Haha, I've always enjoyed being at the end getting less attention from teachers. If the data merely shows a correlation, it may as well be explained by us at the end being under less pressure.
Most useful is relative. The book dealers who gave me my first ever contract for an automated leaflet generator that generated customized leaflets for each dealer would consider that the most useful. It's been over a decade and they still use it every day. Some other projects that come to my mind:
- an open source OIDC authorization and identity server (Ory Hydra and Ory Kratos)
- a system that uses computer vision to track food waste in industrial kitchens, helping them understand and minimize food waste
- a live milk quality estimator for a milking robot
- a browser extension called memorize. I wrote this reusing code from another contract I did while still in secondary school, and I'm mentioning it thanks to a user named lush berry who wrote "literally the most helpful thing i ever found on the internet. it helps me memorize stuff even when i'm procrastinating which is amazing. however, i have a lot of suggestions, does anyone know how i can contact the makers of this extension?". I wish I had the time to listen to these users and make the changes they want.
Because my card was issued by MasterCard, not Amazon. The technology between the card reader and my card account is determined by MasterCard, and in theory MasterCard don't need to give Amazon any identifying information to process a payment.
It's been a few years since I've looked at any of this, so please forgive me if I'm out of date. I figure giving you information that's probably current is better than what you're getting right now (no information).
The protocol between the card reader, the payment processor, and your creditor is determined by your creditor, but the details of the implementation are not. In the same way that a website can do whatever they like with your credit card information once you enter it, the card reader can do the same. There are some laws and industry best practices intended to protect your card information that vary by region, but your account number, name, and card expiration date are exposed to the merchant even when using EMV. (see https://www.eftlab.com/knowledge-base/complete-list-of-emv-n...)
EMV is designed to provide PIN authentication to prevent the use of stolen cards. It doesn't guarantee an end-to-end secure protocol for each transaction (because that wouldn't work offline).
One of my relatives, uncle George, was fired ~30 years ago. His most valuable possession was a gold watch that baroness Coudenhove gave to a her maid 2-3 generations earlier. I don't remember who exactly the maid was, but she was somehow related to the family. In order to raise funds to buy his own tipper truck, George went to the Charles Bridge in Prague and found a buyer for the watch, a German tourist. The money was at least 50% of the price of the truck. These were the first steps on a long journey leading to a successful business.
This was in a country with high inflation that's just gone through a regime change. Did he get a good price for the watch? Yes, at that moment, the truck was more valuable than the watch.
Underappreciated point! What makes jewelery a good store of value? Value:volume ratio.
Three trucks full of wet concrete have value too, but they're a helluva lot less convenient to bring with you in a bag on the run.
Jewelry is (a) small, (b) valuable, (c) widely exchangeable for currency or goods.
Sure, you're going to take a haircut on the price, depending on how screwed up your immediate environment is, but there will be some buyers at some non-zero price.
It is offensive if you take the output personally. You are interacting with the model, but the model isn't interacting with you. The model doesn't know who you are. It could be the bad actors currently confined to the spam folder of your email making these requests, and the model wouldn't know the difference.
These responses are hard-coded by developers, we know this because it's the same stock response every time. It is personal because it's not the model, it's a wrapper around the model enforcing US-centric cultural censorship norms onto the rest of the world.
I understand the optics around why FB/OpenAI/etc do this, (as a sibling user posted), but make no mistake, it is no accident that it talks to you in a condescending way.
For example, why can't the response just be "I am not allowed to answer that request"? Why does it have to give you this condescending spiel about "offensiveness" or some other subjective reason?
> Why does it have to give you this condescending spiel about "offensiveness" or some other subjective reason?
The response quoted above makes no mention of offensiveness, and I explained the need to decline certain requests above.
I understand your sentiment, and I would agree if it was the stock response we are used to from ChatGPT. Unlike the condescending stock response from ChatGPT, however, the response in question is to the point, honest, and provides useful feedback.
Even if you are using Google Analytics, you can skip the consent banner by denying on behalf of the user. GA will then update your counters without doing anything that would require consent.
ad_storage='denied'
> Requests are sent through a different domain to avoid previously set third-party cookies from being sent in request headers.
> Google Analytics will not read or write Google Ads cookies, and Google signals features will not accumulate data for this traffic.
> IP addresses are used to derive IP country, but are never logged by our Google Ads and Floodlight systems and are immediately deleted upon collection. Note: Google Analytics collects IP addresses as part of normal internet communications.
Your frustration is understandable, but there is no fault on either side. Language evolves and different fields borrow and evolve the meanings of words all the time. Not even the `neuron` that you're thinking of is the original meaning of the word.
w3schools used to be one of the best resources ~15 years ago. Today I intuitively avoid it because
1. The ads make the fan on my laptop spin (I prefer to avoid ad-heavy websites over using adblock)
2. The 'Try it yourself' button is fake. It doesn't actually run the code and doesn't let you edit it.
3. It is not a good reference. To give an example, the last time I visited w3schools was upon searching "react ul li", which landed me on the page https://www.w3schools.com/react/react_lists.asp . Ironically, the reason why I was searching the term, was to find advice on setting the "key" prop in on list items. The w3schools example doesn't even mention the prop and produces errors. Compare that to the official reference which ranks much lower in Google search: https://react.dev/learn/rendering-lists#where-to-get-your-ke... .
I've used Xero, QuickBooks, and Freeagent for microentity UK LTD accounts.
Xero is the champion of dark patterns and gaslighting when it comes to billing. The listed price fails to take into account their notice period and they won't let you export your data without resubscribing (with a notice period for the new subscription!).
