1. 1

      The point about “Scrum is hypocritical” hits home so hard :)

      On topic just wanted to say there’s no perfect methodology for developingh software because not all the software and people that build it are the same. Just take the good bits form agile/scrum/waterfall/whatever ans “follow” those. So whatever works for you/your team.

      1. 4

        Any particular reason for running *BSD over Linux on a dekstop ?

        1. 11

          I switched from Linux to OpenBSD last October on all of my personal machines, and I don’t anticipate going back. I have a few reasons, though some might seem petty.

          1. No systemd or PulseAudio. They’re OK when they work, but when they stop working they’re a pain in the ass. OpenBSD uses classic BSD rc scripts, and sndio is a cleaner, more reliable implementation of the functionality PulseAudio provides.
          2. OpenBSD’s primary source of documentation is man pages, the way it should be, and they treat problems with documentation as severely as they do bugs in code. I find this preferable to the “documentation as an afterthought” approach prevalent on Linux.
          3. OpenBSD supports both point release and rolling release. If you’re content with point releases or running a server where downtime must be planned in advance, you update every six months or so. It’s like Debian, but with a short release cycle and no Toy Story references. If you want rolling release OpenBSD or are using it as a desktop/laptop/workstation OS, you can run -current and update weekly, whenever an important package gets updated, or when major patches are announced on the mailing list.
          4. OpenBSD might not be certified, but it’s a real Unix operating system that can trace its history back to Bell Labs via UC Berkeley. Using it makes me feel like I’m taking part in a long and venerable tradition.
          5. I don’t trust Microsoft’s newfound regard for Linux. Sure, it’s nice that .NET Core and Visual Studio Code are available on Linux for those who don’t share my prejudice, but I remember when MS was the “evil empire”.
          6. It used to be that Linux was for people who hated Windows, and BSD was for people who love Unix. These days it seems that Linux is for people who envy Microsoft (and Apple), but BSD is still for people who love Unix.
          7. I’m a fucking hipster, and Linux is too mainstream and commercialized these days.
          1. 10

            For me it comes down to things like this:

            • ifconfig iwm0 nwid PrettyWiFiForAWhiteGuy wpa wpakey 'sekret': on linux it would be: ifconfig, iwconfig, ip, iw, eff it.. install NetworkManager, get super angry when you can’t actually disable ipv6 because NetworkManager knows you really secretly want it enabled!
            • Minimality.
            • us.swapctrlcaps: Set once, on install. Gives me system wide keyboard configuration. In one place.
            • Painless upgrades: pkg_add does what you expect. The enter button is super easy to hit.
            1. 7

              If you like BSD more than Linux. OpenBSD in particular has a very different ethos than Linux, which many people here find attractive. We have many OpenBSD developers here on Lobsters, so we enjoy greater access to their opinions and philosophies. You should find plenty of top notch content here about BSD if you search for it.

              People prefer OpenBSD for different reasons. Security-oriented implementation, secure defaults, excellent documentation, minimalism, emphasis on networking tooling, coherent base system, developer friendliness, and so on and so forth. These apply to desktops as well as servers.

              Personally, Linux on the desktop drives me up the wall, since they keep moving fast and breaking things. And the different distros make different decisions about silly little things that keep tripping me up. For example, I write C++ professionally, which means I generate and analyze core dumps. My core dumps were being diverted to some bug-reporting tool, which was silently crashing on my multi-gig core files.

              Some smart guy decided automatic bug reporting tools were more important than developer access to core dumps. That decision wasted way more of my time than I care to admit. OpenBSD would never have wasted my time in that way.

              I prefer MacOS for desktops, since Apple actually cares about building a coherent user experience. They’ve had some quality issues recently but nothing worse than what I’ve experienced using Linux. And they don’t lose my core dumps. If not MacOS, OpenBSD would be my next choice.

