In my field, arXiv (free preprint server) is actually much more discoverable than journals. It tends to be on top of Google searchers, many people (myself include) check it out daily, and few people even check journals (why would you check dozens of different ones if everyone posts their work on arXiv?).
This isn’t being realistic. The major benefit of these is peer review. You aren’t going to have enough people to peer review the work of a massively open and public publication system.
On top of that the chance of finding something as you suggest becomes that much more difficult. Smaller findings get published now in a more controlled scenario and get lost in the stream.
Major journals are a net positive for surfacing important science.
Yet "peer review" would absolutely scale if it were actually the review of peers (and not just an editorial board). A large number of publications where submissions are reviewed by previous and prospective authors would be much like how open source peer review works, though not without its own set of issues.
Discovery is a search problem and its pretty clear that we have the technical capacity to solve that problem if there is enough of a signal from wide-spread peer review.
Major journals become those that re-publish and report on the big debates and discoveries of the actually peer-reviewed journals and this would be the work of "journalists".
Peer-review can also occur from non-gatekeepers, from non-experts. You realize you posted this on a massively open and public publication system, right?
Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.
Grapheneos is, to my understanding, a dedicated development effort that specifically targets pixels.
Lineageos on the otherhand, provides scaffolding that volunteers can use to support phones of their choosing. It's very best effort and ymmv between phones. A universal upgrade option is just asking for trouble as it's not guaranteed all phones will behave the same/well.
FWIW in my experience upgrading Android versions works, mostly, as long as you remember to uninstall the old Google Play services and then install the new ones.
However, without a tested migration path, it may break your phone and make you factory reset + reflash the ROM if it doesn't work out, and there's nobody you can turn to or blame when that goes wrong. There's no official support, but that doesn't mean it'll never work.
Testing migration paths is a massive pain, especially when you're upgrading a whole bunch of parts all at once, and volunteers have more fun and frankly more important things to work on.
It's not the end of the world, it's a minor convenience and better than busy waiting.
There are plenty of cases where you want to manipulate an object but it's not guaranteed that it exists before your code is run. You get similar functionality with:
while not parentObj:FindFirstChild("childObj name") do wait() end
AFAIK, wait() is >= 1/30 of a second, if you wanted to be extra timely you'd instead run every heartbeat.
Programming doesn't make it easy to not miss jokes like that. I'll never forget my mum's face after I told her that I was working on a "killAllChildren" function when I was at school
Like? It's hard to do anything when the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all controlled by the same party. Until midterms, there's not much that can be done at the federal level. States can oppose some issues, and some States are, but what exactly do you think the opposition can/should be doing that they aren't already?
Connecting with people, building a mass movement, organizing institutions that can funnel people and effort into building the world and election results they want. Taking risks by taking a stand on issues and saying those issues are the reason to vote for them (not to avoid having the other side win). Doing local politics to demonstrate competence and show that they care and are building things, then show off those things to the rest of the country and say “look, we can do this everywhere” or at least “look at what we can do on a small scale but our vision is bigger and it’s limited by the fact our vision needs to happen on a national scale and can’t be achieved fully at this small scale”. Lots of things.
They should be putting out model legislation now on a monthly basis. No, none of it can pass, none of it can get to the floor. But they need bills that they can say they will pass if given a majority, and they need to be OK with the Republicans attacking them for the next 15 months. In fact the more time the Republicans spend attacking Democratic legislative proposals, the less time they are spending on selling their own.
The Democrats also need to put out radical proposals, not incrementalist ones or business-as-usualones along with fluffy messages about competency and management skills. The public does not want a party of competent middle managers whose primary skillset is watering down expectations and telling people to be patient while they redecorate. They need to put out policies that are going to make people spit out their coffee.
IMHO, it's already too late for the midterms. In fact, it's probably too late for the 2028 presidential election, too. Democrats need to connect, and that connection isn't from showing up, out of nowhere, three months before an election and taking policy. The connection starts years before the election, by associating oneself to the things the voters also associate with. I think one of the most brilliant things Trump ever did was to get involved with WWE. That started the connection with Rural America. It was long before he ran for president, and it wasn't boring policy talk. It was, "Look at me! I'm your guy! I'm into wrestling, just like you!" Now, this is nothing new - Clinton played the sax on Arsenio Hall. But I think the Democrats are just terrible at it. And here's a great example: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMIuyMQRAq1
Probably because the tsa isn't able/allowed to hand out access willy nilly.
