Where are these remote assistant human drivers located (country), and how have they been screened for temporarily “driving” vehicles in those cities (do these humans have American licenses? ). How is all this regulated?
Basically, I am curious if these remote assistant drivers are located in foreign nations without American licenses. And if so, how did you get them cleared to be able to “drive” cars on Americas roads?
Thanks
Ps: I took a cruise once in Austin and it needed remote assistance.
I strongly second this. Abu Mostafa has videos and homework for this course too. This course was the one that made a LOT of fundamental things “click”, like, why does learning even work and what are some broad expectations about what we can and cannot learn.
Does anyone know if comma.ai can use the lidar to improve its self driving car algos? In general, is this lidar sensor long range enough to help cars drive?
The lidar sensor is short range, around 5 meters from the article.
This is more in line with parking sensors or something, not the long range lidar that has been used for some self driving car research that can spot traffic and obstacles at a distance.
It'd make more sense if you said sized the assets of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the presidents of companies like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, Kuwaiti and Afghani logistics companies...
The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.
They're not. Do you think Biden has been sitting upon his throne for the past 22 years, giving orders to Thiel and Bezos so they can act on his behalf and in return he can give them a little more wealth/power?
The people you quoted have a lot of power and influence. That doesn't make them state actors. The difference is extreme. If you genuinely don't understand that difference, I invite you to read "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, which nicely explains (among other many interesting things) how dictators and authoritarians wield and share power. You can apply those lessons to how Russia and its oligarchs work.
Thanks, but I have a copy of the book on hand already.
In the book de Mesquita refers to regardless of whether the system is Authoritarian or Democratic, rulers have to please their respective circle of power brokers. The only difference is the number they have to placate. And the US is not the prototypical example of the most democratic and grassroots political system out there by a long shot.
To say I believe Biden has been on his throne for 22 years is such a blatant strawman, I find it difficult to take you seriously. Even if he was a Senator since 1973 who clearly knows how to stay afloat in politics for 49 years.
I apologize for the strawman, then. And yes, it's not like there aren't parallels, but you cannot compare the power and influence of a Russian oligarch, who tends to serve as both a proxy/puppet to Putin and a useful way to stash riches, to, say, Musk or Bezos who tend to very much follow their own goals.
American billionaires have too much power, for sure, but that's a statement on the power of money and the ability for people to amass too much of it in one place in the USA. Russian oligarchs have this power because Putin shares it with them.
Since you've read the book (and I'm guessing agree with it, as I do), we're on the same page about the spectrum of democracy vs authoritarianism. But nowhere can you compare the actual individuals. Individual Russian oligarchs are the equivalent of extremely large corpora of people, servants and businesses; not of individual CEOs.
Here is how "Google Earth" happened: "In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google, worth over $2.2 million, on November 15, 2005. The shares were a result of Google's acquisition of Keyhole, Inc, the CIA-funded satellite mapping software now known as Google Earth."
Facebook launched in 2004. First check from Peter Thiel, who founded Palantir in 2003. DARPA's Lifelog was "cancelled" in 2003.
They were designed to be mass surveillance from the start. Some even funded directly be equity investments at pre-seed/seed stage. Others, funded at the research stage.
Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
> Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.
>Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
Did Ukraine harbor terrorists that killed thousands of Russians? Comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan doesn’t work. Ukraine was a peaceful nation. Afghanistan was harboring terrorists and terrorists training camps and these terrorists had attacked US multiple times before. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t even a Afghanistan citizen, he was from Saudi Arabia.
What if the person continuously says “smoking isnt bad for you. It’s actually great for you” on their podcast that is delivered by Spotify to hundreds of millions?
What about they say something even more egregious like “seatbelt laws are against freedom and they do more harm than good and so we should stand up against them?”
I dont care either way. But i think its not clear.
This position only works under the premise that the Approved Facts never wrong.
Nutrition is a prime example of where the Approved Facts have been wrong and have likely lead to earlier deaths for people and industry lobbies promoting their poisons. All of these supposed "facts" have been widely considered true in my lifetime:
"Don't eat fat because fat just clogs your arteries just like when you pour it down the drain. Eat plenty of low fat foods, and replace saturated fat with industrial seed oils."
"Sugar is just energy you burn off. It's pure calories!"
"Calcium builds strong bones! Therefore, you can never drink enough cow's milk."
"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! You shouldn't skip breakfast even if you're not hungry."
"If you don't eat then you'll starve, your body will go into starvation mode, and your metabolism will crash!"
"Salt just raises your blood pressure! Never add salt to your food and only eat things that are low in sodium. The less sodium the better."
"If you eat too much protein then you'll destroy your kidneys. High protein diets are bad for you."
"Distilled water will weaken your bones and you won't get enough minerals! Never drink distilled water."
---
Although attitudes towards such ideas have been changing significantly, in my life I've had teachers, professors, and even doctors tell me these things. And they're all essentially wrong for the average healthy non-elderly person. There was enough scientific data available in my lifetime that authorities should have known better.
The only way that I was able to come to the conclusion that the bulk of generic health advice is wrong was that contrary information was available to me, even though you can almost certainly still find a horde of medical experts to say that I'm wrong.
If I couldn't hear facts and opinions that went against the mainstream, I'd probably still be overweight with prehypertension and possibly prediabetes. By now I'd be in even worse condition.
To say that people should only be allowed to hear the mainstream facts is the same as saying that you should only listen to health advice approved by Coca-Cola.
And yes, to a certain extent, there's natural selection. The idea that you can save everyone from themselves is the same as saying that we can bend the law of averages so that bell distributions no longer apply.
> Eat plenty of low fat foods, and replace saturated fat with industrial seed oils."
How is saturated fat from "industrial" animal farms or "industrial" palm farms any worse than unsaturated fat from "industrial seed oils"?
>"Calcium builds strong bones! Therefore, you can never drink enough cow's milk."
The first part seems true, the second part seems like a strawman just so you can debunk it.
>"If you don't eat then you'll starve, your body will go into starvation mode, and your metabolism will crash!"
Again, first part seems objectively true (unless you can photosynthesize or something), the second part seems like a strawman.
>"Distilled water will weaken your bones and you won't get enough minerals! Never drink distilled water."
The first part seems to be true? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water#Health_effects. All else being equal, you'll get less minerals by drinking distilled water than without. You can certainly adjust/supplement your diet so it's not an issue, but that doesn't mean the effect isn't there. As for the second part, it seems to be either a strawman or a general advice taken out of context. I interpret it not as "not drinking distilled water ever" (like it's poisonous or something), but that there's no real reason to go out of your way to specifically buy distilled water to drink.
