Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | jtokoph's comments login

"We removed users’ names to protect the innocent. Instead, we’re showing random fruit names prepended to the real users’ ids."

Can't someone just go lookup the IDs to get real names?


Yeah... but the purpose of the post is to explain the methodology not to point fingers. We kept the IDs because they are useful to demonstrate whether users created those accounts consecutively. Product Hunt's public API can be used to find the real names and even expand this method further.

I've always thought that the Google cars have driven 95%+ of their miles in Mountain View, CA where every single aspect of the roads have been digitized, tested and tweaked a million times over. If you stuck one of these cars in a brand new city, it wouldn't work nearly as well.

-----


That other company of which there was an article here a few months ago drove a car autonomously from LA to NYC. Volvo drives cars around Stockholm. BMW has self driving cars on the road. There are self driving trucks right now at work on oil fields in Alaska and in mines in Australia.

It's true that we're not really there yet. And yes there are hurdles like regulation, what about heavy rain etc. But the pace at which things are going...

-----


No carmaker has a city-driving autonomous vehicle that doesn't require super-precise, cm-scale, unrealistically always-up-to-date maps for the AI.

The autonomous super-size dump trucks drive along carefully pre-programmed routes using GPS.

We're still a long ways away from practical and safe self-driving cars. AI and computer vision just isn't there yet.

-----


Think in terms of exponential progress, and we're about 5 years from the majority of trips being done by self-driving car, IMHO

5 years is a fantasy.

Continued exponential increases in device computing power is by no means guaranteed now that chips are at the 14nm feature size.

And the recent progress in AI can only be partially attributed to improved computing power - much of it was from improved approaches to training neural networks. We could stumble into another AI winter and have to wait another 30 years for the next round of big algorithmic AI breakthroughs.

I guarantee you that self-driving cars will not be the mainstream even in 15 years. Probably more.

-----


I don't think there will be any more AI winters. Previous AI winters were largely the result of a crash in federal grant writing (DARPA/the Strategic Computing Initiative) to labs at research universities, which depend on them for cash.

This time, the ongoing AI/ML renaissance is funded by private industry, and the value they are extracting from it far outstrips the costs of keeping their in-house R&D labs operating. Even if there's a contraction in the market, I can't envision any possible world where Google/Facebook/etc stop working on AI, and they have the money to keep it up as long as they want.

-----


> I guarantee you that self-driving cars will not be the mainstream even in 15 years. Probably more.

Want to make a Long Bet on that? I'm willing to bet up to $1000 USD, loser pays winner's choice of 501(c)(3) US charity org, that self-driving cars will be mainstream in under 10 years.

-----


What do you mean by self-driving cars? As in highly assistive driving on highways so that you can not really pay attention most of the time whether that's legal or not? That I could (maybe) buy though it's a stretch given replacement cycles.

But something I can summon with an app and take a nap? 50 years may be too soon.

-----


"Level 4: The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time. As this vehicle would control all functions from start to stop, including all parking functions, it could include unoccupied cars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Definition

-----


That's many decades away.

-----


My bet calls for under 10 years.

-----


Now you just need to define "mainstream".

-----


How gauche! No, I don't want to make a Long Bet on that.

I don't live in the United States where every CS graduate gets a Ferrari as a signing bonus (maybe a self-driving Ferrari one day). $USD1000 is clearly a lot more money to me than it is to you.

But if you'd like to take your own side of the bet and choose your own charity, please feel free.

Moreover, I'd like to know what the terms of that bet that you'd be making with yourself. Is it for a generally available car that can drive reasonably anywhere? In San Fransisco but also in small towns without super-accurate cm-scale mapping data (which will never be both everywhere and up-to-date)? Do we consider it a success if self-driving cars blindly drive into construction sites that haven't been mapped? Or crash into newly erected barricades? Because I don't, and that's exactly where we'll be in 15 years.

Autonomous vehicles are quickly approaching what I will acknowledge is probably an 80% solution. In nice weather, when their mapping is perfect in a perfectly-mapped area, and they have a good GPS signal, autonomous cars will work well (and currently are working well in testing).