              1. 6

                I’m not OP but I run BSD on my desktop (though my desktop has gradually become more of a de facto server these days now that I have a powerful laptop). ZFS is a more reliable and less fiddly way to have both disk redundancy and snapshots than any of the ways of achieving those on linux. Updates are more reliable on BSD - when I ran linux it felt like every year there would be an update that changed how X was configured and I’d have to google how to edit some random XML file to get it to use the correct keyboard layout on the login screen (I touch-type on dvorak and use long passwords that I remember mostly by touch, so when my keyboard layout gets forcibly changed to qwerty I find it pretty hard to even log in), or changed how sound worked, or changed how the init scripts worked, or so on. I don’t particularly use any BSD features unless you count ZFS (e.g. I don’t use jails at all for desktop work), but it works and stays out of my way, which is really all you want from an OS.

                1. 5

                  Not trying to tell you off or prove you wrong, but Xorg has been configuration-free for most systems for the past 5 years or so. The only exception I can think of is Nvidia-optimus setups where you want to switch between Nvidia and Intel graphics.

                  Not that the Linux ecosystem has not been seeing major changes in its components, you know, with the whole init-system wars and Wayland becoming a thing. It’s just that as a user, I’ve not been bitten by broken updates in quite a while. I’m not going to try and defend any of the ZFS alternatives on Linux, as I’m not pleased with any of them myself.

                  My major problem with switching to OpenBSD (or another BSD) is the lack of modern hardware support, especially graphics, and the fact that it’s often harder to find documentation or installation instructions for some new pieces of software.

                  1. 3

                    (or another BSD) is the lack of modern hardware support, especially graphics

                    FreeBSD 12-CURRENT has great support for AMD Polaris and earlier (and Intel of course), with Wayland, Vulkan, OpenCL, whatever you want :)

                    Granted, not everything works out of the box yet (especially Wayland: you still have to rebuild the kernel with evdev support if you want any input devices to work, but that’s going to be resolved), but the process of rebuilding stuff on FreeBSD is super easy.

                    1. 1

                      That’s interesting, I didn’t know AMD GPU support has progressed so far in FreeBSD. I should probably try it out again, since I’m running with mostly AMD hardware these days (because of their excellent open-source drivers on Linux.)

                    2. 2

                      Not trying to tell you off or prove you wrong, but Xorg has been configuration-free for most systems for the past 5 years or so.

                      Yeah, that was the problem. I had an xorg conf that worked and set my keyboard to the right layout, then one day “X went configuration-free” and I had to find some blog post about some random HAL XML file that I had to edit instead. And then a year or two after that HAL got removed and I had to set it in some different place instead.

                      My major problem with switching to OpenBSD (or another BSD) is the lack of modern hardware support, especially graphics

                      I’ve always stuck to NVidia cards and used the NVidia official/proprietary drivers (which I think only exist for FreeBSD), so it’s the exact same driver experience as on Linux.

                      and the fact that it’s often harder to find documentation or installation instructions for some new pieces of software.

                      It’s really very similar to Linux, unless you’re using software that has a kernel module or something - I’m struggling to think what you’d need specific instructions for because usually what you do on BSD is exactly the same as what you do on Linux. Anything that uses something standard like autotools or CMake will Just Work, in my experience. Occasionally someone has hardcoded /bin/bash or something (but that will break on Ubuntu too these days), but there’s a small number of breakage patterns that you learn. Admittedly when it comes the very new stuff that’s hardcoded against systemd or docker you are just screwed.

                    3. 2

                      To add to that, my last Linux upgrade knocked out WiFi on one of my devices. I’m thinking (once again): “how does an OS upgrade take out something as critical as WiFi?” Only on Linux…

                    4. 4

                      Mostly because once configured it just works.

                      Not really OpenBSD related but also root on ZFS on FreeBSD with bulletproof upgrade using ZFS Boot Environments.

                      No systemd.

                      True channel mixing in kernel using OSS4 instead of ALSA+OSS+PulseAudio setup.

                      Sound does not hang up which requires reboot (have that on Ubuntu).