It's kinda like how the police need warrants to request cellphone data, but cellphone companies could sell realtime data to third parties who in turn sold it to the police.
Yes, they build off other open source projects and list them in the README. I actually do run moonlight + sunshine myself, and have for more than a year. It's not too difficult to setup, depends on what you want to achieve.
I hadn't heard of wolf [0], but it checks a lot of boxes that sunshine does not. Namely, it supports multiple clients at once, multiple streams, and virtual displays out of the box (Linux + container first is almost neat). Sunshine is more for allowing your gaming desktop to be used as for game streaming. There's also a fork of sunshine, Apollo [1], that's more similar to wolf.
Yeah, it doesn't really elaborate on why openworld might be more fun than standard tracks/cups. Sure, I can drive around in it and look at it, but what makes than fun? This article basically tells us large scale level design takes a lot of effort, but no more.
Zelda makes sense to a degree, but IMO they lost the plot on what made Zelda games interesting. Old Zelda games were kinda open, but had (mostly) fixed sequence. The games were basically lock and key puzzles with a lot of back tracking. As you went you unlocked more items (keys), but having to key wasn't enough. You had to figure out how/where to use it. The way everything layered was elegant. You were excited to get to a dungeon, they always need a new gimmick(s)/mechanic(s), you got a new toy, and two boss fights. Once you were done, you got to see how this new thing unlocked more of world.
New Zelda games have puddle deep dungeons and shrines to quickly get you back into the overworld, and you've already unlocked all the mechanics before the tutorial is over. So all that's left is exploring the overworld for the sake of exploration, which has a thousand seeds and a hundred shallow shrines to encourage you overturn every stone in it.
I get I might not be the target demographic, open world games aren't inherently bad, and the new Zeldas enjoyed great commercial success. However I do feel this shift to open world misses and loses what made Mario Kart and Zelda beloved series to begin with.
I feel like the dungeons in BOTW all resemble the rooms in Portal. I.e. they feel highly artificial and contrived. However, this lets the player focus on the puzzle itself, rather than worry about the story at that moment. The puzzles there really force you to "get good" at a particular maneuver the game requires of the character. Rather than getting an item or advancing a world event, the player's reward is simply to suck less by accomplishing the task.
Plus, let's be honest, Zelda's story is really pretty fungible. The linear progression was mainly due to hardware limitations rather than aesthetic choice.
> IMO they lost the plot on what made Zelda games interesting
That's definitely an "IMO"—I've been playing Zelda games since the first, and Breath of the Wild revitalized my love for a series I was getting bored with. I do want to see them do something different with the next big title, but Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom kept my interest for hundreds of hours.
Actually, fwiw, I didn’t really play BotW. My non-gaming SO did, I just did the boss fights. They seemed to have fun exploring and hunting for ingredients. Although it was the pandemic so maybe standards were low.
Nowadays, I find the stagnation of open world games a little boring. But, I also enjoy steeping in a world. So I play rogue-lites, haha.
It reads to me like he had he simple (relative to today) investment strategies which where profitable, and closed shop when those market inefficiencies started running dry.
He was also, at that point, very old. He started his first fund in 1968. It tells you something about the modern world that you can your fund successfully for three decades, accumulate one of the best all-time records, and you will still have people online call you useless if you bow out in your 70s when your returns go dry for a couple of years.
Because lying about having "full self driving" is easy if you have no shame. Making a product that works and can pass regulatory muster to create a no-driver robotaxi is hard.
Tesla's FSD has different approach / tradeoffs compared to dedicated robotaxi services. FSD has to be cheap and energy efficient, run completely on-board, and it must work everywhere. They're trying to do more with less, which has so far been impossible. Their cybercab and robotaxi service will probably work more like Waymo, with a slightly relaxed set of limitations.
Some differences compared to Waymo:
- Waymo has / can use more on-board compute, from [0] "It has also been revealed that Waymo is using around four NVIDIA H100 GPUSs at a unit price of 10,000 dollars per vehicle to cover the necessary computing requirements."
- Waymo uses remote operators. This includes humans but can also have remote compute.
