No doubt it and many other historical events will affect many things later on but it’s still not really a reasonable position to assume that has to be it even with lots of evidence that makes it seem unlikely in a particular case. Colonialism did not introduce anti-homosexual attitudes to the African continent. Islam, which arrived before the western colonialists also has them but wasn’t the first appearance of that there either.

Even assuming that this has anything directly to do with religion which is already a big leap it is a Muslim majority country that had no laws against homosexuality prior to or right after independence from France… Sorry but this sounds like a pretty difficult one to pin on western colonialism.

not really a solution when most of the news media engages in it and it’s not abour reliability per se, just about ambigous titles designed to make people click.

not a great rule considering how much clickbait even reputable news outlets engage in these days… can see it a bit even in this one…

doesn’t really make that much sense to look at the registered user total because most of them have already moved on but sure, it’s like 2.5% if you compare to the 5 million that have been active within the last month.

I think the ecosystem has some more benefits besides that. Ready to use case, cooler, camera, display options and lots of resources for putting these things together compared to NUCs/minipcs. I do like how the compute modules are even more flexible with the ability to choose from various carrier boards. Really depends on your use case which makes the most sense.

Love The Soul of a New Machine as a retrocomputing enthusiast, probably the best book I’ve read covering an engineering project. Too young to have experienced the minicomputer era but I’m fascinated by it. Rest in Peace.

the Johnny Harris video? Yeah, easy to see the parallels.

I don’t really see anything wrong with making an app for the purpose. Bit of a different target audience and probably easier setup. Also raises awareness via news coverage and by getting people to talk about it.

Did this say whether the reasoning models get this right more than the others? Was curious about that but missed it if it was mentioned.

You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.

and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?

I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You’re literally not addressing any of my points and just accusing me of things I didn’t even do. I could be arguing with an LLM and get responses that make more sense so I’m done, thanks.

I provided a counterpoint and now you’ve moved your goalposts to just ramps. The fact is that there is no reason to believe the roads Waymos utilize are generally safer than roads on average. But that doesn’t really even matter because the studies that have been done about this do account for different types of environments anyway and point to Waymos having fewer accidents.

It is obviously false that fatal accidents would be “zero” on the roads Waymos are limited to, it’s ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. What is true that such accidents are even more rare there though. It’s another good reason for why it makes no sense to solely focus on fatal accidents as they are unlikely to be involved in them anyway due to these limits. That’s in addition to the fact that the statistical analysis is simply impossible with current vehicle miles.

Now, I’m not saying we know for certain Waymo is much safer than a human as the current statistics imply, that is going to require more rigorous studies. I would say what we’ve got is good enough to say that nothing points to them being particularly unsafe.

Well Waymo isn’t assigning blame, it’s a third party assessment based on the information released about those accidents. The strongest point remains that fatal accidents are rare enough that there simply isn’t enough data to claim any statistical significance for these events. The overall accident rate for which data is sufficient remains significantly lower than the US average.

All these services have the ability for a human to solve issues if the FSD disengages. Doesn’t mean they’re not driving on their own most of the time including full journeys. The remote assistant team is just ready to jump in if there’s something unusual that causes the Waymo driver to disengage and even then they don’t usually directly control the car, they just give the driver instructions on how to resolve the situation.

We are talking about Tesla robotaxis. They certainly do drive in very limited geofenced areas also. While Waymo now goes on freeways only in the Bay Area with the option being offered to only some passengers Tesla Robotaxis do not go on any freeways ever currently. In fact they only have a handful of cars doing any unsupervised driving at all and those are geofenced in Austin to a small area around a single stretch of road.

Tesla Robotaxis currently also cease operations in Austin when it rains so Waymo definitely is the more flexible one when it comes to less than perfect conditions.

When there’s two deaths total it’s pretty obvious that there just isn’t enough data yet to consider the fatal accident rate. Also FWIW like was said neither of those was in any way the Waymo’s fault.