The “her back” thing I think is a typo. Unless I misheard I think the embedded video also includes a reporter recapping and saying “he’s got her on her back” too, so maybe the write up is carrying over that reporter misspeaking.
The “her back” thing I think is a typo. Unless I misheard I think the embedded video also includes a reporter recapping and saying “he’s got her on her back” too, so maybe the write up is carrying over that reporter misspeaking.
But I don’t want my devices to be bombs
I appreciate that this seems to be an actually informed opinion of international law, rather than random internet commenters asserting it is or isn’t a crime.
I didn’t take the image to be showing a macbook, it could just as easily be my computer or probably many others.
Impressive, but seems destined to fall apart. Companies like Spotify presumably have a sense of how “normal” users listen to music. You’d have to spend a fair amount of time mimicking that or you’d get found out eventually. (As he did)
You’re right, doesn’t sound great. In the example they shared, sounds like the issue wasn’t that the car couldn’t drive around the fire truck, but that it couldn’t break a programming rule about crossing into a lane that would normally be opposing traffic. Once given the “ok” to follow such a route, the car handled it on its own, the human doesn’t actually drive it.
I could imagine a scenario where you need one human operator for every two vehicles. That’s still reducing labor by 50%.
Obviously they want it to be better than that, they want it to be one operator per ten vehicles or no operator at all.
And the fundamental problem with these systems is they will be owned by big corporations, and any gained efficiency will be consumed by the corporation, not enjoyed by the worker or passed on to the customer.
But I think there’s true value to be found there. Imagine a transportation cooperative - we’re a thousand households, we don’t all need our own car, but we need a car sometimes. We pool our resources and have a small fleet that minimizes our cost and environmental impact, and potentially drives more safely than human drivers.
Seems like a company that initially differentiated itself by hyping 3D printing, and once they realized that won’t work they’ve got to pivot without spooking everyone.
Isn’t the question here why shouldn’t friends not let friends use CSV?
No worries, not everything needs to be funny
You absolutely want a keyboard when programming, but you can get one that works with the ipad. As someone else suggested the software environment is probably more the limiting factor.
I don’t know, my first thought was a rewards trip I went on where I could hear the salesman on the balcony next to me talking about all the cocaine he’d been doing.
What is going on in that image?
This website features a top level menu item for alt-right stop the steal supporter Jack Posobiec, so while I welcome the news that the teacher is out of the hospital, I wouldn’t trust the spin on anything found on this website.
If Chinese companies really are unfairly competitive because their government backs them, how about Western governments back their own electric car manufacturers? Instead of just making other products more expensive…
Yeah, my 2023 beeps and says “check back seat” when you turn off the car if you’ve opened the back door before you started the car.
That’s the mom
True, but the article says this like a liquid
That’s pretty cool. They say it produces good pork, I wonder how the pigs feel about it vs other feed.
I remember seeing some of this stuff when it came out and thinking “why are they doing this?” A bunch of it I never heard of, and a handful I wish had seen success (Firefox OS). Not sure how this counts as a hit piece, it didn’t seem mean spirited and definitely didn’t seem to be misrepresenting anything.