                      Entire machine does not freeze without a cause (had that with Linux Mint).

                      Also because tools that have been available on UNIX for decades (ifconfig/netstat/…) are not deprecated without any reasonable reason.

                      The Ports provide really easy way to recompile single, several or all ports/packages with needed options, no Linux equivalent.

                      … to just name a few.

                      1. 2

                        Entire machine does not freeze without a cause (had that with Linux Mint).

                        Any idea what kernel version that was? There was an erratum on Skylake silicon that could trigger hard lock-ups in the kernel on some versions. There was a workaround for it in 4.3 and newer if I recall correctly. I understand that you don’t want it to happen at all but if this is the specific bug, it was a hardware bug on a common hardware platform that only triggered under specific loads.

                        1. 2

                          Sound does not hang up which requires reboot (have that on Ubuntu)

                          hm, I do have that on FreeBSD. Not often, but does happen. Maybe it’s a hardware issue? Realtek kinda sucks…

                        2. 3

                          https://www.romanzolotarev.com/openbsd/why.html

                          Everything I need is in the base: POSIX shell, X11, vi, tmux, httpd, smptd. There are only things I need, almost nothing else.

                        1. 2

                          Maybe the price of backwards compatibility becomes too big at some point ? Also USB C , USB 3.x and USB PD being all “rolled” into a single can’t possibly help with the complexitiy.

                          If Nintendo can’t do USB PD + USB C + USB 3.x properyl ,they should have stuck with a proprietary connector.

                          1. 2

                            they should have stuck with a proprietary connector

                            Strongly disagree. Maybe Nintendo should release a proprietary USB-C cable that mimics their dock without the bulkiness of their dock, but the ability to borrow a friend’s phone charger and recharge my Switch? The ability to just bring one charger with me, one that can charge my phone, my tablet, and my gaming console? That’s a really nice feature. I would take that over a proprietary cable that doesn’t work with anything else.

                            1. 4

                              Running a proprietary protocol over a standard connector is a bad idea, because people will plug mismatched devices into each other and the possible outcomes are somewhere between nonfunctionality and starting fires.

                              It sounds like the Switch is just a very poor implementation of the standard protocol, so that reasoning only partly applies. It is certainly a convenience not to need multiple chargers, but it’s less of a convenience if some chargers can lock up your device. If Nintendo had no intention of interoperating with standard USB-C devices, they shouldn’t have used the connector; and if they did intend to interoperate, they should actually do so.

                          1. 1

                            Can anyone explain in layman terms how Google can take the GPL license Linux kernel , build some stuff on top of it and have those to be proprietary ? How does this work ? How can the stuff built on top be proprietary ?

                            1. 14

                              It’s the same thing as building proprietary software that runs on linux. GPL means that google has to release any changes it makes to the linux kernel under GPL as well. Software that just runs on top of Linux/Android can be proprietary.

                              1. 2

                                It’s basically due to using the “Android” name, which is copyrighted, and having the Google apps (Maps, Play Store, etc) pre-installed. Forking Android and calling it something else is just fine.

                              1. 2

                                Very curious how the Google car would have fared in this scenario. Anyway, deeply dissapointing the car didn’t tried to brake, this seems a total failure for self driving car.

                                1. 3

                                  Almost certainly would have braked. This is like trivial for a lidar. Empty road, single obstacle moving at a slow pace and the low light conditions should help not hurt.

                                1. 16

                                  To quote another HN comment:

                                  LIDAR aside, computer vision and a raw video feed is more than enough to have prevented this collision.

                                  Exactly! Engineers designing autonomous cars are required to account for low-visibility conditions, even way worse than what this video shows (think hail, rain, dust, etc.). This was easy! And yet the car made no signs of slowing down.

                                  EDIT: twitter comments like this pain me. People need to be educated about the capabilities of autonomous cars:

                                  She is walking across a dark road. No lights even though she has a bike. She is not in a cross walk. Not the car’s fault.

