They are saying:“The idea that the Harris campaign didn’t pledge enough support to Israel as a justification for her loss is equally as insane as a typical qanon conspiracy theory”

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

Considering he asked twitter programmers to print out their pull requests Im not even sure he’s not cosplaying a programmer

If a 45 year old not wearing a costume and strung out on Ketamine says trick or treat at my door, they’re getting candy.

What am I, the fucking Halloween police? ACAB.

I completely agree that if there are tools that can allow a vehicle to “see” better than a human it’s absurd not to implement them. Even if musk could make a car exactly as good as a human, that’s a low bar. It isn’t good enough.

As for humans: if you are operating a vehicle such that you could not avoid killing an unexpected person on the road, you are not safely operating the vehicle. In this case, it’s known as “over driving your headlights”, you are driving at a speed that precludes you from reacting appropriately by the time you can perceive an issue.

Imagine if it wasn’t a deer but a chunk of concrete that would kill you if struck at speed. Perhaps a bolder on a mountain pass. A vehicle that has broken down.

Does Musk’s system operate safely? No. The fact that it was a deer is completely irrelevant.

Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it’s flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It’s hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.

Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don’t even understand to consume those inputs effectively.

But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to “see” better than a human? I want that!

If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.

The point here isn’t actually “should it have stopped for the deer” , it’s “if the system can’t even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?”

The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.

Each of them only does it once, and thinks it’s just a matter of luck when it happens to someone else

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, so forgive me, but I expect carefully reading the prompt is still orders of magnitude less effort than actually writing a paper?

So does that imply that Lead has existed in the universe strictly longer than Uranium? Is the meme entirely backwards?

I mean, it’s created at a cosmic rate in the right sized star.

You’d need to back up and start talking about the big bang and star formation, and at that point lead isn’t really part of the argument. Most elements exist as a result of stars smashing atoms as per my understanding.

The assumption is that the only way lead can exist is via a series of radioactive decay. It is a way. It is generally created in stars by a much more direct process, not through radioactive decay.

Sadam in the tail?

I don’t dispute that you were correct in guessing they weren’t Canadian, I just wasn’t following your logic.

The question is posted to a community@lemmy.ca so if one were to assume anything wouldn’t it make much more sense to assume Canadian?

Lol the Fraser Institute is an absolute fucking joke.

To be fair, if they’re driven by an LLM I would still expect it to be wrong.

Oh, no, I’m absolutely not trying to engage as if this person is holding the objective truth because they aren’t. I’m not either. They just have had a different brainwashing than most so I’m interested in the flavour. I’m interested in hearing their views, fact checking them, and using that to reverse engineer the intiontions of those who are feeding them a moral rationalization.