It's called "sideloading" because you're sneakily installing software without the manufacturer's consent.
Remember it's never your device, you just have permission to use it.
Apple is likely to maliciously comply by allowing external links yet introducing new restrictions and guidelines that will dissuade developers from even trying.
This would be in line with their attempt to charge further commissions in South Korea and the Netherlands after being forced allow alternative payment systems for certain app categories.
If this fact makes you uneasy just know that 100% of the universe's galaxies, except the one we are currently in, are already unreachable within your lifetime.
If this fact makes you uneasy just know that (nearly) 100% of the galaxy's solar systems except the one we're currently in are (likely) unreachable within your lifetime.
Though to be fair, I think the original title can't possibly know this, for instance if we live in a simulation, what's to say that some sort of algorithm (assuming we learn to meta-code our own existence) could put us in any galaxy we choose... Or warp drives, worm holes... light speed travel hardly seems worth the trouble, and unfeasable.. but if we can master warp drives, and bending space around us... then is there a limit on max speeds? If we can actually reprogram the universe would there be anything we couldn't do? have any other alien civilizations realized that at all?
If we're in a simulation then there aren't any alien civilizations. No sense wasting computational resources on them.
P.S. As far as I know, computational complexity is the only physical quantity that doesn't obey conservation laws. So we're probably not in a simulation. If we were, it would probably be the other way around.
If we are in a simulation it’s most likely a physics/first-principles driven simulation… probably a “what if physics worked like $X” type of deal. So fidelity is likely the primary design goal and the weird nature of computational complexity in our universe is likely just an emergent property of the physics they setup the simulation with.
Not sure I agree about the overall information complexity, since a first principles physics simulation of a universe involves simulation of all the wave/quanta up through molecular dynamics and on to macroscopic behaviour of the universe (and us in it)…
It’s hard for me to imagine the “information complexity” we’re inducing into the universe as significant compared to the total size of the state machine representing all the neutrinos and photons in the universe, let alone the other particles.
Also if the the universe is a simulation it makes sense the simulators would be working with snapshots since even if you have the computational capabilities to simulate an entire universe, you probably don’t want to waste whatever time/energy resources exist in the simulating universe, simulating the first few billion years till your simulated universe gets to the point you’re most interested in, be it changing parameters / picking the outcome of particular random outcome or just zooming in and studying what goes on in the randomness, or just looking at it like some kind of highly advanced virtual zen garden.
So I’m not entirely convinced that our electronic computation devices which operate by way of the movement of electrons or photonics devices operating by manipulating photons (and usually electrons too), represents our hypothetical simulators having to design or run a simulation of anything beyond what we call “normal operating behaviour of clumps of solid baryonic matter”. All the computers in the world, full of electrons and interconnected by fibre optic lasers, is unlikely to involve simulating more electrons, neutrinos, and other subatomic particle interactions than are necessary to simulate the earth’s inner and outer core and their electrodynamic (which are coupled to the solar electrodynamics) and thus simulate the production of the earths magnetic field.
> If we're in a simulation then there aren't any alien civilizations. No sense wasting computational resources on them.
Seeing how mindbogglingly huge the universe is, our insignificant planet is unlikely to be the most intensive object to simulate. For a Universe simulator it would be peanuts, less than peanuts, peanut crumbs that fell behind the pantry where you can't clean them.
Think of it this way: it's trivially easy to randomly generate terrain for a video game world. The "size" of the in-game universe is just an arbitrary parameter.
Populating the world with interesting NPCs, is, however, a vastly more difficult problem than just scaling the same copy-pasted planets and stars across light years.
So no, the size of our universe is just a scale parameter. There's no evidence that it's more computationally complex out there than here, and computational complexity is the only interesting metric.
This assumes humans are interesting NPCs. I feel like we're the bizarre comic relief planet for the really interesting players to have the space adventure of the day.
I understand your point, though, but even if it was true, keeping track of all the physics in the Universe's filler would demand more processing power than what is needed for our planet. The speed of light would be our rendering depth, and that's still an unthinkable amount of computing, copy-paste included.
