I bet that when this tech is in normal cars some will have it tuned to drive much more aggressively and/or simply have that be a setting. I suspect that would be a big selling point / driving tacitly would be an anti-selling point.
Nah, insurance companies will change their coverage rates based on the feature, and / or it'll become another legally mandated feature like backup cameras.
On the other hand, I wonder why insurance companies haven't led to the ubiquity of dashcams. I thought by now every vehicle sold would have one built in.
And my suspicion is that insurance companies don't push for you to get one because it prevents them from fighting claims that they would've won had there been no evidence.
Maybe it's similar for self-driving or whatever we're talking about here (sensors?).
They don’t care because at their scale it would be a wash - you’d only come out ahead if your insured drivers were consistently and significantly better drivers than every other insurance provider you fight claims against.
Then why not offer a "dash-cam discount" to the subset of customers that the insurer believes _are_ better drivers, like those with a long history of having no accidents or tickets and tons of miles?
In the first years maybe. However governments are watching this data and will make it mandatory on when they decide it is really better. (Assuming it is better in unbiased study) There are many governments, it only takes one and the car makers will be looking at if the override button is worth having.
There is money in them doing this nasty nonsense. The cost of something like a cellular connection will only keep dropping. Therefore, it is just a matter of time before such devices can connect to the internet without any way for the user to prevent them. Nobody is going to Faraday cage their house.
That’s where you’re wrong. I’m sure some people will indeed faraday cage their house (or their devices). I know that I’ll have wallpaper to match my hat.
I was at an event where people were making these avatars, many first time users. One person who gave feedback at the end said he was frustrated he could not get the avatar to look like him.
I think whatever the hell Meta is doing with their weird alien humanoids is far from "normie" appeal as well. The furries and anime girls seem more normie in comparison.
I don't know if there is some middle ground that would actually be appealing to some definition of a "billion normie"s. Maybe actually photorealistic looking humans? Making the graphics not look like it's from 2003? Or going the other way: make them look like the Mii characters with Nintendo? Something totally different? Maybe appealing to the furries and anime girls would be actually a good idea at first, to build up some "power users" or whatever, and then attract more casual users.
I share the sentiment of the Instagram users in the article and the grandparent; it is baffling to me why the product looks so terrible, with so many resources poured into the Metaverse.
TLDR: Do an experiment, then move 10 meters to the left (or rotate 90 degrees, or wait a few days) and do it again. The results don’t change, because the laws of physics don’t change. This realization alone is enough to produce conservation laws. Translational and rotational symmetries produce conservation of linear and angular momentum, and the time symmetry produces conservation of energy. Each symmetry you find leads to new physics.
Symmetries produce conservation laws if you accept and understand Lagrangian mechanics. That's a big asterisk IMO especially if you've never heard of Lagrangian mechanics and then you try to understand Noether's theorem.
Doesn't getting from Newton to Lagrange already rely on the existence of conservation laws? Apparently if we take Lagrange as fundamental, then it works, and a variation of it works in quantum mechanics, so it does seem to be fundamental, but if you're trying to get from Newton's laws to Noether's theorem, you can't get from here to there without fully grasping Lagrange first.
It also works backwards: for (most) conserved quantities, you can also find a symmetry.
> Each symmetry you find leads to new physics.
There's a few caveats and asterisks for that. Eg Noether's theorem only applies to continuous symmetries. Eg Noether's theorem has nothing to say about mirror symmetry or time reversal symmetry.
Another point to appreciate is how universal this principle of symmetry is. It is used in every branch of physics going from Classical Physics (Lagrangian Formulation) to quantum physics (with Feynman's Path Integral Formulation), from conservation of momentum to conservation of electric charge in (U(1) Symmetry) of fundamental particles. The fact that she was able to do this as a woman 100 years agos is also amazing.
I wonder what the conservation law is connected to the 'analysis invariance', i.e. the fact that no matter how well you've thought through everything beforehand, there will still be some recalcitrant pocket of the experiment that behaves confusingly. Maybe that's the 'conservation of surprise'.
Humanity was fine living in an environment much closer to what our bodies evolved for. But now tempting things are evolving faster than our biological countermeasures so we need sociological or chemical ones. What is the alternative? Coordinate so that everyone slows down making things and information people really, really like?
Well we're apes with a brain supposedly better than other apes brains no? Letting us plan in advance and anticipate consequences, right?
We banned crack and mandated seat belts, cracks feels reallllllly good and seat belts are annoying
I guess it depends on if you see humanity as a horde of dumb beasts drugged on sex, sugar and alcohol or a collective of relatively smart individuals capable of taking collectively smart decisions for their greater good.
> I guess it depends on if you see humanity as a horde of dumb beasts drugged on sex, sugar and alcohol or a collective of relatively smart individuals capable of taking collectively smart decisions for their greater good.
Why not both? Clearly we have addiction problems in society - opiates, sugar, alcohol, cell phones - and clearly we have smart individuals and have been able to take collective action.
That collective action did not eradicate any of the above mentioned addictions though, and many of them grew worse (or were encouraged!) under the watchful eye of the collective.
We clearly need more tools at our disposal for these problems.
But then again the top mind of psychology are working at meta &Co getting paid big bucks to milk as much of your brain as possible
We're manufacturing the addiction and the cure, the top 0.01% are profiting of that while the rest of the world is suffering, we can just like... not manufacture the addiction in the first place. Same shit for opiates, it's not just an accident/coincidence, it's something that was developed and planned to make as much profit as possible, the addictive part of it was a feature.
Regardless of if you put the responsibility on society or on the individual it doesn't make sense to defend these addiction creating entities
And now that people stopped flooding the market with opiates legally, the addiction has stopped? No, someone just made it illegally.
Most of these things are “once the cat is out of the bag” situations. The only addictive drug I can think of that was effectively removed from the US market was Methaqualone, and that’s mostly because we had easier to acquire substitutes by the time it finally disappeared.
Are you implying that this somehow explains the full price? Those same few places are also the best places to buy investment properties, and this fake demand (not buying to live there) increases prices too, and this impact could be huge.
reply