-
Posts
-
.thumb.png.b7089ebbdf00d96b3b92dddbd04bac02.png)
By PsYcHoKiLLa · Posted
(Can't see if he's still wearing the clompy clown shoes though) -
By sphbecker · Posted
I'd say the first one failed to be as popular as Apple anticipated, but the easy adjustment here is to make fewer of them next time around. It would only be a "flop" if it isn't possible for Apple to recover the design and factory tooling costs given the number of units sold, which I doubt would be the case. It isn't like no one bought them; it just failed to become the new hot phone of the year. -
By sphbecker · Posted
You're right that it does not follow the plain meaning of the word, but in this context, it is a legal term defined in 49 U.S.C. Kind of how "wire fraud" laws apply even if a physical wire was not used. Given that it is codified in law, and it isn't just automotive journalists that don't understand evolving technology, I highly doubt congress would change a well understood term just because technology makes the term slightly less actuate. -
By PsYcHoKiLLa · Posted
"OuT Of My WaYmO !" -
By sphbecker · Posted
This is exactly why I keep saying we are not ready for human free self-driving. These little "bugs" are may seem like random one-offs. There was also the Waymo that drove between police with drawn weapons and the suspect they were pointing them at. From a software perspective it is easy to understand how those extremely rare situations may not have been programed for, but that is the point. If AI needs to be told to watch out for every possible contingency, then it can never be successful. There will always be the possibility of a first encounter that the AI needs to understand to avoid.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Tell a friend
.thumb.png.b7089ebbdf00d96b3b92dddbd04bac02.png)
Recommended Posts