                                  Yes it was the car’s fault. This is shocking, extraordinary behavior for an autonomous car.

                                    1. 9

                                      In reality, both the pedestrian and the car (and Uber) share some responsibility. You shouldn’t cross a four lane road at night wearing black outside of a crosswalk. A human driver is very unlikely to see you and stop. Not blaming the victim here, just saying it’s easier to stay safe if you don’t do that. However, the promise of autonomous cars with IR and LIDAR and fancy sensors is that they can see better than humans. In this case, they failed. Not to mention the human backup was very distracted, which is really bad.

                                      From the video I don’t think a human would have stopped in time either, but Uber’s car isn’t human. It should be better, it should see better, it should react better. Automatic collision avoidance is a solved problem already in mass-market cars today, and Uber failed it big time. Darkness is an excuse for humans, but not for autonomous cars, not in the slightest.

                                      She should still be alive right now. Shame on Uber.

                                      1. 18

                                        You can’t conclude that someone would not have stopped in time from the video. Not even a little. Cameras aren’t human eyes. They are much much worse in low visibility and in particular with large contrasts; like say those of headlights in the dark. I can see just fine in dark rooms where my phone can’t produce anything aside from a black image. It will take an expert to have a look at the camera and its characteristics to understand how visible that person was and from what distance.

                                        1. 9

                                          From the video I don’t think a human would have stopped in time either, but Uber’s car isn’t human.

                                          Certainly not when distracted by a cell phone. If anything, this just provides more evidence that driving while distracted by a cell phone, even in an autonomous vehicle, is a threat to life, and should be illegal everywhere.

                                          1. 9

                                            Just for everyone’s knowledge you’re 8 times as likely to get in an accident while texting, that’s double the rate for drinking and driving.

                                            1. 6

                                              He was not driving.

                                              He was carried around by a self driving car.

                                              I hope that engineers at Uber (and Google, and…) do not need me to note that the very definition of “self driving car” is a huge UI flaw in itself.

                                              That is obvious to anyone who understand UI, UX or even just humans!

                                              1. 5

                                                She was driving . The whole point now of sitting in a driver seat for a TEST self driving car is for the driver to take over and overcome situations like this.

                                                1. 6

                                                  No, she was not.

                                                  Without this incident, you would have seen soon a TV spot precisely with a (hot) business woman looking at the new photos uploaded on Facebook by her family. With a voice saying something like: ’we can bring you to those you Like”.

                                                  The fact that she was paid to drive a prototype does not mean she was an experienced software engineer trained to not trust the AI and to keep continuous control of the car.

                                                  And indeed the software choosed the speed. At that speed the human intervention was impossible.

                                                  Also the software did not deviate, despite the free lane beside and despite the fact that the victim had to traversate that lane, so there was enough time for a computer to calculate several alternative trajectories or even simply to alert the victim via light signaling or sounds.

                                                  So the full responsibility must be tracked back to people at Uber.

                                                  The driver was just fooled to think that he could trust the AI by an stupidly broken UI.

                                                  And indeed the driver/passenger reactions were part of the Uber’s test.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    Looking at your phone while riding in the drivers seat is a crime for a reason. Uber’s AI failed horribly and all their cars should be recalled, but also the driver failed. If the driver had not been looking at their phone literally any action at all could have been taken to avoid the accident. It’s the responsibility of that driver to stay alert with attention on the road not looking at your phone or reading a book or watching a film, plane pilots do it every single day. Is their attention much more diminished? Yes of course it is. Should we expect literally 0 attention from the “driver”, absolutely no we should not.

                                                    1. 5

                                                      Do you realize that the driver/passenger reactions were part of the test?

                                                      This is the sort of self driving car that Uber and friends want to realize and sell worldwide.

                                                      And indeed I guess that the “driver” behaviour was pretty frequent among the prototypes’ testers.