That's not the standard that's expected. No one lives in a city without road work or construction going on. No one lives in a city where temporary or make-shift signs aren't being erected, or where there are never detours, or where there isn't ad-hoc communication going on between pedestrians and drivers, or where weather doesn't block LIDAR, or, ...whatever.

We will be nowhere near level 4 autonomous vehicles in 10 years time. And not in 15 years, either.

No one in this field is confident of that anymore. Not even Google is making the same bold claims that they were 3 years ago. Their own researchers are publicly hedging now (http://gizmodo.com/how-to-teach-an-autonomous-car-to-drive-1...) and backing away from their most ambitious claims.

The only other group that I'm aware of that's still claiming that we're anywhere near having generally-useful self-driving cars are the established car makers, none of whom have traditionally been serious AI and computer vision research contributors.

-----


Why does it matter how much $1000 is to you if you can guarantee that you won't lose - which you did just a few comments up the tree? And remember, he said "up to", so perhaps you'd feel more comfortable at $100? Or $10?

"The usual touchstone, whether that which someone asserts is merely his persuasion -- or at least his subjective conviction, that is, his firm belief -- is betting. It often happens that someone propounds his views with such positive and uncompromising assurance that he seems to have entirely set aside all thought of possible error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes it turns out that he has a conviction which can be estimated at a value of one ducat, but not of ten. For he is very willing to venture one ducat, but when it is a question of ten he becomes aware, as he had not previously been, that it may very well be that he is in error. If, in a given case, we represent ourselves as staking the happiness of our whole life, the triumphant tone of our judgment is greatly abated; we become extremely diffident, and discover for the first time that our belief does not reach so far. Thus pragmatic belief always exists in some specific degree, which, according to differences in the interests at stake, may be large or may be small." - Immanuel Kant

-----


"A long way away" - only true in terms of linear extrapolations of current progress. Think in terms of exponential progress, and we're about 5 years from the majority of trips being done by self-driving car, IMHO. The benefits of self-driving cars are so powerful that they will take over the world even faster than the electric vehicles described in this article...

-----


I assume each car will record its data and upload it. Handily google fiber has lots of upload capacity. Google will then aggregate changes in the maps.

-----


Freightliner has an autonomous semi-truck (the "Inspiration") working on Nevada roads currently:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self...

It (for now) requires a human driver, but operates at autonomous level 3.

-----


How quickly could a fleet of Google vehicles ingest a major metros geographic data? Assume a similar project as Street View, with minimum wage drivers piloting the data collection vehicles without autonomous mode turned on. Days? Weeks? Under 6 months for sure.

EDIT: Current street view coverage: https://support.google.com/maps/answer/68384?hl=en

-----


That's the whole innovation. They reframed the problem in order to make it easier. Everyone used to think about how to get the car to comprehend everything in the world. Google just provides the car a highly detailed map and then the car has fewer things to focus on. They replace some of the complexity by using huge amounts of data. It's a very 'Google' solution really.

This is why Uber and others are scrambling to buy mapping companies. In the future the software goes hand in hand with a hyper detailed map.

-----


I watched one of these a few days ago get stuck at a 4 way stop near Castro St. I think the human driver had to take over.

-----


And the weather is nice 99% of the time. I'd like to see a Google self driving car work in the rain or snow.

-----


You say this like people are good at driving in rain or snow.

They are not.

There is a reason for all of those pileup pictures whenever there is severe weather in the US.

Self-driving cars are going to be WAY better in bad weather than any human could ever be. They will be able to "see" in conditions that humans couldn't dream of. They will be able to control steering far better on slick surfaces. They will be able to respond to emergencies far faster.

I have said this before but it bears repeating, once we get self-driving cars, the insurance companies won't actually let you drive anymore.

-----


You say this like people are good at driving in rain or snow. They are not.

I've driven in 42 winters on icy roads with thick snow and limited visibility, without the aid of GPS which has a funny way of disappearing in inclement weather. Google's cars have been demonstrated driving in exactly 0 winters under those conditions. Because they know it would be a disaster.

There is a reason for all of those pileup pictures whenever there is severe weather in the US.

They're driving too fast. But they knew that. They just decided to do it anyways. But they didn't drive that fast thinking that the snow was actually falling leaves or that the windshield was dirty or that the car was suddenly moving backwards, or any of the other ridiculous things that an AI will begin thinking when it falls out of a switch statement, encounters a case it wasn't trained on, or loses its GPS signal.

