Ford was working on autonomous stuff before Argo though, from what I understand. Argo was bought I think in hopes that they could significantly advance their tech with startup ingenuity. It's a bit disappointing because I think it's a good testing platform to develop these vehicles in Detroit given our variety of weather and road conditions that would be great for applying all of this in non-ideal conditions, but all I ever see in this city are May Mobility shuttles.
I don't think Waymo is really all that much ahead. Their testing is largely still in very ideal areas. Arizona has been attracting firms not just because they passed some permissive laws, but also because it's a place with lots of sunlight and relativity mild weather compared place like the Great Lakes or the Northeast. Same goes for California. Their progress however looks much better because they're really aggressively testing this stuff in ideal real-life conditions, but I think even they are a long way off from deploying those vehicles to places like Michigan year-round (a state that also has allowances for autonomous driving).
Waymo can be found on the roads in NW suburbs of Detroit (Novi). Admittedly I did not see them much over the winter. Point is simply that they seem to be testing in the more ‘real-world’ conditions found in the Midwest. I have no idea what the progress is or number of autonomous miles driven but they do have equipment in the field in Michigan.
Hopefully as other companies advance they’ll also move to Michigan as an ideal test bed and bring the crossroads of tech and auto to Michigan.
Amtrak is a corporation owned by the U.S. government. That structure is typical for rail operators. What's different is that Amtrak is operated like part of the government, while European rail operators are actually operated like private companies. For example, the CEO of Deutsche Bahn is paid like a private CEO, while the CEO of Amtrak is paid like a senior government officer (and right now, actually, not being paid at all).
So, according to your article, 29% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more hours, whereas 24% of Americans did, so I'm not seeing much comparative improvements and I'd hypothesize that long ER wait times are not to do with which healthcare model you have, it has to do with misuse of ER. Meanwhile, France, Germany and the Netherlands all had outstanding numbers, and as far as I know they all have universal coverage.
So, according to your article, 29% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more hours, whereas 24% of Americans did
What? Where does it say that in the report? The figure is 24% of Americans and _56%_ of Canadians!
Patients who waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist, after they were advised or decided to see one in the last 2 years: Country results from highest to lowest
Canada, 56% (below average); Norway, 52%; New Zealand, 44%; Sweden, 42%; United Kingdom, 37%; Commonwealth Fund average, 36%; France, 36%; Australia, 35%; Germany, 25%; United States, 24%; Netherlands, 23%; Switzerland, 22%
Also, here's a quick guide to health insurance systems around the world. As a Canadian, I would urge all Americans to be extremely suspicious of the National Health Insurance model that Canada has. Wait lists are very real. The Bismarck model seem like a better fit for US culture and needs (still universal access).
Having used the ER twice in fifth grade in Canada, it seemed fine? Like, yes, sure you have to wait 12 hours to see a doctor if you're not bleeding out the chest. But also, I didn't have to face the prospect of paying $300 for a 15 minute consult, or going to jail to receive treatment.
If you have a cold, you find a PCP or a "health clinic" and make an appointment for same-day or later-that-week. And sure it's hard to find that PCP, but with my PCP in the US I have to book appointments three weeks in advance!
I'd argue "75%ile time waiting in the ER" is not a great metric. That neither tells you how easy it is you are to get preventative or routine treatment, nor how well your ER is able to handle a mass-shooting type catastrophe.
_Without insurance_ you can see a doctor in the U.S. for relatively cheap. I'm talking, $100 for a clinic visit. I've done it plenty of times for less.
The healthcare in the U.S. seems nuts because you are _billed_ for hundreds of dollars, but that's because they have to subsidize medicare patients AND insurance companies have negotiated rates based on percentages. So, they may only pay 40% of what is billed, but you are shown much more.
It's a scam everyone is involved in, which is why we need open pricing and open "how much insurance actually paid".
Looks transparent to me. pdes must be "pipe descriptors". ifs probably refers to the IFS concept in the shell; it may have come from getenv("IFS"). wordexp is described as influenced by IFS, and this function may have to look at that variable even though it's calling an external program to pass it different arguments (which is a bit weird at first glance: the program seems dedicated to the purpose; why can't it handle that aspect internally). flags is probably coming from the wordexp flags argument; it's being tested using the documented bitmask constants in the API.
Basically the coder here didn't just make up identifiers; they have connections to pervasive Unix concepts.
How useful is the info gathered from an attack like this? Does it depend on the specific method (e.g., contactless card versus something like Google Pay) how compromising the information is? I was under the impression that by having virtual cards and the service itself to contact, Google Pay had something of a buffer from attacks like this.
The privacy angle is only part of it - the other part is someone else spending my money, and they can do that just as easily with something like Google Pay.
Unfortunately, virtually all CS programs have become Software Engineering programs save for their names. The actually thinking and theory behind it is often more of a side note as educational institutions focus on teaching students how to use specific tools that are popular at the time, leading to many people having a good idea of these specific tools, but no idea on their actual design implications or how anybody actually realized how to do these things.
Sadly, if you want to learn proper theory (what I consider to be CS) you have to get lucky and find a mathematics program that has electives so you can focus on things like discrete mathematics and information theory.
Yeah, this seems pretty dodgy when they're showing just pure bolivar expenditure. I think cryptocurrency could probably be a good deal for Venezuelans right now, too. It avoids being subject to poor economic decisions by their government while still also avoiding being at the mercy of an economic hegemon. The more likely case though is that they're probably primarily using USD, along with other regional currencies, far more than cryptocurrency. They're a lot easier to use, too, than cryptocurrency.
I get this feeling that the displayed images just won't be the same, not the least because they'd just be flat images instead of what you see when you normally look out. As someone who regularly requests window seats this doesn't appeal to me in the least, but I don't fly Emirates so I guess it doesn't really matter. I suppose I might be in the minority, though, of people who love just staring out the window, especially on takeoff and descent.
I don't think Waymo is really all that much ahead. Their testing is largely still in very ideal areas. Arizona has been attracting firms not just because they passed some permissive laws, but also because it's a place with lots of sunlight and relativity mild weather compared place like the Great Lakes or the Northeast. Same goes for California. Their progress however looks much better because they're really aggressively testing this stuff in ideal real-life conditions, but I think even they are a long way off from deploying those vehicles to places like Michigan year-round (a state that also has allowances for autonomous driving).