- Waymo's neural network model can be trained / overfit on specific route or area. FSD uses the same model everywhere.
- Waymo's on-board hardware can use more energy, because it's possible to charge the battery between trips.
- Robotaxi services charge customers per mile, so it makes sense to run longer routes which are also easier to drive, i.e. the routing algorithm can be tuned to avoid challenging routes. This would be possible to implement on FSD too, but it seems that FSD drives fastest route.
You'd think the biggest win would be in the middle:
We have an interstate highway system that's fairly well-maintained and understood, and is a finite space to map. Hypertrain on that, and you can offer an experience of 10 minutes hands-on-wheel at the start and end of the journey, and 3 hours of doomscrolling in the driver's seat. The highway miles are the most boring, both from a surprise-hazard standpoint and from a driver's-attention standpoint (there's nothing cool or interesting to see except the trunk lid of the car in front of you)
It offers a nationwide level of service that Waymo's city-by-city rollout lacks, and the chance for route-specific hueristics that Tesla's cameras-and-local-compute might miss.
Waymo specifically claims they never do remote human piloting. The car will present a remote human operator a choice of routes to get out of a situation, and the human will pick one. Remote piloting is way too risky.
Yes, definitely. "remote operator" is a human or an LLM which is able to make high-level decisions (i.e. what to do in a novel weird situation), but doesn't directly pilot the vehicle. Generally speaking, on-board compute is fast and stupid, and remote compute or a human is slow and smart.
I don't think that cars will have SOTA level LLMs running locally for a long time, and it seems that they actually need that kind of intelligence for full autonomy. However, it might also be totally fine if the passenger makes the difficult high-level decisions through a voice interface.
All decisions are made by the Waymo vehicle itself.
The vehicle can ask human remote operators for recommendations or clarification, but the vehicle itself decides whether to use them. Most of the time, the vehicle doesn't end up needing it.
The system though provides a way to let humans create training data for edge cases.
Well, I'd understand why it's difficult to extend to nationwide or even statewide just because of all the variations in road/driving conditions. So I can get how FSD never got certified at either scale. However, given their experience and plethora of data collected, I would have expected they'd be among the first get robotaxis in select cities. Idk, just struck me as odd is all. I figured I'd tee off this comment because someone might have an more informed insight into the why of it.
Tesla has been working on improving a level 2 system that works everywhere while Waynlmo has been working on expanding the capabilities and coverage of their level 4 system that works in limited areas and requires detailed mapping.
Tesla has yet to get good enough to achieve level 4 so they can't actually run a robotaxi yet. Tesla's bet is that if they can reach level 4 with their approach, they'll be able to roll out robotaxis much more widely than Waymo can.
So far, the bet has not paid off and Tesla needs it to pay off before Waymo's slower rollout gets too far ahead.
You left out the key word in that phrase, “full”. Tesla cars have autonomous driving features that require a human in the driver seat to take over in case the autonomous features shut off. That’s not “full self driving”.
There's a word in GP's post that you elided. "Full" means a human doesn't need to be supervising, and it works outside of the heavily mapped and stable conditions of LA.
Four lanes, left to right: straight+left, right turn only, concrete divider, right turn only, right turn only. Note that there are only two lanes when you turn right, so you can turn into the rightmost lane from lane 2, the leftmost lane from lane 3, rightmost from lane 4.
Traffic lights (four signals) on the far end of the intersection work thus:
1. Left two lane lights turn green (Right two lanes are red). You can have traffic going straight, left or right. Traffic in lane 2 can turn right, but lanes 3 and 4 cannot.
2. Right two lane lights turn green, left red. Lane 2 cannot turn right but lanes 3 and 4 can.
All the lights are circles, no arrows. The only indication of weirdness is that there's a "No turn on red".
Tesla is also the leader in terms of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. On a per-mile basis, they're the most dangerous advanced driving system in the world and it's not even close.
And they all do it better than Tesla. 0 fatalities. 0 injuries. 0 crashes where the self-driving was at fault (but a few where the car behind them crashed into them).
Glorified cruise control does not equal self driving. I know everyone has to hate on Tesla, but FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these. It doesn't take long looking at videos of actual people using these systems to understand the massive capability gap between Teslas FSD and everyone elses driver assistance system.
> FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these.
FSD is still only level 2.
