It’s so great to be able to find comments such as yours, unfortunately it feels uncommon in Lemmy specially when certain names are mentioned, the bias and willfulness to shit on those are making people a bit blindsided and easy to guide through bad data usage. My first thought reading the title was about the statistical value of the numbers given, which doesn’t detract from the actual quality or lack thereof of the vehicle. At the moment using elon musk or tesla in a title of an article will increase the traffic automatically. Which is why we constantly get every single shitty comment made by him reported with useless data.

Google is going to likely sell his AI tech to the military, so you know… They are all shit. Which shit smells worse is a useless comparison, they are all shit.

Details schmetails… At the end of the week he is probably super duper repenting and asks for forgiveness. What, you want a perfect human? Who hasn’t murdered someone on a bad week? Or raped? Or stolen? Or had an affair? Or all of it?

Hopefully not needed but just to be sure /s

Yeah, it makes it better and more reliable in harsh conditions, I agree, but driving has always been based on people looking where they go, so camera imagery is enough for driving. If it is not safe for a person, then it’s not safe for a car with only cameras. Plus only having cameras doesn’t mean you cannot use special equipment, IR cameras can improve visibility on harsh conditions too. Not that I mean they are used, but you know, it’s a matter of what we mean with “enough to drive”. Again, I want to emphasize that I agree, having LiDAR or other tech would be much much better.

Well, not to side with the fascist shithead, but you know, “broken clock…”. The thing is, camera vision is kinda enough… It’s an entirely different thing if it could be better, improved, safer, or whatever by adding LiDAR or other tech…

Yeah, he was listening, he listened and listened well. And what he learned is that there are sick people wasting resources he can take away.

There’s two points of consideration here, let’s see if I can make my point without a wall of text, I’m prone to those…

1. Anonimity: the fact that where you connect cannot know who exactly you are. This should be straightforward, anonimity should not be taken away, it is a core part of the internet in my opinion. It’s extremely important that we can express ourselves freely without fear of being persecuted. Despite the negative sides that it has, as those with ill intent will be harder to find (but not impossible). In this the common quote attributed to Franklin applies well in my opinion: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

2. Proof of personhood: basically the difficult task of making sure that the other end of an internet connection has a real person, and together with that, proof that it is different than others, the ability to know you are you and not someone else.

This is incredibly interesting as a technical problem to be solved, and I do agree with you that the internet as we know it is at risk if we don’t solve it properly. It is specially hard to solve if you try to guarantee anonimity (like I believe it should be).

The wikipedia has an article about it that I think gives a good idea about the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_personhood

Personally I have been quite carefully interested into the whole World ID solution, using a device called orb with open specifications that captures some data from your iris that should be unique per person, storing only an encrypted piece of information in a blockchain and on your device locally so that you can use it to identify yourself as a real unique person and only once, but wherever you use it, cannot know anything about you except that. There’s a lot of possible criticism to such a system, but insofar as I have checked and can understand, it seems like a legit solution. But I leave here the link for anyone interested enough to check it themselves: https://world.org/world-id

Yeah, and actually I would say with confidence we are actually better off. It’s true that unrealistic expectations is a big issue (well, might be more like, I think most realize that porn is not real after experiencing it so it’s not a big problem really for most), but at least we do have a good understanding of the possibilities and what is safe and what is not… At the very least we have a more openminded and informed point of view on sex and relationships. Which doesn’t mean either “let’s show porn to the kids” of course, but it’s such an overblown topic in society.

Let parents be the responsible ones of what kids watch, not the webpages…

Wtf… I heard of the wedding thing with the digital character but I had no clue he also had a life sized doll… I dont know why it somehow makes it even worse.

Most likely I’m too specific about it, but I see quite some shows mentioned that I’d not really consider underrated or unrecognised. Firefly is one of my all time favourites but not really underrated or unrecognised. Or Fringe, possibly not even From (of which I’ll just say I very much hope they have an ending planned because I don’t want it to end lost like Lost).

Perfect examples of underrated or unrecognised shows are Galavant and Utopia, mentioned by others, they are brilliant.

In a similar direction I’d say Dead Set, a UK show that really surprised me ages ago but never see mentioned. https://imdb.com/title/tt1285482/

Maybe I should include also Dr Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, but that may be a lot less underrated and it’s a minishow only.

It’s either Matrix or Fight Club, I guess it depends on the day

It was already tough being in a world where it’s hard to see the difference between the onion articles and actual news. Now we’re on a completely new level where news can be the result of playing CAH. It’s kinda funny until you stop to think how terrible it is.

But the reason the planet burns is because of how we generate the energy, not because of using energy. I’m not defending all these fucked up greedy corporations and their use of AI, machine learning, LLMs or whatever crap they are trying to get us to use want or not, but our real problem is based on energy generation, not consumption.

But is it the tool that has the negative impact or is it the corporations that use the tool with a negative impact? I think it is an important distinction, even more so when this kind of blaming the AI stuff sounds a lot to distraction techniques, “no don’t look at what has caused global warming for the last century, look at this tech that exploded over the last year and is consuming crazy amounts of energy”. And saying that, I want to make sure its clear, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be handled, discussed or criticised (the use of AI I mean), as long as we don’t fall into irrational blaming of a tool that has no such issue.

I didn’t know about the mod stuff, but also not sure why you mention it, am I going to find myself mod of some weird shit now? X)

But then the problem is how google uses AI, not AI itself. I can have an LLM running locally not consuming crazy amounts of energy for my own purposes.

So blaming AI is absurd, we should blame OpenAI, Google, Amazon… This whole hatred for AI is absurd when it’s not the real source of the problem. We should concentrate on blaming and ideally punishing companies for this kind of use (abuse more like) of energy. Energy usage also is not an issue in itself, as long as we use adequate energy sources. If companies start deploying huge solar panel fields on top of their buildings and parkings and whatnot to cover part of the energy use we could all end up better than before even.

Why would you make the immigrants suffer his presence? They have it hard enough as it is. I prefer to think he’ll get to make some nice friends in prison.

Yeah he worked in Microsoft before that and when he ended in Nokia the path was quite clear what it would be. But I’ve had the chance to talk with many engineers that were working at Nokia back in the day and the problems didn’t start because of Microsoft.

Basically Nokia had the whole management divided between symbian, maemo, and windows mobile, and as they couldn’t agree on a future path all the efforts were divided. Symbian was quite a disaster at the end and it wouldn’t have gone far most likely, those that wanted to continue with it didn’t have a clear view of the changes coming in the mobile world.

Maemo was great, really advanced, based on Linux, and working really well, maybe too advanced even, specially for your common users back then. The whole system was constantly put down and delayed and the first devices sold wouldn’t even work as a phone, only the 4th ended up with mobile connection, which didn’t help at all to make it useful (wifi was not as big as it is now) and sold.

Finally there was Windows Mobile which was still starting basically then and had far less strength, but with the support of Microsoft behind it it was easier to push it out. I don’t understand why it still has such support when it comes to the UI, I personally never liked it and it felt too simplistic and boring, but the more options the better I guess. Of course once Microsoft managed to plant his own guy inside Nokia they managed to favor the balance towards Win mobile and the other two were left behind more and more.

So Microsoft was a key part in what ended happening but they were not the ones that put Nokia in trouble. That was a lack of direction in the management level.

Maemo was so much better than any os coming after it… Meego was in my opinion the wrong path to take. I still miss the N900, what an amazing device it was…

Whiskey tho