Non-IT News Thread
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43518769
France hostage crisis: Police shoot supermarket gunman -
United offers passenger a voucher up to $10,000 to give up her seat
https://twitter.com/i/moments/977160303472467968 -
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
United offers passenger a voucher up to $10,000 to give up her seat
https://twitter.com/i/moments/977160303472467968better than that last one where they dragged a passenger off.. just deny entry to the plane
-
-
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
United offers passenger a voucher up to $10,000 to give up her seat
https://twitter.com/i/moments/977160303472467968better than that last one where they dragged a passenger off.. just deny entry to the plane
This is how it is supposed to work.
-
@black3dynamite said in Non-IT News Thread:
Chris Evans has a 'stache and people aren't sure how to feel
https://twitter.com/i/moments/976972150652395520I feel like he could be the kid of the '80's villain from Despicable Me 3.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
The question remains, if this was something that was preventable with a human, why didn't the human do something?
I'm not defending the Uber tech, but only pointing out that since there was a human tasked with preventing this, and they failed as well, the Uber tech can't be any more at fault than the existing human. And if the auto-driving tech meets the quality of humans, then that's good enough. Not ideal, but good enough.
-
What will come of this is likely a requirement to have forward facing infra-red obstacle sensing cameras to help to avoid human behavior.
Using tech to fix human is not a realistic approach. Just like if HR asked IT to talk to someone about something that HR really should talk to the employee about.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
What will come of this is likely a requirement to have forward facing infra-red obstacle sensing cameras to help to avoid human behavior.
Using tech to fix human is not a realistic approach. Just like if HR asked IT to talk to someone about something that HR really should talk to the employee about.
In reality, shouldn't cars have that? Seems like a simple and important thing to have. I'm all for that. If the lights all go out, it would be nice if cars could still avoid hitting living things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
What will come of this is likely a requirement to have forward facing infra-red obstacle sensing cameras to help to avoid human behavior.
Using tech to fix human is not a realistic approach. Just like if HR asked IT to talk to someone about something that HR really should talk to the employee about.
In reality, shouldn't cars have that? Seems like a simple and important thing to have. I'm all for that. If the lights all go out, it would be nice if cars could still avoid hitting living things.
I agree, it should already be there. But mandating that it be there is different from a nice to have.
It's a fix to "human behavior" rather than HR talking to the human. . .
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
The question remains, if this was something that was preventable with a human, why didn't the human do something?
I'm not defending the Uber tech, but only pointing out that since there was a human tasked with preventing this, and they failed as well, the Uber tech can't be any more at fault than the existing human. And if the auto-driving tech meets the quality of humans, then that's good enough. Not ideal, but good enough.
Well of course it meets the quality of humans when the human is not actually doing what they are supposed to either.
The orginally released video was extra dark. So fine the Uber dash cam sucked.
But that is not what makes the driving decisions. The LIDAR data and such are used by the AI for that.
Subsequent YouTubers doing illegal recordings with their cell phones in their hands show a much brighter image. So one can assume that a human that was actually watching the road would have had plenty of time to apply brakes.
It may not have been plenty of time to get the vehicle to stop, but plenty of reaction time.
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
United offers passenger a voucher up to $10,000 to give up her seat
https://twitter.com/i/moments/977160303472467968What did they offer the person whose dog they murdered? Or the others whose dogs were negligently sent across the globe to the wrong destination?
-
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
The question remains, if this was something that was preventable with a human, why didn't the human do something?
I'm not defending the Uber tech, but only pointing out that since there was a human tasked with preventing this, and they failed as well, the Uber tech can't be any more at fault than the existing human. And if the auto-driving tech meets the quality of humans, then that's good enough. Not ideal, but good enough.
Well of course it meets the quality of humans when the human is not actually doing what they are supposed to either.
Right, but that's part of where "humans aren't good at this." I'm not saying Uber isn't at fault, only that the Uber tech and the Uber driver seem to share that responsibility here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
The question remains, if this was something that was preventable with a human, why didn't the human do something?
I'm not defending the Uber tech, but only pointing out that since there was a human tasked with preventing this, and they failed as well, the Uber tech can't be any more at fault than the existing human. And if the auto-driving tech meets the quality of humans, then that's good enough. Not ideal, but good enough.
Well of course it meets the quality of humans when the human is not actually doing what they are supposed to either.
Right, but that's part of where "humans aren't good at this." I'm not saying Uber isn't at fault, only that the Uber tech and the Uber driver seem to share that responsibility here.
The expectation though is that computers should, no must be better than humans are driving, avoiding collisions with obstacles, traversing bad weather conditions etc.
Being as good as humans is a simple bar to leap over. They have to be better.
The "backup driver" was distracted, looking away from the road the entire time. The person who crossed the road obviously made a bad judgement call.
The computer should've had the insight to see an obstacle that was moving in it's path and come to a complete stop as soon as possible.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Very different from what the police said before.
Yes, much different then the official statement. The pedestrian was still breaking the law of course by jay walking and not having the proper safety equipment on the bike. But this isn't looking good for Uber or the police department.
I think Uber's tech here is to blame (or at least share some of it). It will be interesting to see what the NTSB report says.
The question remains, if this was something that was preventable with a human, why didn't the human do something?
I'm not defending the Uber tech, but only pointing out that since there was a human tasked with preventing this, and they failed as well, the Uber tech can't be any more at fault than the existing human. And if the auto-driving tech meets the quality of humans, then that's good enough. Not ideal, but good enough.
Well of course it meets the quality of humans when the human is not actually doing what they are supposed to either.
Right, but that's part of where "humans aren't good at this." I'm not saying Uber isn't at fault, only that the Uber tech and the Uber driver seem to share that responsibility here.
Agreed all parties involved, Uber, the driver, and the pedestrian share blame in this. My point is that these conditions have been shown by other AV companies doing pretty much the same thing and the AI responds as expected. That's where I'm seeing this as a Uber tech issue and not an AV issue.
-
-
-
In addition to being backed by Russian hackers, supposedly, Pro-Brexit campaigners may have used third party organizations to violate advertising spending limits.
