Tinder & DoorDash both getting all this free advertising. Was the duct tape Gorilla?
1 Like
I usually have to pay extra for that.
5 Likes
There are a lot of these on Google images
1 Like
Don’t know if this was mentioned.
Texas Wesleyan is canceling a play about voting rights in 1960s Mississippi where white characters use racial slurs.
One of the statements about it was they wanted to be able to get the impact of the story but not be triggered by the language.
Oh god, the Bari Weiss brigade is going to crow about this for months.
1 Like
wtf is the point of these 10 minute oil change shops if they don’t rotate your tires?
1 Like
the pro move is to find a great mechanic and use him even for routine oil changes, it’s worth paying a few bucks more because he’ll rotate the tires and more importantly, having that relationship when shit really hits the fan means he will be more likely to squeeze you in (my mechanic currently has like a 3 week waiting list for routine shit)
Can someone read this and confirm for me that while it is well-intentioned, this plan by the lefties in Italy is super dumb?
It sounds to me like it is completely toothless and boils down to this.
It seems like new facist lady doesn’t even have to undo anything. She just has to not do it. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out!
This sums up management consulting pretty well tbh
3 Likes
HOLLY vs. BEAR FORCE ONE
https://twitter.com/KatmaiNPS/status/1579140108107685888?s=20&t=u5HnVwZUZ4RdaGEF4tYXgw
3 Likes
This is all anecdotal, but it seems like maybe unions are making a bit of a comeback these last few years?
747 is just too much bear imo.
1 Like
I just realized that Masquerade by Berlin and Black Parade by My Chemical Romance are basically the same song.
1 Like
STOP THE STEAL!
https://twitter.com/KatmaiNPS/status/1579289784471941122?s=20&t=25oruvUq710qOQ9VJV3Tpw
“It’s a scam,” says George Hotz, whose company Comma.ai Inc. makes a driver-assistance system similar to Tesla Inc.’s Autopilot. “These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars.” In 2018 analysts put the market value of Waymo LLC, then a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., at $175 billion. Its most recent funding round gave the company an estimated valuation of $30 billion, roughly the same as Cruise. Aurora Innovation Inc., a startup co-founded by Chris Urmson, Google’s former autonomous-vehicle chief, has lost more than 85% since last year and is now worth less than $3 billion. This September a leaked memo from Urmson summed up Aurora’s cash-flow struggles and suggested it might have to sell out to a larger company. Many of the industry’s most promising efforts have met the same fate in recent years, including Drive.ai, Voyage, Zoox, and Uber’s self-driving division. “Long term, I think we will have autonomous vehicles that you and I can buy,” says Mike Ramsey, an analyst at market researcher Gartner Inc. “But we’re going to be old.”
For now, here’s what we know: Computers can run calculations a lot faster than we can, but they still have no idea how to process many common roadway variables. People driving down a city street with a few pigeons pecking away near the median know (a) that the pigeons will fly away as the car approaches and (b) that drivers behind them also know the pigeons will scatter. Drivers know, without having to think about it, that slamming the brakes wouldn’t just be unnecessary—it would be dangerous. So they maintain their speed.
What the smartest self-driving car “sees,” on the other hand, is a small obstacle. It doesn’t know where the obstacle came from or where it may go, only that the car is supposed to safely avoid obstacles, so it might respond by hitting the brakes. The best-case scenario is a small traffic jam, but braking suddenly could cause the next car coming down the road to rear-end it. Computers deal with their shortcomings through repetition, meaning that if you showed the same pigeon scenario to a self-driving car enough times, it might figure out how to handle it reliably. But it would likely have no idea how to deal with slightly different pigeons flying a slightly different way.
The industry uses the phrase “deep learning” to describe this process, but that makes it sound more sophisticated than it is. “What deep learning is doing is something similar to memorization,” says Gary Marcus, a New York University psychology professor who studies artificial intelligence and the limits of self-driving vehicles. “It only works if the situations are sufficiently akin.”
And the range of these “edge cases,” as AI experts call them, is virtually infinite. Think: cars cutting across three lanes of traffic without signaling, or bicyclists doing the same, or a deer ambling alongside the shoulder, or a low-flying plane, or an eagle, or a drone. Even relatively easy driving problems turn out to contain an untold number of variations depending on weather, road conditions, and human behavior. “You think roads are pretty similar from one place to the next,” Marcus says. “But the world is a complicated place. Every unprotected left is a little different.”
For most of the years since he built his first “Pribot,” Levandowski says, it’s felt as though he and his competitors were 90% of the way to full-blown robot cars. Executives he later worked with at Google and Uber were all too happy to insist that the science was already there, that his prototypes could already handle any challenge, that all that was left was “going commercial.” They threw around wild claims that investors, including the Tesla bull Cathie Wood, built into models to calculate that the industry would be worth trillions.
Once again, this was a bit of self-hypnosis, Levandowski says. The demos with the sci-fi computer vision led him and his colleagues to believe they and their computers were thinking more similarly than they really were. “You see these amazing representations of the 3D world, and you think the computer can see everything and can understand what’s going to happen next,” he says. “But computers are still really dumb.”
In the view of Levandowski and many of the brightest minds in AI, the underlying technology isn’t just a few years’ worth of refinements away from a resolution. Autonomous driving, they say, needs a fundamental breakthrough that allows computers to quickly use humanlike intuition rather than learning solely by rote. That is to say, Google engineers might spend the rest of their lives puttering around San Francisco and Phoenix without showing that their technology is safer than driving the old-fashioned way.
5 Likes
This has been obvious for 3 years to everyone who didnt have a vested interest.
https://twitter.com/JakeSucky/status/1579153886861881345
Looks like a pretty thin layer of foam cubes.
Here’s another angle.
That’s not a foam exhibit and she must have known that it wasn’t that deep as I’m assuming they walked through it on the way to the platforms.
Getting a very different picture now I’ve seen those vids.
edit: hope she recovers ok but it was more a brain-fart on her part than anything else.