Honda and Mercedes are the only two companies to sell level 3 capable cars, but these are only level 3 under certain limited conditions.
You may be correct that the level 2 performance of FSD is ahead of the level 2 performance of any other car, but I don’t think we can call Tesla king until they also match the level 3 performance of these other cars under those conditions.
Maybe but yes those level 3 systems need the stars to align to actually be active from what I understand. It's just as far as I know, there's no other system that allows someone to just enter an address, navigate through both city and highway, then arrive at a destination.
Glorified cruise control does not equal self driving
Elon Musk disagrees. He's been calling glorified cruise control self-driving for a decade.
FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these
Yes, in terms of accidents and fatalities, FSR is way ahead of the entire rest of the industry. In terms of actual driving quality? Super Cruise and BMW have it beat. Yes, they're geographically limited. That's because GM and BMW are acting responsibly and making sure it works before they open it up everywhere. Move fast and break things doesn't work when the things being broken are people.
I got a video of my own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPUGh0qAqWA Goes into detail about why FSD crashes so frequently and why the problem cannot be fixed as long as FSD remains reliant on cameras. Indeed, if you type in "FSD accident" or any variation of "accident" there are thousands of videos, many of them taken by the Tesla owner themself.
Because calling a feature “Full Self Driving” is a lot easier than making a car that is capable of fully driving itself without a human at the wheel to immediately take over in situations that regularly occur.
There are advertised features of Teslas that are vaporware, but it’s a stretch to call them vaporware. xAI is also very real. Others have mentioned SpaceX. He bought Twitter/X but that’s not vaporware either. Neuralink is also real. The Boring Company has only dug 2 short tunnels so far, so the case can be made for calling that vaporware.
He owned a company that merged with Confinity, which had already built a prototype of PayPal, registered trademarks, etc. at the time of merger.
He was made CEO. For four months. Which he spent trying to throw out the prototype written in Java because he only knew ASP.
Then the board fired him in absentia, the morning he left for his honeymoon. Not asked him to resign, not "focus on his family", but the moment he's gone, fired his ass.
Musk's contribution to the non-vaporware PayPal is "cashing the dividend checks".
I certainly hope they won't be the last. For a healthy market, we need at least 3 viable competitors. Waymo is viable, Cruise has pulled out, and Tesla is questionable.
Idk, every competitors system at this point is basically glorified lane keep adaptive cruise control. Similar to the standard Tesla Autopilot but far from Tesla's FSD.
Genuine question, can you provide multiple explicit examples of such bias? I heard a lot of people railing against bias in Wikipedia, but no one provides any blatant examples of it.
A genuine answer, how about looking up some studies on this subject? Not those done by Wikipedia of course, they claim to be politically neutral after all.
Six studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:
A 2024 analysis [1] by researcher David Rozado that used AllSides Media Bias Ratings [2] found Wikipedia associates right-of-center public figures with more negative sentiment than left-wing figures, and tends to associate left-leaning news organizations with more positive sentiment than right-leaning ones.
A Harvard study [3] found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
Another paper [4] from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
A 2018 analysis [5] found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
Another analysis [6] using AllSides Media Bias Ratings found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
American academics found [7] conservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement.
There are far more sources out there.
If I show examples of biased pages - the one on Antifa is a good example - this will just devolve into a quibble about this or that sentence.
> A genuine answer, how about looking up some studies on this subject?
I figured that since you had a strong opinion on the subject you probably had strong evidence and could steer us to more directed reading to understand your viewpoint. Certainly we all should investigate things for ourselves, but sometimes it helps to have a place to start. You've certainly given us plenty to read through and consider. I'll read it with an open mind - some prereading thoughts that come to mind, is the citation bias proportional to factual accuracy (some outlets are more factually accurate than others, so one would expect to see them cited more often)? What's the distribution of the population of potentially citable sources (I.e. Is the bias a reflection of the population, or selection bias)? Is editor sanctions selective in enforcement or are conservative editors more likely to engage in behavior that warrants sanctions?
In other words, are we confusing correlations with causation? I don't know, I'll have to dig into the sources you provided and do my own research. I posit the questions now because it's the only thoughts I can contribute to the discussion at present.
For discoverability. Someone's trivial finding may be someone else's key to a major breakthrough, but little good it does if it can't be easily found