Why wouldn’t aliens work in a simulation model? The universe could be a shared sandbox to cross pollinate models or expose them to similar realities. Hah.
Nearly 100% of the countries on this very earth are unreachable to most poor humans within their lifetime.
And for a sizeable chunk of humans even reaching the very neighbourhood of their country, geography involves putting their lives on risk on a near sure to sink boat only to be shot/sent/sunk back by border police.
Humans are horrible at working together for their own good.
Not quite. There can be a null value if the object type allows for it, think Optional<T>.
What you can't have is an undefined object, as you could in Javascript for example.
"Data from his phone indicates that a mobile game was active during his drive and that his hands were not on the wheel during the six seconds ahead of the crash."
Their customer is perfectly aware of whether he has a video game going on in his hands instead of a steering wheel. No telemetry needed from that perspective.
You have no idea how many Tesla drivers will openly admit to taking their hands off the wheel and eyes of the road in order to take off a coat, tend to a child, etc. I work with somebody who claimed to do just that routinely.
People already do the things you listed, though. Hell, when my kids were in car seats I frequently had to reach around behind me to soothe them via touch. AutoPilot would have been a godsend, because I wouldn’t have had to stress out so much about juggling two things at once.
This is the part where you call me irresponsible, right? It seems like every discussion on this topic follows that pattern. The fact remains, though, that humans are in cars, and have all the weirdness that goes along with it. AP makes it easier. A lot.
> This is the part where you call me irresponsible, right?
Well, yes. But let's say everybody does things like this: the problem is that on a normal car you'll try to keep the off-hand time at a minimum, keep half hand on the wheel, or just give up and stop the car.
If you rely on autopilot you'l could just lower your attention for a longer time, and you can't rely on autopilot to actually do the right thing, it may work fine ten times and then crash your car into another on the eleventh killing both you and your baby.
So are you saying autopilot is, overall, a bad thing? Because it seems that the argument you are making is that the world is worse having it available, an argument I find to be perplexing.
Yes at the moment. But tats just my personal opinion i have
because a lot of people get false sense of security using it, and stop paying enough attention.
Look at this guy. He even apparently noticed this behavior on this road before, but still wasn't paying attention and got killed.
You either need 100% self driving or 0%
(driving assist is fine, as long as it's assist, and requres your attention)
You know, it’s almost like we’d benefit from having an autopilot system. I mean, think about it: people drive drunk, or tired, or get in fights with their mom on the phone, or have a crying baby demanding attention, or any number of other things like that.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if we had something to help with that? Like, it doesn’t even have to do everything, just most of it, and keep you from running into shit.
That would be awesome, wouldn’t it?
Yeah, that exists. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we had before, which was nothing.
You can wish all we want but you don’t have an auto pilot system. The Tesla is auto pilot up until you actually do what their marketing (and fans) claim it does and get in an accident. Then both Tesla and the fanboys come out of the woodwork denying that it was ever intended to be used hands off even for a second. In fact Tesla goes way out of their way, presenting telemetry from the car itself “proving” the driver was not in control and thus it isn’t Tesla’s fault because the driver was an idiot and down in the fine print on line 42 section (B) it says Tesla isn’t an auto pilot and the driver should be in command of the vehicle at all times.
See also, this very thread. All though there seems to be a worryingly high number of people here and elsewhere who, like I said, brag about not paying attention to their driving in a Tesla while simultaneously claiming it isn’t actually “auto pilot” because airlines pilots have to pay attention or some hot garbage. You yourself openly admit to not lacking attention to your driving because you think the Tesla is in control. Basically, trying to have their cake and eat it too... kind of scary.
You are focused upon strawmen and arguing in bad faith.
It is a scientific fact that AP is safer than not having it. Statistically, you are less likely to get in an accident if you have it. Anecdotally, I have witnessed this with my own eyes, having had it take drastic action before I was even aware of the danger.
I’m done with you specifically, though. I’ve come to believe that anyone who uses the word “fanboy” is almost never someone you can have a productive conversation with.
Drive drunk? Get a cab. Tired? Get a motel. Fight with your mom on the phone? Park your car and continue the conversation. Baby demanding attention? Park your car and care for the baby. Ignore it until you do.
