You should consider redesigning the website colors to spare visitors' eyes. I mean, the posted link opens a page with white text on black background, but clicking on the "immutable coffee" link takes to a page with black text on white background. I was viewing in a brightly lit room yet was severely jolted, can only imagine the fate of those viewing in dimly lit room or in the dark.
This is just alarmist. The bravado shown on TV is surely not taken seriously by the authorities themselves for they know the consequences. So even if the point of impact coincides with the crescendo of tension to the T, sanity will prevail despite it seeming otherwise.
This will go against the grain here on HN. I don't know how anyone can imagine self driving even succeeding in real world, leave alone in the so called third world, unless all vehicles are self driven and operate in a controlled environment. There are some really important things pending, like accurate NLP and computer vision, but no, we need something shiny and useless. I think some smart computer scientists are getting rich by carrot sticking some gullible billionaire investors. Good for them. I hope some of the really useful stuff piggy back on this rather lofty endeavor.
I 'm with you i think self-driving is an aspiration rather than a concrete goal. It literally means solving the quintessential problem of robotics which is a very very hard problem. We 'll probably have human level NLP before that.
A more concrete goal for transportation would be to reduce driving times even more by adopting remote work. That is reachable within the decade. In the meanwhile, car safety features should be ramped up, but autonomous driving so far doesn't seem very safe.
Simply because writing is the best form of communication of ideas after speech, and using speech to program is just silly, not to mention cumbersome and not productive. Writing, since its invention, has become inseparable from humans and its quite understandable that it is extended to instruct computers, with the compiler as the, well, interpreter.
As for the mechanism you talk about, that's basically declarative style and a lot of platforms (for the lack of better word) do this, mainly in business logic and scientific applications. The most famous example is Excel. However, this style works like a charm only when the set of possible actions is predetermined, and is not conducive to creating new actions, which is why every single platform has some kind of scripting. And scripting is editing text. So there you go.
> Yet it was a simple mechanical invention. It would seem to require no brilliant inventive insight, and certainly no scientific background.
That's a seriously weak premise. A bicycle is more than a metal rod with wheels; it needs a good steering mechanism and driving mechanism, not to mention ergonomic seating mechanism. Humans have certainly had a lot of things in their blind spot which makes us wonder why it took so long, but bicycle isn't one of them. Eraser-butt-pencil, may be. Bicycle, certainly not.
Also, the sheer number of crazy models that happened in its evolution is a testament to the fact that a bicycle is anything but intuitive. Remember, it was an age where mechanical devices was a rage. It was sort of like the AI-ML of that era. There was a lot of activity by people of varying levels of expertise - from tinkerers to people who knew what they were doing to people who thought they knew what they were doing. Despite this it took that long.
So its absurd to start off with the said premise.
Points like material and manufacturing process are red herring IMO. This argument is backwards. What needed to be made was a prototype. The things mentioned would follow naturally. No one had to invent a "professional grade" machine at the word go. An example from software: HLL were not invented first and then OS were written in it, but OS were written first, and in the process people realized HLL would be more productive, and OS were rewritten in them.
The conclusion about cultural and economic factors also seems unconvincing. The only plausible reason could be the clout of horse carriage mafia or something like that which influenced the powers that be and stifled rival technologies.
Can someone explain why its fair or acceptable to force Google to make its index public, the one it built with its own time and money, instead of having some open source initiative building another index from scratch?
I think the correct way to go about this is to just encourage people to plant trees suitable and native to their (people's) environment. And let it scale. Better, also tell them not to fell trees left right and center.
In the exuberance of ecological conservation and all that, we must not overlook and override what nature would have done. For instance, one shouldn't plant a water sucking tree where it wouldn't naturally occur, and damage the balance.
