as a non-native English speaker, it initially read as (something boat) causes (father/son) to (go overboard)
I'm a native english speaker but don't really have a marine background. I also read it as the father/son somehow going overboard.
Readit News10x_contrarian commented on Ghost boat with GPS leads father-son duo to man overboard garmin.com/en-US/blog/mar... · Posted by u/hnburnsy
10x_contrarian commented on Ghost boat with GPS leads father-son duo to man overboard garmin.com/en-US/blog/mar... · Posted by u/hnburnsy
Is it just me or is the title extremely confusing? Why do writers do this?
It's written by the Garmin PR team - their headlines are as intuitive as their device UIs!
This article is much better: https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life/how-a-fisherman...
10x_contrarian commented on Ghost boat with GPS leads father-son duo to man overboard garmin.com/en-US/blog/mar... · Posted by u/hnburnsy
It's a great story but kind of gross the way Garmin slides in an ad for its products being supposedly easy to use even for people who haven't used them before
> had the Garmin technology been less intuitive for an unfamiliar boater in a stressful situation — this story could’ve ended so much differently
This line made me look at the URL and realize I was reading an advertisement.
Psychedelics, namely ones like LSD and magic mushrooms, are known to cause psychotic episodes which turn violent. Their prevalence despite the rarity of the drug strongly suggest a high risk of unpredictable violent action.
Anecdotally, people are much more likely to have violent episodes when using alcohol than psychedelics. I'd be surprised if relevant scientific studies didn't support these observations.
I’m sorry, but the article you linked is just sensational - its header claims alcohol is more harmful than heroin. Alcohol usage is extremely widespread, so of course its negative effects are more obvious in the population than other drugs. Personally, I’d rather be surrounded by a group of alcohol abusers than a group of psychedelics abusers.
> Personally, I’d rather be surrounded by a group of alcohol abusers than a group of psychedelics abusers.
Can you elaborate a bit on this take? We've all seen how far people abusing alcohol can go. Where as the worst I see from psychedelics users is that they can struggle to talk about anything other than how've they've somehow figured out the universe and that everyone should take psychedelics.
10x_contrarian commented on California’s population shrinks for third straight year sacbee.com/news/politics-... · Posted by u/theduder99
The CA government has a budget the size of Finland’s GDP ($250B), if they wanted to fix the housing issue, they could.
But not enough people do want it fixed because they are trapped with their real estate investment which they can’t adored to have decrease in value.
San Francisco's budget for homelessness is over 500 million per year. If that isn't enough money to address the problem in one city we clearly need radically different solutions.
10x_contrarian commented on Life Is Short (2016) paulgraham.com/vb.html... · Posted by u/NotYourLawyer
> If anything, human life got remarkably longer in the last century.
Well, yes and no. That we live longer than our ancestors seems obvious and is a very common belief.
And average life expectancy has indeed increased.
But it really isn’t that clear cut.
For example: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...
I feel it's destructive for people to hold this incorrect belief. People living into their 60s and 70s was very common for all of recorded history. By ignoring this, modern people are less incentivized to criticize and challenge their modern lives and the societies we live within.
10x_contrarian commented on Waymo's collision avoidance testing blog.waymo.com/2022/12/wa... · Posted by u/EvgeniyZh
If you're referring to the Lex Friedman interview, at the start of his answer, he mentions it was a cost-based decision. And that radar/ultrasonic wasn't worth it for them, due to the additional time it took. Not that it wasn't helpful, just more effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
He clearly states that extra sensors "contribute noise and entropy into everything. And they bloat stuff." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W1JBAfV4Io
Essentially that trying to utilize multiple sensors cripples any progress (given that resources will never be infinite).
10x_contrarian commented on Waymo's collision avoidance testing blog.waymo.com/2022/12/wa... · Posted by u/EvgeniyZh
I read this comment after taking a cruise in SF, which is a self driving cab with no driver. It basically reminds me of all the comments saying that VR has no future, written by people who have never tried VR and would get their mind blown by it if they tried the latest iteration. Maybe you should come to SF and try one of these self driving cars yourself :)
I actually do live in the Bay Area and spend a lot of time in San Francisco. I applied for the Cruise waitlist well over a year ago but have not been accepted. I've tried to organize with friends who have access but we rarely have a reason to go the Richmond or Golden Gate Park after 10PM. The coverage area is very limited.
I'm impressed that they're actually offering driverless rides on SF streets, but my point stands. The cars operate only on the slowest streets at the quietest hours. Any problem they encounter is handled by remote operators.
I'm not outright dismissive of self-driving cars. I truly want them to exist. I don't even own a car and dislike being behind the wheel. I just don't buy into infinite hype pushed by a revolving door of charlatans.
Also I do have a modern VR headset and celebrate the technology. But, to make a similar comparison, the metaverse "ready player one" vision is not within our lifetimes.
10x_contrarian commented on Waymo's collision avoidance testing blog.waymo.com/2022/12/wa... · Posted by u/EvgeniyZh
I think the problem we have with self-driving cars is more social than technological at this point.
Consider the hypothetical: a million self-driving cars on the road that, collectively, will have 1/10th of the fatal accidents that human drivers would have[0]. But, the ones they do have are accidents a human driver would almost certainly have avoided.
Is this something we would accept?
My guess is that no, we wouldn't. Because the accidents avoided don't make the news, but the accidents that occur- especially ones that you say "my god, how did it screw that up?" will make the news, and our perception would be that they are more dangerous.
Until Waymo's cars are better than most humans in every single situation, they won't be able to win over the public perception war.
[0]I'm making those numbers up. I acknowledge that. But it's a hypothetical so give me some leeway on this!
I think you're mistaken. There are still massive technological challenges. I have seen nearly no evidence that current self-driving car technology is even remotely close to matching the ability of a novice human driver. Sure while the "don't crash into things" algorithms may generally be fine, these systems seem to frequently deadlock in completely mundane situations. They also seem dependent on remote operator assistance when encountering non-ideal conditions, greatly limiting their maximum speed.
If anything, legislation and social acceptance has moved faster than the technology. That's the opposite what many of us observing this space expected 10 years ago.
At this point I'm starting to have doubts about whether the full dream of self-driving cars will even be realized within my lifetime.