> Anxiety is one of my big vertigo trigfgers, and having this thing that will make sure my car is still going straight even during a vertigo attack
If it's serious to the point you don't know if you can keep the car going straight, how can you guarantee you can stop or react in other ways in an emergency? I don't see how this is OK, you shouldn't be driving.
> There are different regulations about driving with certain health conditions based on where you live. For example, South Carolina and Utah, USA do not have any stipulations about driving with a vestibular condition. However, US federal law requires that you stop driving until any vertigo attacks are controlled and well regulated.
It’s the fear of a vestibular attack that gives me anxiety which causes a vestibular attack. These attacks last like two seconds. Having a thing that keeps me lane centered has stopped the vestibular attacks. If I have another big one I will definitely pull over.
I am disabled, unemployed, and live alone and have no other reliable access to transportation. What else am I supposed to do? Simply stop existing?
I am well aware that I am taking a huge risk. It is harm reduction. And as the main underlying issue is anxiety, simply having a safety net (or even the perception of a safety net) has significantly cut down on the anxiety.
You're not the one taking the main risk though: that would be the cyclists and pedestrians around you (as well as other motorists, to a lesser degree).
I appreciate the difficulty of your situation and I really don't want to be a judgemental jerk to you. But also ... yeah, based on what you've written this really doesn't sit well with me.
There's a reason people with things such as epileptic seizures are not permitted to drive unless they're 1) medicated for it, and 2) been free of seizures for a period of time to prove the medication works reliably.
If the machines thought it was boring they wouldn't be acting as machines and it wouldn't be so boring in the first place. Later on the machines also "obssess" about following the news of the humans on the new EARTH, but again, they wouldn't. If they are boring machines they wouldn't be bored. I feel like this is too much of a plot paradox for the story to make sense to me, but it's still entertaining.
I'd imagine the bandwidth limitations are physical and similar for Starlink or other satellites either now or very soon. I was replying to the LoS concerns, I agree overall this doesn't work, but I don't think it's because of LoS problems.
He mentions the rate of innovation would slow down which I agree with. But I think that even 5% slower innovation rate would delay the optimizations we can do or even figure out what we need to optimize through centuries of computer usage and in the end we'd be less efficient because we'd be slower at finding efficiencies. Low adoption rate of new efficiencies is worse than high adoption rate of old efficiencies is I guess how to phrase it.
If Cadence for example releases every feature 5 years later because they spend more time optimizing them, it's software after all, how much will that delay semiconductor innovations?
The only method that works long term is being honest about what you want from people and honest about the diff between your expectations and their output.
In a previous company many times new managers asked me how to approach a subject with their reports and usually they wouldn't consider just saying it exactly as they described it to me. Just say what you mean, it'll help all your relationships, not even just work ones.
It's hard enough trying to convey what you mean clearly, adding shenanigans that you'll also be bad at on top is not going to help.
This greatly depends on work culture and ARL's - adulthood readiness levels.
Many people are not graceful with open criticism even if done privately and constructively.
Without falling into stereotypes culture still matters specially in an international setting. Some cultures expect a lot of innuendo and indirection, for example in British or Japanese work environments. West coast US typically expects a lot of positive praise even when pointing out negatives. Whereas others like the Dutch expect more direct or even literal speech.
So instead of speaking to the point and saying what I mean I should instead tailor speech to each individual based on my stereotypes of the country they come from?
People are obviously different from each other, you should still say what you mean instead of reading "5 ways to manipulate people at work" blog posts. Be honest and respectful, whatever faux-pas you do will be 1000x better than someone feeling like you're trying to have them do something while saying another and lose all trust forever.
Most people have it at least in two places if they work alone and in many places if they work with others. Having a consistent central UI doesn't take away from the distributed part, while adding a bunch of goodies.
> it's just a way to be reasonably confident that _if you audit the code_
Why do we pretend this is easy many times in conversation about dependencies? It's as if security bugs in dependencies were calling out at us, like a house inspector looking at a huge hole on the floor of the house. But it's not like that at all, most people would inspect 99.9% of CVEs and read the vulnerable code and accept it. As did the reviewers in the open-source project, who know that codebase much more than someone who's adding a dependency because they want to do X faster. And they missed it or the CVE wouldn't be there, but somehow a random dev looking at it for the first time will find it?
In fact, if to use dependencies I have to read and understand the code and validate it, the number of dependencies I'd use would go to zero. And many things I would be locked out of doing, because I'm too dumb to understand them, so I can't audit the code, which means I'm definitely too dumb to replicate the library myself.
Asking people to audit the code in hopes of finding a security bug is a big crapshoot. The industry needs better tools.
> Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense?
You being personally convinced about something doesn't mean you can't be aware of your own limitations and want to be careful about implementing solutions too early to limit their impact of you're wrong.
The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems and how they should proceed vs when you have to decide about your own life. It's harder to implement change when you have to live with the consequences.
There seems to be a bias to do nothing rather than do something even if there are known benefits to doing something.
There are definitely lots of consequences to lots of things we have done with regard to climate change and pollution. If we avoided everything with consequences the only action is do nothing.
> The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems
The global environment is everyone's problem, surely?
I've never encountered a single example of "but it can inspire them to kill themselves" that didn't seem completely bullshit. It just sounds the same as video games creating school shooters or metal music making teenagers satanic. It's gotten to the point where people are afraid of using the word suicide lest someone will do it just because they read the word.
There is a world of difference between metal music making teenagers satanic and an LLM giving explicit, detailed and actionable instructions on how to sexual assault someone.
I'm not sure lack of instructions ever was an issue, and it seems very strange to think that the existence of instructions would be enough of a trigger for a normal person to go and commit this type of crime, but what do I know!
But this isn't about normal people. It's about people who maybe easily susceptible or mentally impacted who are now provided with direct, personalised instructions on how to do it, how to get away with it and how to feel comfortable doing it.
This is a step far beyond anything we've ever seen in human history before and I fail to see Google's behaviour being anything less than appropriate.
If it's serious to the point you don't know if you can keep the car going straight, how can you guarantee you can stop or react in other ways in an emergency? I don't see how this is OK, you shouldn't be driving.
> There are different regulations about driving with certain health conditions based on where you live. For example, South Carolina and Utah, USA do not have any stipulations about driving with a vestibular condition. However, US federal law requires that you stop driving until any vertigo attacks are controlled and well regulated.
https://vestibular.org/blog/should-you-drive-with-a-vestibul...
reply