kylebyproxy

> "It's private because we fear bad people"

I wonder if the thought process even goes that far. Oftentimes, the motive seems more like self-conscious social pressures, e.g., fear of embarrassment.

> applies to a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb with embryonic or fetal cardiac activity

The text of the Georgia statute you cited only uses detectable human heartbeat as an example ("including"), not a requirement for personhood.

> “Unborn child” means a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.

This would seem open-ended enough to apply to individual eggs.

I think the point is that if the vehicle's software can't figure out how to cope with something as simple as a cone on its hood, it's woefully unprepared for real driving conditions and a liability to everyone

> they are cheaper

Time will tell, but I suspect it'll be economically unviable once the lawsuits start flowing

I don't understand why this part isn't talked about more. Seems like an elephant in the room to me.

Have most people just not encountered confusing road conditions?

A couple weeks ago, I was in West Virginia bobbing up and down hills around hairpin turns on loose gravel. The whole time, I was thinking to myself "The first autonomous vehicle that attempts this route is going straight into the ravine."

One time evacuating from a hurricane, the route I found required me to drive through an open field. How well does LIDAR cope with tall grass?

Another time, I'm headed north on I-95 and there's a several car pileup. Police divert all traffic off the nearest exit and close the highway with a few road flares. I'd wager anything an AV would blow right past the flares and wreak havoc on the scene of the accident.

Until AI can cope with completely novel scenarios it was never trained for, it's going to be prone to catastrophic failure.

Personally, I don't expect to see it in our lifetimes.

Don't take that for granted

The recognition of harmful speech. See e.g., German restrictions on Nazi symbolism.

> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism

Unfortunately, idiots can carry guns and have a propensity for acting on said racism. Refusal to confront that problem in the name of some free speech ideological purity is tempting history to repeat.

By the same token, bigger government allows more room for oversight and principled actors to dilute the effects of the unscrupulous ones.

As others here have alluded to, our problem is quality, not quantity.

You could just say "Generally don't run a red light"

Yubikey in a lockbox?

Once you've fired the first 80%, 80% of the work will get done by 20% of the remaining 20%, so it's safe to fire another 80%, and so forth.

Ultimately, each company should employ exactly one engineer.

I suspect there's some element of obedience or group belonging at play in ad consumption. Ads are so tightly-woven into the fabric of our world that any rejection of them elicits a feeling of rejection/separation/alienation from society itself.

I'd describe myself as allergic to advertisement. During ad breaks, I turn off the radio or TV. When I do that around other people, the reactions I've gotten are fascinating.

Some people seem uncomfortable like I've done something illegal. I've had people tell me I'm cheating the system or somehow stealing. Others appear genuinely hurt, like I'd just yelled at them or something. Almost universally, it's regarded as taboo, and I don't know exactly what to make of it.

So glad to see others calling-out the Permanent Apportionment Act. Maybe it made sense in a world without communications technology, but today we're able to scale to the numbers needed to support that ratio of representatives:constituents.