                                                      And I hope somebody will ask Uber to provide in court the recording of all the tests done so far to prove that they did not know drivers do not actually drive.

                                                      NO. The passenger must not be used as a scapegoat.

                                                      This is an engineering issue that was completely avoidable.

                                                      The driver behaviour was expected and desired by Uber

                                                      1. 4

                                                        You’ve gotta stop doing this black and white nonsense. Firstly stop yelling. I’m not using the passenger as a scapegoat so I don’t know who you’re talking to. The way the law was written it’s abundantly clear that this technology is to be treated as semi autonomous. That does not mean that Uber is not negligent. If you are sitting in a driver’s seat and you’re watching harry potter while your car drives through a crowd of people you should be found guilty of negligence independent of any charges that come to both the lead engineers and owners of Uber. You have a responsibility to at least take any action at all to prevent deaths that otherwise may be at no fault of your own. You can’t just lounge back while your car murders people, and in the same respect when riding in the drivers seat your eyes should not be on your phone, period.

                                                        Edit: That image is of a fully autonomous car, not a semi-autonomous car. There is actually a difference despite your repeated protestations. Uber still failed miserably here, and I hope their cars get taken off the road. I know better than to hope their executives will receive any punishment except maybe by shareholders.

                                                        1. -1

                                                          I guess you are not an engineer, Nor a programmer.

                                                          This is simply an engineering view about UI and UX (that actually are part of my daily job).

                                                          There’s no way that a human used to see a car drive correctly for hours will keep continuous control of the car without driving.

                                                          The human brain notoriously does not work that way.
                                                          If I drive I keep continuous attention and control of the car. If somebody else drive, I do not.

                                                          Also I’m stating that Uber was trying to see if people can trust autonomous cars.
                                                          I’m stating that the incindent was not the first time a tester was recorded while looking at the phone during self drive and that Uber knew that and expected that.

                                                          1. 3

                                                            I guess you are not an engineer, Nor a programmer.

                                                            This isn’t the first time you’ve pulled statements out of a hat as if they are gospel truth without any evidence and I doubt it will be the last. I think your argument style is dishonest and for me this is the nail in the coffin.

                                                            1. 0

                                                              I’m not sure I understand what you mean…

                                                              The UI problem is really evident, isn’t it?

                                                              The passenger was not perceiving herself as a driver.

                                                            2. 2

                                                              If there is “no way” a human can do this, then we’ve certainly never had astronauts pilot a tiny spacecraft to the moon without being able to physically change position, and we certainly don’t have military pilots in fighter jets continuously concentrating while refueling in air on missions lasting 12 hours or more… or… or…. truck drivers driving on roads with no one for miles…or…

                                                              Maybe Uber is at fault here for not adequately psychologically screening, and training its operators for “scenarios of intense boredom.”

                                                              1. 0

                                                                You are talking about professionals specifically trained to keep that kind of concentration.
                                                                And even a military pilot won’t maintain concentration on the road if her husband is driving and she knows by experience that his trustworthy.

                                                                I’m talking about the actual Uber’s goal here, which is to build “self driving cars” for the masses.

                                                                It’s just a stupid UI design error. A very obvious one to see and to fix.

                                                                Do you really need some hints?

                                                                1. Remove the car’s control from the AI and turn it into something that enhance the driver’s senses.
                                                                2. Make it observes the driver’s state and forbid to start in case of he’s drunk or too tired to drive
                                                                3. Stop it from starting if any of its part is not working properly.

                                                                This way the responsibility of an incident would be of the driver, not of Uber’s board of directors (unless factory defects, obviously).

                                                                1. 4

                                                                  You’re being adversarial just to try to prove your point, which we all understand.

                                                                  You are talking about professionals specifically trained to keep that kind of concentration. And even a military pilot won’t maintain concentration on the road if her husband is driving and she knows by experience that his trustworthy.

                                                                  A military pilot isn’t being asked (or trained) to operate an autonomous vehicle. You’re comparing apples and oranges!

