> Omnilert later admitted the incident was a “false positive” but claimed the system “functioned as intended,” saying its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification.”
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
"""
The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight.
"""
I'll echo what some of the other commenters have stated:
I'm not vegan nor vegetarian, but I definitely align with many of the reasons that one would choose to be so. There are environmental and animal welfare concerns with the meat industry that simply cannot be ignored.
With that in mind, I try _choose_ a non-meat-based option when it's feasible. I do my best to vote with my dollar. Beyond Meat and Impossible have made this option available significantly more often in the past couple years.
When I shop for meat at the grocery store to cook at home, I've effectively stopped buying "real" meat for my standard meals. Unless I'm cooking some special or something specific, I simply buy Beyond Meat/Impossible for my standard meals. The same applies when eating out -- if there's a meat alternative, I will go for it (even absorbing the $2-3 upcharge).*
This is not to say that I _only_ go for the meat-alternative-based non-meat dishes. I often go for a tofu or mushroom alternative too. I don't even think Beyond Meat/Impossible taste _like_ the meat they're trying to substitute -- they're just simply good, meat-y, protein-y, umami-y flavors that I simply can't get enough of.
The more options there are for people like me the better. My diet has been able to shift closer and closer to removing meat entirely, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing battle. I just want to eat _less_ meat, not _no_ meat.
* One thing that's frustrating to me as someone that's not _actually_ a vegetarian/vegan is that restaurants often make the assumption that if I'm choosing the meat-alternative, then I must be vegetarian or vegan. No, I still want the cheese or the dairy, or even the meat (e.g.: an Impossible Cheeseburger with real bacon is still delicious). I'm trying to reduce, not _eliminate_, meat from my diet.
This is a super cool visual demonstration of RTOS/scheduling! I love the region-based critical sections!
I took a real-time operating systems course in university as an elective. One of the hardest courses I took the whole four years, but also one of the most interesting. Had a great professor, who gave really demanding, but very instructive, project-based assignments.
I need to find a toy project to play around with this domain again.
The comment you're replying to is referring to the difficulty to repurpose these buildings without complete replacement.
Recycling raw materials is important, but ideally we shouldn't be constructing buildings that are single-tenant, requiring a complete demolition just to make the land have utility again.
Yeah the "mixed" navigation option sometimes provides it, but with many caveats:
- it never suggests bike+bus, only bike+train
- it will only ever try to put the biking on one end of the train ride, never both. I guess it assumes I'd be parking the bike at the station, not bringing it on board
- you can't actually "start" the navigation for some reason. It will just show the route overview
I currently commute by train _and_ bike, but this only lets me filter by one or another, unfortunately.
This seems to be a common problem with navigation systems in general. It's easy to get walking+transit directions, but nigh impossible to get bike+transit, even though all the buses and trains near me let me bring a bike onboard.
The spire in Scottsdale is also a big pointy object that was completed (but long after he died). Looks like it was originally meant to be at the state capital, so perhaps it's the same one you're referring to?
Note that diesel is taxed nearly 40% higher than gasoline per gallon in the US. And shipping trucks use a lot more gallons of gas (total and per mile).
Should the rate be higher? Perhaps. But it's already a bit slanted towards vehicle weight based on fuel type and consumption.
Electric vehicles, and especially electric shipping trucks, are going to require finding new taxation sources.
Oftentimes "ingredients" will be an incredibly long list. As someone that needs to pay attention to ingredients on food for a severe tree nut allergy, it's so so so much easier to quickly parse a two-item "contains" section than a 40 item "ingredients" section.
I've made mistakes on food that has _just_ "ingredients", missing entries while scanning at the grocery store.
Unfortunately, "contains" isn't required, and its location isn't always obvious. imo it should flatly be always required and always in a standardized layout/location (e.g. in a clear to read box).
Even if we assume smartcar--pedestrian collisions are just as dangerous for pedestrians as pickup--pedestrian collisions, a smartcar--smartcar collision is going to be a lot less dangerous for the occupants than a smartcar--pickup or pickup--pickup collision at equal speeds.
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but vehicle size and weight still contribute an awful lot to the >40000 vehicle fatalities in the US each year.
> This new sense appears to stem from a mistaken belief that the first three letters of nonplus are there to indicate that someone is something other than “plussed” (although what being plussed would entail here remains a mystery)
This is what's called a "lost positive". Rob Words on YouTube has a pretty good video on this topic:
Stumbled upon 'Fulcrum' yesterday near Liverpool Station in London without knowing anything about it.
Incredibly impressive piece of art that made me stop and admire it for a few minutes. Watching the relatively minuscule people shuffle by at the base of the _enormous_ sheets of twisted steel was fascinating.
Yesterday I knew nothing about the artist but the moment I saw this article title I thought, "wait that piece had to have been this guy." I'm going to have to seek out more of his work.
- people travel half as many miles per day than the US [3]
Unlike most cities, especially in the US but also elsewhere in Europe, other forms of transportation are actually dependable and more convenient alternatives to driving. Making driving less convenient will actually entice mode shift in Amsterdam, rather than simply be a nuisance.
That's kind of the point. Part of the design of Dutch cities is to make the fastest, most direct, most convenient form of transportation _not_ the car.
You use a car when you _have_ to, not simply as a default. If it takes longer to get to your intra-city destination in a car, that's the city working as intended.
I'd argue that _both_ should necessitate policy changes. The argument that there shouldn't be changes for one if there aren't changes for another is a flawed one.
As an extension of the argument the comment you're replying to was making:
Many (most?) intersections in the Netherlands have early detection systems that change the light _before_ the car reaches it.
But they didn't just do this for cars, they also do this for bikes. And public transit gets signal priority allowing buses and trams to almost always get green lights.
They've spent the money improving transportation of all forms, not just cars.
One works for the individual, the other against the individual.
One works for the collective, the other against the collective.
As a "citizen" who is pretty firmly anti-car within urban areas, my views on who is working for and against me are going to differ from yours.
I don't necessarily agree with the actions the Tyre Extinguishers are taking, but I definitely sympathize and appreciate the end-goal.
On the other hand, as a "citizen" who wants parking within urban areas to be less subsidized, I don't agree with skirting enforcement for fines around illegal parking.
Sounds like the price of a ticket should be made dependent on how many other tickets were received. Repeat offenders should have to pay more per incident.
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
""" The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight. """
[1]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/