lidar isn’t able to read the state of traffic lights as far as I know, and I believe lidar based systems detect the location of traffic lights from maps
Yeah. But that's not what the OG comment is suggesting. The use of Lidar here would rule out a light resembling a traffic signal by virtue of there being no laser reflection of that object: lidar would complement vision to rule out false positives.
They look different so it should be able to tell them apart if the model has been trained on these shapes. My robot vacuum uses lidar, the maps it makes of my apartment when it cleans are remarkably accurate where you can identify certain objects pretty clearly.
If you overlay the point cloud with the image you're interpreting, it should become apparent that the "yellow light" has no accompanying red or green lamps, no pole holding it, no shroud around it, and is at some distance exceeding the depth limits of your lidar.
Elon can't afford to put LIDAR on cars and sell them to a large audience. It's still too expensive. So instead, he makes excuses for why they don't do it while rolling out objectively worse perception systems.
If a survival stipend competes successfully against a low-paying, high-stress, and absolutely miserable job conditions then the problem isn't the stipend, is it?
A zero sum concept of blame isn't really helpful IMO. It's better to just try to figure out the policy consequences without the moralizing.
The simplest model of utility (linear in money) basically says "people will take these jobs if they pay $X more than unemployment." With unemployment in the US paying $300/week more than it used to, jobs now need to pay about that much more than before to stay competitive -- about $7.50 an hour. So for a $15/hr job, the employer needs to pay $22.50 now.
A perhaps more realistic utility model has diminishing returns to money. The classic example is log($). Put simply, "people will work a job if it pays X times what unemployment does."
In that model, the $15/hr job at 40 hours/week pays $600 before tax. Say unemployment used to pay $300/week, so the job paid 2x unemployment, and now with the extra $300 of supplemental employment benefits it pays $600, so the job has to bump its pay up to $1200/wk or $30/hr to stay competitive.
That's a modeled kinda space of policy consequences -- wages go up 50% or 100% or there will be employment shortfalls even before thinking about childcare shortages, reduced immigration etc. That situation can be spun as "benefits too high" or "pay too low" to score political points or drive policy, but these effects are clearly explanatory either way.
Regardless of one's opinion on the wisdom of the policy, it's still a glaring oversight in a news article about the dynamics of the labor market.
I've been a UBI supporter my entire adult life, but that doesn't mean that what's effectively a lie of omission is good for the discourse. Then again, it's hard to expect otherwise from a rag like NPR.
>conditions then the problem isn't the stipend, is it?
It's laughable to make that comparison when the "survival stipend" is money for doing nothing. I'm not sure how any private enterprise can compete with that.
Except they're not doing nothing, are they? They're raising their kids, fixing their car, cooking healthy food, going to the doctor, visiting their mom, and any number of other things that a person working minimum wage can't make time for. The survival stipend gives them not only money, but time. When you see that, you start to realize how much those crappy jobs COST people.
>I've had a professor like that and it takes a while to realize that those people are needed. For lazy students it may be a proper wake up call to the real world.
I'm sure we can aspire to better approaches that are not bullying.
Yes, reading the comment you comment on feels not right.
In my opinion, I'd love to have a teacher like Simon Peyton Jones. I'm sure SPJ have bad days, but he feels like a person that would actually tell me about it instead of starting to throw around mean comments to test the alpha male hierarchy.
And imagine being the kind of person that have a good day and throw around mean comments? I don't think anyone should "learn" to tolerate such a person. They can go be brilliant alone somewhere, IMHO. If it really is brilliant, we'll see the fruits of it somehow anyway.
Someone as enthusiastic as SPJ could teach me anything, I'm sure.
Maybe? But the ironic thing is - if the prof let the lazy student be lazy and silently condemn them to mediocrity, nobody would raise a peep and everyone would be fine. It's only when the prof cares about to go take a personal risk to try to get through to the student (which they would only care to do because they care about the student) can someone complain.
So I think your comment is mainly unhelpful. The people you're responding to are making the bold point that the unpopular approach WORKED, HELPED and possibly CHANGED THEIR LIFE. Which is probably not in line with the traditional definition of bullying which is bothering someone out of malice, which sounds like is NOT what is happening.
I like your comment. To me, this is a very sad story because it sounds like Matthias has an issue beyond his control, and his victim is unable to find compassion. Mathias is the chef who pushes the boundaries - and sometimes fails spectacularly. Sometimes there's even a poop in the dish - and no matter how well made, no-one is going to accept poop in the dish. He knows it, they know it. Some people pick the poop out and eat it anyway, but it sucks to have to do that.
Its a sad situation for all involved, even, maybe especially, the bully who is brilliant and well-meaning and has contributed a lot to the world. And yet his moments of weakness can and do obliterate all of it in a heartbeat. And on the victim side we see the victim coming close to closure, and then, because of the people reaching out and sharing their own stories of abuse, reopens the wounds, sparks the fire of hatred and anger again.... It's not clear that there's a way out, really, for anyone in this situation. Matthias can say he'll change, but he won't be believed. In fact, his abject and total apology will be seen as weakness, and admission against interest, and more allegations will come. And that will give rise to more anger, now there is social proof; the victims have found power in their fear and helplessness. They have a status now as brave survivors, and so justified in anything they say or do. THEY are the aggrieved party! But far more evil is done in this world by victims drunk on unfamiliar power over those they've judged evil, amoral, wrong, surrounded by similarly bloody-minded individuals, pitchforks in one hand and righteous rage in their hearts. It's horrible, all of it.