                                                                  I’m talking about the actual Uber’s goal here, which is to build “self driving cars” for the masses.

                                                                  Yes, the goal of Uber is to build a self driving car. We know. The goal of Uber is to build a car that is fully autonomous; one that allows all passengers to enjoy doing whatever it is they want to do: reading a book, watching a movie, etc. We get it. The problem is that those goals, are just that, goals. They aren’t reality, yet. And, there are laws in which Uber, and its operators must continue to follow in order for any department of transportation to allow these tests to continue–in order to build up confidence that autonomous vehicles are as safe, or (hopefully) safer than already licensed motorists. (IANAL, nor do I have any understanding of said laws, so that’s all I’ll say there)

                                                                  It’s just a stupid UI design error. A very obvious one to see and to fix.

                                                                  So, your point is that the operator’s driving experience should be enhanced by the sensors, and that the car should never be fully autonomous? I can agree to that, and have advocated for that in the past. But, that’s a different conversation. That’s not the goal of Uber, or Waymo.

                                                                  The reason a pedestrian is dead is because of some combination of flaws in:

                                                                  • the autonomous vehicle itself
                                                                  • a distracted operator
                                                                  • (apparently) a stretch of road with too infrequent cross walks
                                                                  • a pedestrian jaywalking (perhaps because of the previous point)
                                                                  • a pedestrian not wearing proper safety gear for traveling at night
                                                                  • an extremely ambitious engineering goal of building a fully autonomous vehicle that can handle all of these things safely

                                                                  … in a world where engineering teams use phrases like, “move fast and break things.” I’m not sure what development methodology is being used to develop these cars, but I would wager a guess that it’s not being developed with the same rigor and processes used to develop autopilot systems for aircraft, or things like air traffic controllers, space craft systems, and missile guidance systems…

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    … in a world where engineering teams use phrases like, “move fast and break things.” I’m not sure what development methodology is being used to develop these cars, but I would wager a guess that it’s not being developed with the same rigor and processes used to develop autopilot systems for aircraft, or things like air traffic controllers, space craft systems, and missile guidance systems…

                                                                    Upvoted for this.

                                                                    I’m not being adversarial to prove a point.

                                                                    I’m just arguing that Uber’s board of directors are responsible and must be accountable for this death.

                                                                    1. 3

                                                                      Nobody here is arguing that the board of directors should not be held accountable. You’re being adversarial because you’re bored is my best guess.

                                                                    2. 2

                                                                      Very well-said on all of it. If anyone is wondering, I’ll even add to your last point what kind of processes developers of things like autopilots are following. That’s things like DO-178B with so much assurance activities and independent vetting put into it that those evaluated claim it can cost thousands of dollars per line of code. The methods to similarly certify the techniques used in things like deep learning are in the protoype phase working on simpler instances of the tech. That’d have had to do rigorous processes at several times the pace and size at a fraction of the cost of experienced companies… on cutting-edge techniques requiring new R&D to know how to vet.

                                                                      Or they cut a bunch of corners hacking stuff together and misleading regulators to grab a market quickly like they usually do. And that killed someone who, despite human factors, should’ve lived if the tech (a) worked at all and (b) evaluated against common, road scenarios that could cause trouble. One or both of these is false.

                                                      2. 2

                                                        I don’t know if you can conclude that’s the point. Perhaps the driver is there in case the car says “I’m stuck” or triggers some other alert. They may not be an always on hot failover.

                                                        1. 11

                                                          They may not be an always on hot failover

                                                          IMO they should be, since they are testing a high risk alpha technology that has the possibility to kill people.

                                                  2. 4

                                                    The car does not share any responsibility, simply because it’s just a thing.

                                                    Nor does Uber, which again is a thing, a human artifact like others.

                                                    Indeed we cannot put in jail the car. Nor Uber.

                                                    The responsibility must be tracked back to people.

                                                    Who is ultimately accountable for the AI driving the car?

