> Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, yet they produce alcohol and tolerate its consumption within their borders, even by their own people. Let that fact sink in for a moment

I don't think this is something to be proud of. The US is majority Christian and they tolerate satanism

Did anyone else notice that cars being lowered leaves a giant fucking hole in the middle of the street?!

This is a marketing fluff video untouched by engineers

I mean, you can easily cover up the hole with a sliding door pretty quickly after dropping, or, as someone else mentioned, raise fences during the process.

This is far from the hardest problem to solve in the video.

I'm just pointing out that the flaw is egregious. PR videos are supposed to give people a view of the future, suspend disbelief for a minute. This just looks like something slapped together by an intern told to "put some future cars in a tunnel"

A damn disappointment for something hyped a while back from Musk himself. He should learn from Hollywood, movie trailers are far more important than the movie itself when public interest is involved.

Except most people will probably not notice that.

This is obviously just a marketing video, but that isn't a very hard problem to solve. The bigger issue is building an enormous underground highway network under an existing city.

I was too busy noticing how there was no contention between the newly raised car leaving the platform and a new car driving into the platform, or the endless line of cars queueing to be raised or lowered, or the amount of time it would take for a car to make it in or out at rush hour, or brain sizzles

Do you really think that no one, not even Elon did notice? I would rather assume, that for this concept video they considered this detail as non-essential and the actual entry points would look quite differently (and safer) than displayed. They most certainly would be different to those "parking spots" shown in the video.

So you raise a fence around it (stored on the sides, underground of course), or slide a roof in (once again, stored below the surface) to prevent anyone from going in even if they wanted to. This doesn't sound like a biggie to me.

The ongoing maintenance of tens of thousands of sliding doors, elevators, and retracting fences sounds like a biggie to me.

Every subway contains a whole bunch of sliding doors that open and close every single stop.

Yes, and they frequently need repair and maintenance.

Now imagine having tens of thousands of subway cars instead of a couple hundred.

There are tens of thousands of teslas out there already with automatic doors.

And (most?) new minivans nowadays. And most cars have power windows as well. And most supermarkets have sliding doors as well. And probably most garages in the suburbs have automatic doors. This is actually run of the mill technology.

The easiest solution is to make it a covered "garage" with doors on both sides then the hole is always covered. But that doesn't look as good on a promotional video.

You didn't see the force field the appeared as the car lowered past the threshold?

uh duh??? Ever heard of a concept? How many concept cars actually get released as the "marketing fluff" that you see in auto shows?

Tesla releases every one they've shown. Or they will have, starting in July. (Though they'll soon have more to show.)

There's a sidewalk I walk down, it's quite narrow and runs along a shoulderless road with a steady stream of cars whizzing by at 50 miles an hour. I think to myself 'how much more or less dangerous is this than walking along the edge of the Grand Canyon? One misstep and I'm toast. One misstep from one of those cars and I'm toast.'

We have a hardwired respect for heights, but at no time in our evolutionary history did we ever have to deal with the kind of speed cars move at. So we look at a 10 foot deep unprotected hole in the ground and instantly think 'Hey, that's a hazard', but we don't give nearly enough consideration to speed, and as such 2 million people each year who are killed and injured in US motor vehicle accidents, and we just sort of shrug our shoulders.

Reminds me of this image: http://i.imgur.com/mE7uGoA.jpg

The amount would be way over Judge Judy's limit.

Shhhhhh! Theres no room for reality in here, were pretending that gender is a made up sociological concept

To my knowledge, gender is thought of as a complex of at least two aspects: those differences between what is thought of as masculine and feminine, and the roles assigned to genders. In these cases, gender pertains to the ideas of gender identity and further gender expression. In other cases, gender is also thought of as including or being inextricably related to biological sex.

Gender isn't "made up" in the same way that words aren't "made up"; it is an aspect of society, but unlike words, gender is with some relation to observable physical biological expression, usually termed as 'sex'. But the concept of gender as I have seen it used is certainly depending on society, rather than physical sex.

Variations within sex (such as intersex) is another question and is unrelated to gender, as far as I know.

The problem with "gender" as a concept is that they hijacked existing words ("man" and "woman") that were previously used for "sex". This can be clearly seen by trying to define these words without reference to sex - you can't except by defining them recursively ("men are people who identify as men"), in which case, I think a better choice would be to invent new words for this new concept.

Sex is to male and female as gender is to masculine and feminine.

We're waiting for your constructive rebuttal instead of snide remarks.

There's biologically driven behavioral differences between male and female due to genetics. These differences are on a spectrum that varies between individuals but they are clearly visible in aggregate. A lot of recent political rhetoric bulldozes over the obvious differences between male and female to the detriment of our species. For example, the push to have the same physical standards for male and female in the army and elsewhere will inevitably drive the standards down. Males are mentally and physically tougher by design. And before anyone calls me sexist, they also die younger. Everything is a trade-off.

I believe that denying these differences is sexist, as it results in laws that affect males and females unequally. Should sentences for violent crimes be shorter for men because higher testosterone levels make them more biologically prone to violence? This is dangerous political territory bordering on eugenics but an interesting question nonetheless.

This exists where the economics make the most sense. Some shipping containers have built in tracking and satellite links. Usually the ones with expensive or refrigerated stuff.

Exactly. Some shipments even have pallet-level tracking if the products are expensive enough to justify it.

How is this any different from a human doing the same? The internet is meant to be open, it's free information after all. If you don't like it put your stuff behind a login

I see it as a subtle difference of automation and scale, plus the fact that the Internet Archive is not just saving these copies, but also making them available.

Imagine standing on the public road and taking a picture of your neighbor's home (or face) for your own use. Is that the same as a large company taking pictures of all homes (or faces) of the world, and making them available to the entire world, forever?

Tons of companies take satellite views of the entire earth and they're freely available online.

JSON Server Faces™

I've seen this in a bunch of movies but it just occurred to me that this may eventually happen to humanity. Birthing children is dangerous for the mother and child, and if given the choice many women may decide to have one "grown" instead.

The birthday problem directly relates to Bloom and Cuckoo filters as well. The false positive rate is how often two hashes collide.

Obligatory agreement that JavaScript is terrible, but this horse is too dead for me to bother digging up a bunch of links about how bad it is.

Does this make targeting new ISA's trivial?

Not really, writing a good enough formal ISA spec is quite hard. More so if the architecture is quirky.