Self-driving cars are going to be WAY better in bad weather than any human could ever be

I have said this before but it bears repeating, once we get self-driving cars, the insurance companies won't actually let you drive anymore.

I completely agree. One day they will be completely superior to human drivers. But that isn't today and won't be for years. Many years. Like decades.

-----


> But they didn't drive that fast thinking that the snow was actually falling leaves or that the windshield was dirty or that the car was suddenly moving backwards, or any of the other ridiculous things that an AI will begin thinking when it falls out of a switch statement, encounters a case it wasn't trained on, or loses its GPS signal.

Except that autonomous cars will have lidar and radar which sees through rain and snow, accelerometers and wheel monitors to integrate position even in the face of GPS loss, and infrared and ultraviolet cameras which can see much further than human eyes.

You are right. Autonomous cars are worse right now. But they will be way better than humans really quickly.

Look at how fast the DARPA challenge went from "can't complete the course" to "had to slow the vehicles down for safety".

-----


But they will be way better than humans really quickly

I'm naturally suspicious of faith-based engineering.

-----


> I'm naturally suspicious of faith-based engineering.

LOL. I like that comment. However, engineering is part science and part art. The art part often has a significant component of faith.

Moore's Law is a good example of faith-based engineering--because we had faith it would happen we committed resources to make it happen. And that operated well for almost 40 years.

I view self-driving cars in the same light--there is now faith that it will happen, so people are now committing resources to make it happen. And there don't seem to be any insurmountable problems (the biggest problems are "vision" being power and CPU intensive, but a car is a very high-density power source).

I do understand your point, though, initially many people regarded self-driving cars as "AI" and that, of course, remains elusive.

However, what the engineers quickly figured out was that you don't need to approach the problem as AI. There are much simpler heuristics--which is not surprising since driving is a background task for most humans.

-----


People said this about nav systems. I know I did. Sure, Google maps was great on the Interstate, but put it on the side roads of Pittsburgh, PA and nav was completely toast.

Guess what? A couple years later and nav systems were better than 99% of people even in places like Pittsburgh. I haven't bought a Thomas Guide (remember those?) in 10 years, I think.

It's going to be like this for self-driving cars. It will be slow progress for a while and then it will just go exponential. Part of the slow progress is that nobody wants to have the first fatality in a self-driving car as it will be an absolute PR disaster.

-----


I tend to agree on the insurance front, but I suspect that it won't be a ban, just a higher rate if you choose to drive manually.

-----


Human beings do manage to drive through even severe weather without serious incident more often than not. Meanwhile, i'm not aware that Google's autonomous cars can even handle mildly inclement weather.

The fact remains that autonomous cars are still far worse than humans in this regard.

-----


There was a time when you could say the same about street view. Now they're working on the bottom of the ocean.

-----


Mapping the roads isn't challenging. How do you think humans perform at driving through brand new cities?

-----


I think there is a meta learning curve to driving in brand new cities. I have learned to not try to make missed exits, not speed so that I have time to process signs, tolerate wrong turns, not make unnecessary lane changes, and generally just pay attention. It's also generally safer to drive either in the day or well lighted areas. The only near screw up was trying to pass a car and realizing the rental had no mid end torque. The car in the left lane honked at me.

-----


Humans don't need cm-scale precise maps in cities to avoid jumping curbs and running into streetlamps. But that's still a requirement for all autonomous cars that have been demonstrated.

-----


Not all autonomous cars require that, either. Nor is there any reason whatsoever to believe it will be a requirement in the future.

-----


No, but researchers agree that self-mapping or map-unassisted autonomous cars are much further off into the future than are perfect-map cars, like the ones Google is demonstrating. And the equipment (e.g. LIDAR) on the car is super-expensive. And has lots of moving parts. And is easily foiled. Etc.

-----


I don't see why this matters, though. cm-scale maps aren't hard to produce.

-----


Aren't hard to produce everywhere?

-----


Not much harder to produce than the current street view maps that are almost everywhere...

-----


If you do open source it, don't use Slack in the name

-----


That's really the key.

