This is why I keep a physical backup of all my emulator installers on an external hard drive. They get rid of some emulators, I still got my personal copies!
If Nintendo stays consistent, they went after Yuzu because they were accepting donations. They went after ROM sites that had advertising. They left everyone else alone if they aren’t making money off their games. Right now Ryujinx has a Patreon page…
After an investigation, Waymo found that its software had incorrectly predicted the future movements of the pickup truck due to “persistent orientation mismatch” between the towed vehicle and the one towing it.
Having worked at Waymo for a year troubleshooting daily builds of the software, this sounds to me like they may be trying to test riskier, "human" behaviors. Normally, the cars won't accelerate at all if the lidar detects an object in front of it, no matter what it thinks the object is or what direction it's moving in. So the fact that this failsafe was overridden somehow makes me think they're trying to add more "What would a human driver do in this situation?" options to the car's decision-making process. I'm guessing somebody added something along the lines of "assume the object will have started moving by the time you're closer to that position" and forgot to set a backup safety mechanism for the event that the object doesn't start moving.
I'm pretty sure the dev team also has safety checklists that they go through before pushing out any build, to make sure that every failsafe is accounted for, so that's a pretty major fuckup to have slipped through the cracks (if my theory is even close to accurate). But luckily, a very easily-fixed fuckup. They're lucky this situation was just "comically stupid" instead of "harrowing tragedy".
They've already been testing on private tracks for years. There comes a point where, eventually, something new is used for the first time on a public road. Regardless, even despite even idiotic crashes like this one, they're still safer than human drivers.
I say my tax dollar funded DMV should put forth a significantly more stringent driving test and auto-revoke the licenses of anybody who doesn't pass, before I'd want SDCs off the roads. Inattentive drivers are one of the most lethal things in the world, and we all just kinda shrug our shoulders and ignore that problem, but then we somehow take issue when a literal supercomputer on wheels with an audited safety history far exceeding any human driver has two hiccups over the course of hundreds of millions of driven miles. It's just a weird outlook, imo.
People have been hit and killed by autonomous vehicles on public streets due to bad practices and bad software. Those cases aren’t hiccups, those are deaths that shouldn’t have happened and shouldn’t have been able to happen. If a company can’t develop its product and make it safe without killing people first, then it shouldn’t get to make the product.
People have been hit and killed by human drivers at much, much higher rates than SDCs. Those aren't hiccups, and those are deaths that shouldn't have happened, as well. The miles driven per collision ratio between humans and SDCs aren't even comparable. Human drivers are an order of magnitude more dangerous, and there's an order of magnitude more human drivers than SDCs in the cities where these fleets are deployed.
By your logic, you should agree that we should be revoking licenses and removing human drivers from the equation, because people are far more dangerous than SDCs are. If we can't drive safely without killing people, then we shouldn't be licensing people to drive, right?
I’m all for making the roads safer, but these companies should never have the right to test their products in a way that gets people killed, period. That didn’t happen in this article, but it has happened, and that’s not okay.
People shouldn't drive in a way that gets people killed. Where's the outrage for the problem that we've already had for over a century and done nothing to fix?
I mean, yeah. I signed up for a year of Prime last summer. They just decide to put in ads? At least wait for the subscription to expire before pulling this crap.
Every time they do something like this, I wait longer and longer to resubscribe. It’s just been getting worse, not better.
Bezos, just go to Mars already with the rest of the billionaires. Guess how much taxes you’ll save up there. We don’t need you.
Like, for example, breaking my ability to back out of this Engadget page on Connect for Lemmy’s default web browser so I had to close the app and reopen it.
In browsers you can long press the back button, and it will show the history so you can really jump where you want. Not sure if on Connect you can but maybe is worth a shot.
I have had that since day one. I used to have normal Vanced. But it has stopped working and I wanted.to figure out ReVanced. But I have not succeeded so far
If the question asked was “do you agree to the contract?” and the farmer answered “👍”, then yeah I can see it. But if the question asked was “have you received the contract?”, then this ruling is bullshit. Unfortunately the article doesn’t have enough information either way.
Apparently the message was an image of the contract and “please confirm flax contract”. Seems like the most likely interpretation of the 👍 is agreeing to the contract, not confirming receipt.
Exactly. But I think the farmer actually did want to agree and lock in the price of the flax.
Only reason they were looking for a way out was because flax had skyrocketed and they wanted to sell to someone else.
Three times prior they replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”, and then delivered the flax per the contract. It was only when the price went up they wanted to say they were not agreeing to it.
In either case the judge was pretty specific that this was not a precedent for the thumbs up emoji, but just that in this particular case it sure looked like consent based on past actions.
Wow this article on this subject has the least info. And the judge did not rule that it is always the case that a thumbs up would be binding, just that the context in this case it was.
The other party sent over the contract with he text: “Please confirm flax contract.” They then responded with thumbs up.
3 times prior to this, this exact same exchange happened. In each of these times the farmer replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”. After which in all 3 instances the farmer then delivered the flax.
In this particular case the farmer replied with thumbs up. Then after 3 months the price of flax skyrocketed. And of course the farmer now wants a better price.
In this case the three prior contracts being agreed to with only a “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.” and then being delivered seem to point that a thumbs up is pretty much along those lines.
Oh here is a version of the article that has a little more detail:
engadget.com
Top