                                                    I’d say the Uber’s CEO, the board of directors and the stock holders.

                                                    If Uber was an Italian company, probably the the CEO and the boars of directors would be put in jail.

                                                    1. 3

                                                      Not blaming the victim here

                                                      People often say this when they’re partly blaming the victim to not seem overly mean or unfair. We shouldn’t have to when they do deserve partial blame based on one fact: people who put in a bit of effort to avoid common problems/risks are less likely to get hit with negative outcomes. Each time someone ignores one to their peril is a reminder of how important it is to address risks in a way that makes sense. A road with cars flying down it is always a risk. It gets worse at night. Some drivers will have limited senses, be on drugs, or drunk. Assume the worst might happen since it often does and act accordingly.

                                                      In this case, it was not only a four lane road at night the person crossed: people who live in the area on HN said it’s a spot noticeably darker than the other dark spots that stretches out longer. Implication is that there are other places on that road with with more light. When I’m crossing at night, I do two to three things to avoid being hit by a car:

                                                      (a) cross somewhere where there’s light

                                                      (b) make sure I see or hear no car coming before I cross.

                                                      Optionally, (c) where I cross first 1-2 lanes, get to the very middle, pause for a double check of (b), and then cross next two.

                                                      Even with blame mostly on car & driver, the video shows the human driver would’ve had relatively little reaction time even if the vision was further out than video shows. It’s just a bad situation to hit a driver with. I think person crossing at night doing (a)-(c) above might have prevented the accident. I think people should always be doing (a)-(c) above if they value their life since nobody can guarantee other people will drive correctly. Now, we can add you can’t guarantee their self-driving cars will drive correctly.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        Well put. People should always care about their own lifes.
                                                        And they cannot safely assume that others will care as much.

                                                        However note that Americans have learned to blame “jaywalking” by strong marketing campaigns after 1920.

                                                        Before, the roads were for people first.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          I just saw a video on that from “Adam Ruins Everything.” You should check that show out if you like that kind of stuff. Far as that point, it’s true that it was originally done for one reason but now we’re here in our current situation. Most people’s beliefs have been permanently shaped by that propaganda. The laws have been heavily reinforced. So, our expectations of people’s actions and what’s lawful must be compatible with those until they change.

                                                          That’s a great reason to consider eliminating or modifying the laws on jaywalking. You can bet the cops can still ticket you on it, though.

                                                      2. 3

                                                        In reality, both the pedestrian and the car (and Uber) share some responsibility.

                                                        I’ve also seen it argued (convincingly, IMO) that poor civil engineering is also partially responsible.

                                                      3. 3

                                                        And every single thing you listed is mitigated by just slowing down.

                                                        Camera feed getting fuzzy ? Slow down. Now you can get more images of what’s around you, combine them for denoising, and re-run your ML classifiers to figure out what the situation is.

                                                        ML don’t just classify what’s in your sensor feeds. They also give you numerical measures for how close your feed is to the data they previously trained on. When those measures decline,, it could be because the sensors are malfunctioning. It could be rain’/dust/etc. It could be a novel untrained situation. Every single one of those things can be mitigated by just slowing down. In the worst case, you come to a full stop and tell the rider he needs to drive.

                                                      1. 36

                                                        “Min is written entirely with CSS and JavaScript using Electron”

                                                        A browser within a browser. :( But what exactly makes this “smarter” ? All the listed features on mainpage are available are addons/plugins for Firefox/Chrome/Vivaldi etc. It takes 2 minutes to add adblocking, better tabmanagement and a fancy search box to Firefox (for instance).

                                                        1. 2

                                                          It’s (shitty) turtles all the way down, man.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          This guy was sentenced for PR purposes, to give the masses the idea that corporate “wrongdoing” results in someone getting punished for it.

                                                          But for example, not a single one of the crooks on Wall Street has done any time. The way the masses are trained to think the so-called justice system works is different from how it actually does.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Textbook definition of scapegoat.