Recall CentOS before RedHat was brought back into the fold. RedHat was always referred to as PNAELV, a "Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" to avoid running afoul of trademark issues.

-----


Isn't an empty string still a string?

-----


Right, the issue here is just using null or "". You could use an Optional or Maybe type here. Even better you could define:

    data SessionKey = ValidSessionKey | InvalidSessionKey
Then the developer making the modification code would have been much less likely to type "InvalidSessionKey" whereas the None/"" behavior is just an idiom. The problem here is that the domain knowledge of: "" is a valid session

wasn't communicated by the code.

-----


At first I was kind of excited about the Apple watch but I don't normally wear a watch. I was mainly interested in the health tracking features and notifications.

I just started using a Fitbit watch and have realized it's a much cheaper alternative that meets most of my requirements.

-----


As far as I can see this just works for call and push notifications from the Fitbit app. For me a very big part of the Apple Watch are notifications from all apps e.g. if my server is down or I receive a bank deposit etc.

-----


But is there really a 500 dollar difference between moving your hand from your pocket to your eyeline, and moving your hand from 1 inch away from your pocket to your eyeline?

-----


Try a Pebble sometime. It's a full-featured smartwatch and it also has activity tracking features.

-----


Except for swimming (which is quite rare for activity trackers and great win for Pebble) we have to wait for 'smart bands'. HRM are getting more and more popular and without it Pebble can't really compete with fitness trackers.

-----


I personally think that HRM in watches will have the same fate as 3D in televisions. For most people HRM is a gimmick, not something they'll use every day.

-----


> For most people HRM is a gimmick, not something they'll use every day.

HRM is a key to frictionless calorie consumption estimation; HRM may not directly be something a lot of users use every day, but frictionless calorie consumption estimation has a pretty wide audience, and HRM is the enabling technology for that.

-----


I'm not sure if I agree. I have optical HRM on a activity tracker and knowing my resting HR is very cool. Its good enough for 23h a day. I do use chest strap HRM for cycling where my tracker fails to record high intensity properly (like hills).

-----


I guess you don't have to charge it every f..n day too.

-----


Paul Irish has done a few videos where he walks through some of the jQuery code: http://www.paulirish.com/2010/10-things-i-learned-from-the-j...

-----


I can't believe that article was five years ago already! >.>

-----


I find it interesting that visiting the https version of cnnic.cn in Chrome neither displays a lock icon nor a warning, but the certificate is displayed as valid: http://i.imgur.com/fTzxpBh.png

-----


Google is explicitly whitelisting the legitimate end-user certificates CNNIC has issued, and then revoking the root.

Basically they had to hand over a list of all issued certificates, Google reviewed them, and CNNIC can't issue any new ones without asking Google to whitelist it.

-----


Related to their use of SHA1 on the certificate: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2014/09/gradually-s...

-----


Yup, this is it. The cnnic.cn end-entity certificate is SHA-1, which would do it. (I believe there's some sadness involved like Windows XP being excessively prevalent in China, or something... I vaguely recall a discussion of this on the cabforum public list, but I can't find it now.)

If you click on the white page icon and go to the "Connection" tab, it'll say "This site is using outdated security settings," which generally (always, in current Chrome versions?) means SHA-1.

-----


Those are only two examples of apps that support TOTP[0]. TOTP is a standard with many implementing apps, including free and open source that will accomplish the same thing. The two apps listed on the website are just well known examples.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password_Al...

-----


Doesn't the star next to each entry mean it is in your bookmarks somewhere?

-----


Yes, but it's the "linkedin.com" autocomplete he's referring to, since it doesn't show up in any bookmarks (or nonexistent history)

Admittedly it wasn't a very clear article, and probably took longer to write than the bug request would have taken to submit. :/

-----


Everything screenshot I saw seems to have stars next to it (even the linkedin one he posted). These starred bookmarks need to be cleared by going to Bookmarks, Show all Bookmarks, then heading to the starred bookmark section and wiping them out from there.

-----


Cloudflare is running authoritative nameservers whereas Google is running resolvers (8.8.8.8, etc).

I might argue that resolvers should support the ANY query since they are just acting as a proxy/cache in front of the authoritative servers.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: