Non-IT News Thread
-
-
-
Austin hit by fifth bombing this week. This time a parcel at FedEx exploded.
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
Murder is bad when not licensed. We get it. But “hate” crimes have been legally redefined to mean a specific type of motivation. You don’t have to like it, but it is the law.
-
Tempe Police believe from preliminary investigation that the pedestrian was at fault for stepping from shadows in the median directly into traffic without warning or cause in the deadly crash involving an Uber autonomous vehicle on Sunday. However, it does look like police may not know what the speed limits are in the area, having been quoted as saying it was a 35 zone with the car slightly over the speed limit, but photo evidence showing the area marked as a 45 zone with the vehicle significantly under the speed limit. But the photo evidence is not entirely up to date, so may not reflect an extremely recent change in speed postings.
-
Uber likely not at fault for death of pedestrian who crossed street.
Which the facts so far, as have been announced.
Pedestrian crossed road at night, with shopping cart
Pedestrian crossed road not at a crosswalkUber vehicle was traveling 38 MPH in supposed 35 zone
Uber had backup (human) driver -
-
I believe that Facebook is now in what we refer to in the industry as a shitstorm.
-
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
There was a human driver. He didn't manage to make a difference.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
Appears to have actually been 8 mph UNDER the speed limit. Police quotes a speed far slower than what photos show the actual speed to be. But possible it was just changed. Far more likely the police don't know the limit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
There was a human driver. He didn't manage to make a difference.
Human
drivermore like backup? -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
Appears to have actually been 8 mph UNDER the speed limit. Police quotes a speed far slower than what photos show the actual speed to be. But possible it was just changed. Far more likely the police don't know the limit.
That's fair. Either way, speeding or going slow, it sounds like the vehicle was following the flow of traffic.
I'd be interested to know if the vehicle knew about the pedestrian prior to the impact.
-
@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
There was a human driver. He didn't manage to make a difference.
Human
drivermore like backup?The human was there in the same "accident avoidance" role that they are as a full driver. Just like the computer can be an extra breaking and avoidance system too, when the human is the "primary" driver.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
There was a human driver. He didn't manage to make a difference.
Human
drivermore like backup?The human was there in the same "accident avoidance" role that they are as a full driver. Just like the computer can be an extra breaking and avoidance system too, when the human is the "primary" driver.
Primary driver -- hands off?
-
@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.
Would a human driver been able to do this? She abruptly stepped into the path of traffic and got hit. Granted the "speeding" may be an issue but that could also be attributed to the flow of traffic.
There was a human driver. He didn't manage to make a difference.
Human
drivermore like backup?The human was there in the same "accident avoidance" role that they are as a full driver. Just like the computer can be an extra breaking and avoidance system too, when the human is the "primary" driver.
Primary driver -- hands off?
There are both systems. Computer as primary and a human slams the breaks. Human as primary, computer slams on the breaks.
-
Is there any truth to the Zuckerberg dodging stock loss by dumping stock? Could it be illegal? I find it harder and harder to believe anything I read or hear.
-
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
Is there any truth to the Zuckerberg dodging stock loss by dumping stock? Could it be illegal? I find it harder and harder to believe anything I read or hear.
He'd have to dump an insane amount of stock to offset anything.
But generally he'd have the right to sell any amount of stock that he wants.
-
Unless there is insider trading.
-
Ex-Employee of Facebook Exposes that company may have made similar user data available to tens or hundreds of thousands of companies, just like they did for Cambridge Analytics.