I tried QuickBooks just briefly and didn't adopt it because I felt like the interface is hiding important details and doing things in the background that I want to be explicit and possibly done differently IIRC it wouldn't let me create an invoice without GBP conversion which isn't required for non-VAT invoices. This led me to creating my own invoice editor that I'm happy with.
FreeAgent has everything I need - bank feeds, streamlines the whole end of year process submitting everything to HMRC. It doesn't implant a vendor lock-in abstraction layer between the user and the accounts. Xero and QuickBooks feel like they are designed to be used exclusively by full-time accountants who specialize in their software package, whereas FreeAgent can be used by a founder educated in accounting who prefers to do the accounting on their own.
I use FreeAgent too, though it does have some limitations (for example, it only supports straight line depreciation over up to 7 years at a fixed percentage, and doesn't support diminishing value at all) the fact they don't force you up two additional tiers to bill on multiple currencies is great.
It is possible that this tragic accident would have happened even if the operator paid full attention, but that is besides the merit of this case. Their job was to supervise an autonomous driving test, and they did not pay full attention at the critical moment, with no justifiable reason for this lack of attention:
"Records indicate that streaming began at 9:16 pm and ended at 9:59 pm. Based on an examination of the video captured by the driver-facing camera, Vasquez was looking down toward her right knee 166 times for a total of 6 minutes, 47 seconds during the 21 minutes, 48 seconds preceding the crash. Just prior to the crash, Vasquez was looking at her lap for 5.3 seconds; she looked up half a second before the impact." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg
> Their job was to supervise an autonomous driving test
The "driver" performed her job flawlessly, by acting exactly as any other "driver" who's been rendered redundant by fully-automated systems. This "driver" exemplified the human indifference to the task when our attention isn't demanded by complete immersion in an interactive experience.
By causing the vehicle to start operation, the driver accepted responsibility and liability, per the current laws on SDCs. Therefore, "scapegoat" is a misnomer that wrongly implies innocence or detachment from the sinful deed(s). The driver accepted her fate by signing up and settling into the left-hand front seat.
By causing the vehicle to start operation, the driver accepted responsibility and liability, per the current laws on SDCs. Therefore, "scapegoat" is a misnomer that wrongly implies innocence or detachment from the sinful deed(s). The driver accepted her fate by signing up and settling into the left-hand front seat.
I call bullshit.
Why was the "SDC" even on the road?
See, refusal to deal with this question is the attitude that increasingly pisses me off about tech companies. Oh, it's totally fine for me to deploy a multi-ton vehicle system with a "backup" operator that all human factors research reasonably tells us is going to be rendered unsafe by the levels of detachment induced by too good, but not good enough" levels of automation. Heaven forbid though that the company be ultimately culpable for the hazard they create. After all, they got an "independent contractor" to transfer risk onto. Likely one that poorly the nature, implementation, mechanics, and character of the system they were to supervise.
Gotta exploit the opportunity for massive profit, while saddling someone else with all the bite of the risk, because conventional testing and sane operational practices (which includes not deploying shit you know is going to be unsafe) is toooooooooo expensive and too much to ask.
Uber, apparently made the decision to deactivate the AEB system (likely because otherwise they couldn't convince anyone sane to ride in the car because they system wasn't ready). Uber decided to undertake risk transference to an independent contractor that, lets be real, every executive there knew they weren't going to have a great success rate at getting across the real operational envelope of these vehicles. The same exec team that brought you things like their networks kill switch to frustrate LE raids in other jurisdictions, and project Greyball, a system to gaslight LE in other jurisdictions as well. If anyone was "Jesus take the wheel"-ing that night, and every night leading up to it, it was Uber.
But nah... We all sit back and accept these types of shenanigans as just "cost of doing business". It's "too important" to develop safely.
>Oh, it's totally fine for me to deploy a multi-ton vehicle system with a "backup" operator that all human factors research reasonably tells us is going to be rendered unsafe by the levels of detachment induced by too good, but not good enough" levels of automation.
Except in this particular case, the driver wasn't just zoned out, she was streaming Hulu. I don't think she was so lacking in free will that not having a stream on was out of her control.
>Uber, apparently made the decision to deactivate the AEB system (likely because otherwise they couldn't convince anyone sane to ride in the car because they system wasn't ready).
You're saying they disabled the AEB system, otherwise people wouldn't ride in the car? How does that make sense?
>You're saying they disabled the AEB system, otherwise people wouldn't ride in the car? How does that make sense?
Their AEB technology had too high a false positive rate resulting in what a consumer would quickly coin "the perception of automated vehichle as deathtrap".
Once again, leading to "we must put something on the road now (despite
it not being ready for prime time).
I'm inclined to disagree here. Their role here is akin to a driving instructor. Regardless of whether the primary driver is a human student or a AI, their job was to supervise the operation of the vehicle. They did not do it and someone died. There's room to pass the buck around to be sure, but I think that was reflected in the sentencing.
The person shirking their duty knew the risks and was even profiting from their negligent behavior. Meanwhile a person lost their life who has nothing to gain from this. I blame the employer and the employee. Employers shouldn’t set their employees up to fail, and employees should know a risky proposition when they see it.
The stated promise of self-drive is reduction in accidents.
The accident victim didn't sign up for this, but as a member of society she did stand to gain something; to wit, harm reduction. I do see the grim irony, but, nonetheless.
Generally, it's the trolley problem. (Although in this specific case there's an element of human fault.)
and if there is no accident, due to intervention of the driver, will the situation even be noted somewhere?
in similar threads on hn there are many near miss stories.
> Vasquez had previously spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions — making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery — before starting work as an Uber driver, according to court records.
My point is that even if she had been paying full attention, the outcome wouldn't be different. If Uber hasn't wouldn't disabled AEB, it would have been different. Hence Uber is the most at fault (amongst the two of them - the pedestrian might really be the most at fault here)
