We should really be able to downvote submissions... This analysis is clearly factually inaccurate. I am curious to know why OS X and macOS are showing up separately though
definitely the latter, it is even referenced in the foreword:
> Its goal is not to be exhaustive, but rather minimalist
and easy to read. For this reason, it follows the format
of The Little Book of Deep Learning [Fleuret 2023]. Its
tone, however, is closer to that of a blog post, as the
book is built around a single narrative thread. Its
structure broadly follows that of Sutton and Barto’s
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction [Sutton et al.
2018], which remains the canonical reference on the
subject.
This article captures the problem exactly. In Miami, there are areas where sidewalks are too narrow for a robot (from Serve Robotics) and a human to share simultaneously, so either the robot or the human goes first. If the human wants to go first, they have to step into the street and walk around the robot. The robot and its operator are never courteous enough to back up.
Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?
> If the human wants to go first, they have to step into the street and walk around the robot. The robot and its operator are never courteous enough to back up.
Tip them over to make a path. The sidewalk is for humans, the robot is a guest.
Can't program your robots to behave properly? Have fun spending a fortune running after them!
> Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?
That's a good start, now ask some of the same questions about cars vs pedestrians. Ultimately, big money will win as it always does. Get used to dodging robots.
Good point. Just look up the invention of Jay-walking. It was a marketing campaign that called people "jays" (bozo, basically) for walking "improperly" in the streets when that used to be what everyone did. Eventually, cities came up with penalties for j-walking.
And then started using it as pretense for harrassing minorities. In California, they recently made it so they have to prove you caused or nearly caused an accident for it to be a crime.
Sure, and the delivery robots have people who want the things at the end, and the robots can't (apparently) go in the road.
Roads used to be for people and wagons, till cars showed up and kicked the people off. Now delivery bots are trying to do the same thing, kick the humans on foot off the sidewalks.
No, his parallel works. This was also like when the e scooter/e bike craze was high and they just started occupying public space on the sidewalks because “fuck you, I can” and it was the nominal citizens problem to work around it.
No, you would say passes both houses of Congress in that case.
Just don't like the immediate dismissal of the people's House when it comes to government affairs. When Congress does something it's important, regardless of the house it originates from.
Not necessarily. In the US traditionally the House Reps are referred to as congressmen (unlike the rest of the world) and the Senate, senators. So sometimes Congress is shorthand for the House. Though I agree it shouldn’t be.
This is false. Traditionally, when only one chamber of Congress passes a bill, headlines explicitly state which chamber. "The House passed a bill that..." or "The Senate passes a bill that..."
The OP is correct that Congress implies both chambers. Yes, "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" refers to House members. But the headline says "Congress".
To an extent, but realistically it wasn't really reasonable to expect a cutesy Pokemon game to be used for this ten years later. If you had told the average Pokemon Go player this ten years ago you would have been called crazy. The Pokemon Company should have done more to protect their brand (I would hope for regulation too on player-generated real world data like this)
I stopped scanning pokestops because the effort has outweighed the rewards. A lot of the time, the requests show up as "research tasks" for a point of interest that I quickly passed by and have no interest in returning to, besides the tasks related to taking pictures of your buddy pokemon in augmented reality. Looks like I made the right choice by stopping. They do indicate to you up front that they will use the data, but it's still kind of terrible that you could be indirectly contributing to war efforts. I always assumed the data would be used for large world model training or simulations.
> I always assumed the data would be used for large world model training or simulations.
That was the initial objective, improving navigation by having people walk slowly on pedestrian accessible locations instead of only the main roads. But once that data is collated, it could go anywhere and you've signed any rights to what happens with it away when you agreed to the Ts & Cs.
My 8 year old LOVES Pokemon Go, and we regularly go to a local meet up which is a fascinating microcosm of people of all ages from all walks of life. We’ve met some great people and had some incredible conversations, but I really struggle to see how we can continue in good faith now.
I seriously loath, hate & despise everything about this digital panopticon world being constructed around us.
The data isn't guns though. Guns aren't a dual use technology that have a nonviolent purpose. Data is. The same data that trains military drones can also be used to train the robot that will bring food to grandma when she's so old that she can't walk up the stairs anymore.
I bet the targets don't feel like they're non-violent. The animal that was killed for food doesn't think anything, because it's dead. That's pretty violent. Shooting someone that attacking you in defense was necessary, but it's definitely violent.
All uses of guns are violent. That's what they do. They make holes in things that didn't have holes in them before. There are uses for them that are justified but they're always violent. This isn't an anti-gun screed, this is a words-mean-things rant. Violence is necessary and justified in various situations, which means guns are necessary and justified in various situations, but if you're going to say they're not violent, I can't agree.
If making holes in things that didn't have holes in them before is a sufficient condition for "violence", does that make drills violent too? Or is that taking words-mean-things too far?
Or perhaps can we accept that it is possible to make holes in things without doing violence, and that an object that can make holes in things is not inherently a violent object even though it would be violent if you made holes in things like people or animals, or in property without permission.
Targets are inanimate objects I’m fine with being violent against them just like I’m fine with farting on my chair!
Even if all uses of weapons are violence, sometimes violence is justified. If you disagree happy to violently rob you and disabuse you of your stupid ideas.
Opinions of people who lived sheltered lives are so divorced from reality
The closest stop to me is between a dog park and a school - scanning it would have been an awkward situation, to say the least. And as you said, for rewards that aren't worth it. I got used to having that "Scan" task just sitting at the top of my list, never to be touched. But I noticed earlier this week that it's gone - and scanning stops doesn't give a new scan task.
Why do they even make announcements that they're going into production and then casually cancel the show? Do they not know they are completely toying with the emotions of fans? Giving false hope is worse than no hope.