It would be awesome if we have something for that. For now we don't, there is not a system where you can do the tasks above responsibly while in the driver seat. So park your car first.
The real issue with Autopilot is that it is a 99.99% solution, which makes people feel safe. But actually 99.99% isn't good enough.
99.99% as in, roughly one in 10000 times when you take your attention of the drive (e.g. to soothe a child) you'll have an issue where you should intervene with the autopilot. The likelihood of someone actually having this happen this is low, let alone the number of times people don't notice and other drivers solve the situation. As such, many people feel totally comfortable doing it. At the same time, the roads would be a lot safer if people did not feel comfortable doing this stuff.
There is the note that, when you feel you absolutely have to take your attention of the road, having auto-pilot is a lot better than not having it. In the end, it is hard to say which of these effects is stronger. However, the fact that auto-pilot causes some people to not pay attention because they feel safe is simply a bad thing.
You're missing the point. The family does not know this nor do they have access to this data which would be extremely useful in determining what their legal options are.
Seriously, what is people's problem with that word? Tesla actively explains how this works currently (both in person and also in bold font on their website) when anyone buys a car. There is no owner of this car that thinks that it has full self-driving capability. It is literally a non-existent problem.
> Seriously, what is people's problem with that word?
You see this with every thread about tsla. Some grasp at any nonsense to attack it. I used to think the haters were financially motivated "investors" shorting tsla and I'm sure it was true in the past. But now, I'm thinking it's just people who dislike elon for some reason since they also attack musk/SpaceX in spacex threads. I mean "criminally responsible" for the autopilot name? It's hard to take them seriously at this point.
While that is my view as well, the behaviour of some Tesla drivers indicates that their view is different, and they use the autopilot in a different manner, which is a problem.
This doesn't really solve the PR problem for Tesla, though. If people continue to treat their cars like they're fully self-driving (they will), accidents like this will continue to happen
What Tesla is doing is like selling a space heater that emits carbon monoxide and declaring it's for outdoor use only
According to social media, YouTubers, Redditors Tesla's drive themselves and are not simply automobiles with electric propulsion but computers on wheels, they have all the necessary hardware built-in and the software gets a miracle updates over the air, it is called autopilot, there're people sleeping on the highway while their Tesla drives them home, machine learning and AI is about to automate everything and you are short-seller devil of the petrol industry if you question anything.
How fair is to say that the driver should have had their hands on the wheel at all time and checked and acquired a pilot license or at least studied what is autopilot?
Does Tesla's have driver attention detectors and warning systems? Is the car beeping or something like that when you don't hold the wheel?
Yes, the car is making noises when you don't hold the wheels and after 3 warnings, the Autopilot system is disabled until the car is restarted. The Autopilot is very explicitly not suitable for unobserved operation.
How do people sleep or play on their phones then? Are the warnings not frequent and prominent enough? Are people hacking it and disabling it? What's the deal here?
With a Tesla you hang a banana off the steering wheel. The weight tricks the system into thinking it is a hand.
With GM's Super Cruise you can go completely hands free, that's the intended use, but it has eye tracking to make sure you are constantly watching the road.
The car detects your hand on the steering wheel. So technically speaking, as long as you keep one hand on the wheel, you can use your phone with the other hand :p. There are also devices avialable for purchase, which convince the car that there is a hand on the wheel.
What I forgot to mention in the previous post: the autopilot does not only complain about hands off the wheel, but if you ignore the complaints long enough, it does stop the car. So people can't drive for long with their hands completely off the steering wheel, until they use some kind of defeating device.
You just need to bump the wheel every 15 seconds or so. The required interval seems to vary a certain amount, but in boring, easy, bumper to bumper traffic, where it makes the most sense, that's all that's required, in my experience at least.
> it does stop the car
More specifically: in my tests, it eventually disengages autopilot as well as adaptive cruise control (which only controls the break and acceleration) while beeping loudly and harshly. This has the affect of slowly causing the car to decelerate.
Funny thing is Microsoft has much better documentation on Apple's very own frameworks. Simply compare their documentation on this arbitrary type (CIAffineClamp):
