profit, someone would not have done the investment and work to invent something in the first place. So some treatment would not even exist at all.
I really dislike that argument. It seems to say that, without incentive of making profit, no great progress would be made. It's such a pessimistic view of humanity. Many great people have done amazing things with little to no regard of fame or fortune. I'm not denouncing capitalism, but jesus christ, can we acknowledge that blind pursuit of profit is starting to damage society as a whole.
Each invention or each venture needs resources. Where do you get those from? One can say, people give something and out of this pot you support something bigger (taxes? charity? venture capital?) , and those who have the idea, the skill, the howto, they go for them. And everyone of them has to support their own families too. So all in all, society gets a profit by having people creating treatment, workers get their profit (time+skill for money), investors get a profit and owners maybe get an overproportial share of, what is being paid for it.
I do not understand how this is a pessmistic view. I just see a lot of people being productive?
But i admit, it is an ideal. In generally i also only hear all the bad stories.
Isn't that the point? They attempted to save time and money by not designing a new aircraft (as they originally planned) and found a way to mount the new larger engines that necessitated the MCAS system. In addition, the solution they sold did not, by design, utilize both AoA sensors and did not advise pilots if the sensor disagree unless an additional package was purchased. Furthermore, all of this was in effort to sell an aircraft that would not need significant pilot re-training, resulting in pilots not being familiar enough with the failure mode that resulted in many deaths.
'Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion'
A factor of 10 cost difference 'if they had only done x' isn't realistic.
Completely agree with your additional point though, the competition was the A320neo and the us vs them economics look better if you don't have to pay pilots to sit in a simulator and re cert.
I've got a 9560 with killer wifi card, running 16.04 with no problems. Additionally it's not that tough to swap out the killer for an intel wifi card if you really find the need to.
Yes! The rectangular display on the underside of the wrist was brilliant!
Having gone from MS Band 2 to Apple Watch to Samsung G3 to Fitbit Charge, MS Band has been my favorite.
My single complaint was the how invariably the band would begin to break away from the display over normal use. Also, battery life could have been better...
I'd still buy one if MS decided to produce a 3rd iteration. A Fitbit Charge with the under wrist style display would be great as well...
There was one sensor that wasn't fully optimized, working on it could've added maybe 4 or so hours to the battery life (up to 8 if all the best case most optimistic estimates came through), but other than that OS architecture of the Band ensured optimal battery life.
Having that many sensors, and a screen that bright, on a device that small, just sucks up battery.
For what it is worth (nothing!), if the majority of health sensors were turned off, and the Band was only used as for productivity, the battery could easily last over 3 days. That is if memory serves me correct. :) (I'm wearing one right now, but I'm too lazy to turn everything off and come back in a few days to comment!)
Some Cambridge folks figured out how to convert ATP into (extremely small amounts of) electricity [1].
If you had a route from extracting lipids in the bloodstream, to feeding it to mitochondria in some kind of controlled culture, carry away the carbon dioxide, heat and water, then extract and feed the ATP to the aforementioned Cambridge process, then you might be able to power your wearable tech from your bad eating habits. That 5,000 calorie chocolate volcano cheesecake death-on-a-dish now gets a "hh:mm" advertised next to it. Militaries around the world will then be faced with adding more calories to their already-calorie-loaded rations. Corn farmers in the US will rejoice.
Thank goodness that route I described is not anywhere near feasibility in the next several decades. I'm dubious our ecosystem could sustain that kind of demand for more food calories.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant it more as a personal preference. Considering the sensors and screen, a 2 day battery life was pretty great and certainly one of the reasons it was (and still is) better than the Apple Watch and G3, IMO.
I just meant I value a longer battery life pretty highly. So, something like a MS Band "lite" with a less feature rich sensor package, a 2 tone oled display, and 6 to 7 day battery life would have hit that sweet spot for me, personally.
I really like being able to wear the Charge 3 around the clock for a full week (I typically charge it during my lazy Sunday morning routine) without really worrying about it.
Have you looked at the Garmin fitness bands? The first gen was something like you describe but could go for a year on a couple of coin cells. They probably have more/better ones now, that was several years ago.
This is the reason I still use a Pebble 2 smart watch, so I need to charge it once per week. For me the device is for displaying glucose values, so needing to charge it every day is not really an option.
The use case that seems obvious to me is computationally efficient ray-tracing in robotics/autonomy simulation. I wonder if ISAAC sim will take advantage of RTX. What do you think?
