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.

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?

Sadam in the tail?

Yeah I got a pretty nauseating explanation of “The June 4th Incident”

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.

No, I was just trying to drag out of you how you see the incident without priming the pump. How does one minimize the killing of hundreds of unarmed students? I knew people like you existed, I just never had the opportunity to witness someone actually do it, and I was curious how it’s done.

You roll 20 additional days into it as a buffer, and count injuries as equivalent to murders, and let them happen anywhere.

It can’t be the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” for you because then couldn’t draw in PLA members who had heart attacks and died elsewhere that day because they weren’t at the square. You need to create a context where they’re all the same thing and the geography of place really damages the ability to do that.

You just dilute a massacre to make it not a massacre by expanding the time and places. Super interesting. It’s a distinctly different approach to propegands than you’d typically see in the west or Russia.

What what is called?

The incident?

Care to expand on the Tiananmen propaganda comment?

I didn’t realize that LoRa didn’t care about carrier frequency, that’s for sure the root of my faulty assumption! Thanks for taking the time to explain

I don’t think it’s “just” LoRa on 2.4ghz, because if it were existing lora devices wouldn’t be able to decode the signals off the shelf, as the article claims. From the perspective of the receiver, the messages must “appear” to be in a LoRa band, right?

How do you make a device who’s hardware operates in one frequency band emulate messages in a different band? I think that’s the nature of this research.

And like, we already know how to do that in the general sense. For all intents and purposes, that’s what AM radio does. Just hacking a specific peice of consumer hardware to do it entirely software side becomes the research paper.

Sounds like they basically crafted some special messages such that it’s nonsense at 2.4ghz but smoothes out to a LoRa message on a much much lower frequency band (<ghz).

I refuse to believe that you don’t already know the answers to 1 and 2 and that you don’t have an inkling about 3

Juxtaposition of pearl-clutching Puritanism w/ a 21 drinking age against beer available in a 7-11.

Pick a fucking lane