IANAL
But I think the issue is not technical in this case.
It is a legal issue.
Who is in the end responsible and/or accountable when "operating" a self-driving car? And to what extend?
40 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Aug 2014
The regulation applies to the finished product - this means that (FOSS) components themselves do not necessarily have to be compliant. The end product has to be, and, as new threats may appear and be applicable to the product, this regulation stipulates that the manufacturer has the obligation to fix vulnerabilities. If the problem comes from an imported (FOSS) component, the resolution has to come from there. In many FOSS projects, the manufacturer of the end product may be able to commit a corrective suggestion.
In any way, the manufacturer needs to be keen on the risks of using third party components in its product. Are these maintained? Is it stable? Is it trusted? Can it be assessed prior to integration?
Common questions to ask (I would. In fact, I am)
In the end, if the vulnerability cannot be fixed, the product is to removed from the market.
Three basic rules of flying an airplane (in this order):
1. Aviate - keep the thing up in the air and under your control
2. Navigate - determine where you are, and where you are going
3. Communicate - tell traffic control/others what you are doing/going to do
For 1 and 2, modern systems are great help, and in most cases better equipped to do the job then you are.
But if one of these systems goes astray for whatever reason, it is all up to that single pilot in the front seat.
Multiple pilots can divide 1 till 3 among them in emergencies, making them focused on the job, which is saving the lives of themselves and everybody behind them,
And emergencies WILL happen.
Twitter has been "free" (as in free beer) as the asset to the company is "you".
But Elon has found out that "you" are not profitable enough, and "your" value is now increased with $8 / month - to be payed by "you".
If the service provided by Twitter suits "your" needs, than that is fine. If not, "you" are free to sell/give away "yourself" to another service.
Sorry for being too sceptic.
Basically, what you are saying is that both HTML and PDF are crap, in their own way. FTFY.
Although I disagree.
In essence, neither HTML nor PDF is crap. The clue is in how the information is to be presented. That requires particular skills. A Web Monkey is not the same as a graphical designer, or an useability expert. Very few master all required skills. Many (most) of issues with HTML and/or PDF are related to bad formatting, poor choices of typefaces (fonts), unreadable images, undesired or unwanted (mis)behavior.
I recommend this a good read on the topic of useability: Steve Krug's "Don't make me think!"
If there is some lesson to be learned from COVID-19, it is that humans (that's us) need physical interaction. The need to go out and physically see eachother has never been so big as during (and after) the various lockdowns. We do not want, nor need, yet another on-line reality faking "app" that in the end is only after our money. Or soul. But probably both.
Why a chatbot only? Why not go in for full 3D representation of the beloved deceased (b.d.), with multiple selections of possible ages and looks of the b.d, so you can have a conversation at any age, any time, more (or less) living experience and look eachother into the eyes (ehmm- one of you actually).
This sounds so bad, it must be a good idea
Code tends to live a long, long time. And gets modified. Sometimes over and over again.
Every now and then a human may touch the AI generated code - and may be even understand why it is there, what it is all about and what is to achieved by it. But probably not.
I am afraid that such code gets partly rewritten, and then AI-ed again, up to a point that neither a human nor AI can make any sense out of it anymore. This is when the software is no longer maintainable by any standard, yet no budget exist for a proper rewrite.
I see a value in these tools though - I just would not call them AI, as I do not consider these tools "intelligent".
But then, when writing this post I realize the above phrase may just be as applicable to humans....
My background is with C/C++, and I like it. Not the most easy languages to master though (and I definetly do not claim I do).
Over the years, many other "languages" have been released to challenge the position of C/C++ - and failed, however most of them collected a lot of enthousiasts and find their place in the IT ecosystem.
I expect this to happen to Rust too. I am curious to learn more about it (although I am not employed in "IT" anymore).
But I doubt it will challenge the position of C++, let alone C. C emerged in 1972-1973, and is just as normal to be as, say, breathing.
Rust is not going to take my breath away....
Any IT solution is out there because it just "works", it fulfils a need today as it did for the last >put your number here< years. So why spend money to bring it up to date with current technology? It will take long to complete, extensive training, many trials and even more failures and in the end we end up with something less we had before and users complaining that the previous version was far better.
This is why "old" languages like COBOL and (forgive me) C are still around and alive.
Your software will only "deorbit" when the need for it is gone.
This is an interesting development.
Although I wonder how it would react to the standard quality of natural language problem descriptions aka "specifications", as from experience I can tell there are few who are excellent but do not address real problems, and none that are actually good in describing the problem in the first place.
YMMV.
Last time I heard that statement while troubleshooting a problem it made me go right there to look for it.
And for good reason...... Statistics are just "numbers".
Needless to say it was indeed a bunch of malfunctioning units which was supposed to be statistically "impossible".
"We have identified a transient issue impacting a backend service and we are actively scaling out our backend resources to mitigate the issue."
I am dying to receive a copy of the software capable in generating this kind of sentences - event politicians cannot be this vague...
Except that from the middle of next year, everything electronic which is now considered a gadget of some sort will be compulsary on a new car in the EU:
intelligent speed assistance,
alcohol interlock installation facilitation,
driver drowsiness and attention warning systems,
advanced driver distraction warning systems,
emergency stop signals,
reversing detection systems,
event data recorders,
accurate tyre pressure monitoring,
advanced emergency braking systems,
emergency lane-keeping systems,
enlarged head impact protection zones capable of mitigating injuries in collisions with vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
My Subaru from 2018 has most of these already installed, not sure about the alcohol interlock thing though.
Cons: more weight, more electronic reliance, and definitely (a lot) more cost.
No sir,
The problem was that the software was relying on flawed information from a defective AoA, the pilots not being aware of the presence of this particular software feature in the first place, and therefore not thinking of the option to just switch it off (button was provided, yet not documented anywhere).
That is exactly why planes fly themselves - but professional pilots are still there in order to take control if anything goes wrong.
That is also the same reason why self driving cars is an ultimate dump idea as there will be a lot "underaverage" skilled drivers behind the wheel when things go out of control.
The concept is good as a concept, but every implementation so far proves to be bad. Even worse, nothing will change until someone actually exploits a massive hack and shuts down an entire city/traffic network/airport/hospital/... Once we figure out that securing will be a. extremely expensive, b. make IoT devices going offline all the time thus crippling it functionality and c. does not provide 100% security we are forced to accept to be pwned every now and then.