I was going to suggest using the official scale
but I just checked and apparently the El Reg unit of temperature is the Hilton. Compared to that the Rømer scale is positively up to date.
2739 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Jul 2007
The reality is that the real 'bad boys' i.e. psychopaths have one very powerful weapon in their arsenal - they lie. Then they lie again. And they keep lying until they get what they want or tire of the game. Look up 'psychopathic charm' if you want the details. Faced with someone who is prepared to say whatever it takes, and knows how to say it well, very few people, not just women, have any real defense. Yes, you may know that they're bad boys but they're not trying to fool you. To the mark, they're a wonderful person who is just misunderstood.
Telling the victim to fix the problem themselves doesn't wash it. You may think you learn from the experience and I'm sure many women do. But again, we are dealing with psychopaths here. They explicitly target people who they detect are vulnerable. Blame them.
If it's 500% better then it's not going to be "likely to kill you" in any determinable situation. Yes, it will be more dangerous in some situations but, by definition, those situations will be rare, or the danger won't be great. So no different from the current situation where some conditions are clearly more dangerous for human drivers.
Yes, people are terrible at evaluating risks and tend to overestimate rare risks with serious outcomes, but most of us are fine with taking greater risks in some circumstances (or no one would ever speed let alone drive while tired drunk etc).
*Will a reduction in the number of fatalities per hours driven by a factor of 5 do?
"However, if an autonomous car does the bulk of the driving, and leaves the unusual driving to the human, you could argue that they are making driving more dangerous. Because in such situations, the human will have less driving experience than previously."
You're ignoring the fact that most of the cases you cited have little to do with driving skills per se. (They simply involve driving slowly and using common sense. Or telling the car what to do.)
Driving in snow is the exception. But then, while it may be something autonomous vehicles have difficulty at present, unless I'm missing something critical, it's the sort of thing that computers can be very good at given the training/programming (follow the road, keep control of the vehicle and don't hit anything).
You're conflating two very different cases here. If a car is designed to safely stop and refuse to proceed autonomously because it detects a situation it can't cope with, then at most it's an inconvenience. If you are talking about cases where the car finds itself in a situation where it is unable to extricate itself safely, it only needs to be better than the average driver. The premise of your final sentence is spot on. It's just that the conclusion doesn't follow.
An Ex post facto law is simply one that changes the legal status of an already performed action, so not really anything to do with grandfathering as such. It's not really surprising that it's unpopular since it means a government can't make a person a criminal by fiat (even if it's mostly used to declare politicians not criminals).
I like to have a dig at the Merkins as much as anyone here (did I mention Trump sucks) but not requiring safety devices on vehicles that were never designed to be fitted with them is hardly an unreasonable practice.
@Yet Another Anonymous coward
I don't know "crash in India" (not a lot to go on there) but in the Russian charter case, as you say, that one of the pilots followed the instructions from the ATC rather than trusting the TCAS. The problem was that the TCAS was right (and could have prevented the collision) and the ATC was wrong. I'm not sure how you could spin that as an argument against ADS.
I on the other hand would rather not spend several hours faffing around trying to fix a problem only to discover it was due to an intermittent fault in a dodgy cable. Call that a subjective measure of quality but it's important to me. In fact I have a general rule: software's buggy enough as it is without the additional complication of random hardware failure so paying a bit extra for known good hardware is money well spent.
Of course, cables are a bit of a special problem. With the exception of that Google guy they're not something people tend to review. Then again there was a time that was true of PSUs.
not making lattes. Sure you could probably design it so it could last 800 operations but then it would likely cost $250 million and be less reliable. And when $100 is the sort of money you're paying for a single launch there's not a lot of incentive to see how far you can stretch its life with duct tape and WD40.
Why assume anyone is simulating consciousness? Maybe whoever is running the simulation is simulating a universe, that is they are simulating the fundamental laws of physics (whatever they are) and consciousness is just something that happens. On my reading, it's this sort of simulation (perhaps emulation would be a better term because the idea is that the simulation is function identical to the real thing) that the paper is arguing against, not the Matrix type which is really just a video game on steroids and can use all the workarounds people have been talking about.
Not just single stage to orbit, but single stage to orbit while carrying a second stage and/or a massive interplanetary module (I assume it's or even if the article suggests otherwise). This is so far beyond what anyone has achieved so far (and its not like they haven't tried) I have to suspect musk has let something very potent go to his head.