TBF the difference between many does-good-things and does-bad-things systems is a few lines of code.
A few lines of code can turn an X-Ray machine into a death machine. A drivers assistance system into a kamikaze car. An industrial automation system into a bomb.
Those things are not built for the express purpose of killing people. There is no manual button on the outside of the xray marked "kill patient" that's at risk of being automated away. No "aim for pedestrians" button in the Tesla that a developer will choose to finish implementing in code.
Like, yes, this is a thing that could happen, and has, we call them bugs. But the companies building those products aren't in the business of making that outcome occur. These developers and companies are in the business of helping make people die and I'd bet significant sums this is already tracked in a backlog issue or behind a //.
So what is your point? Why is automated target tracking bad exactly? I’m not saying it’s not, but I don’t see how your argument is different from “all weapons bad”.
The point is that "you can invert the rewards signal on a Tesla and turn it into a people mower" isn't exactly a dunk on the point above them. We're not worried about Tesla having (someday accurate) people detection because we're not worried about them using it to kill people more efficiently. Indeed, generally people want Tesla to get very good at that!
So automated tracking is bad when attached to a gun because it more easily enables the rest of the concerns laid out in the thread. It's not some hobbyist "paintball the squirells in my yard", but a government-purchased, corporation built project with an explicit, obvious goal in mind. Disregarding that because many other things _could_ be used for bad with a couple lines of code is not the right call, imo.
So don’t you want a gun to hit the target with no collateral damage? Imagine a different use-case, for example a mass shooter in a crowd. Where an AI controlled gum can take out the shooter and not the victims, the way police occasionally do.
This comment misses the point and just plays with the meaning of “know”. Not that epistemology isn’t interesting, but parent was referring to absolute certainty (contingent on your senses being accurate, of course).
Not sure which parent you mean, but if you mean my comment, I wasn't talking about absolute certainty at all. Rather, I was attempting a reductio ad absurdum against theories which talk about the probability of different universes within a multiverse. Nothing I said is an argument against probabilistic reasoning/knowledge limited to the confines of this universe only.
I don't understand your criticism, and I think you might have been mis-understanding my intent. The Everettian (Many Worlds) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is itself at odds with the concept of absolute certainty. I am thinking about this in terms of E. T. Jaynes perspective that probability theory is an extension of traditional logic, and is required for reasoning about the MWI.
I'll also note that I did miss the point of the OPs comment, but I think not in the way you suggested.
This is normal. You buy a car from a guy on the street, it could break on the drive home and you’re mostly shit outta luck. Even if you have a legal claim (and you usually don’t since the sale is as-is), it’s not worth the trouble and they’re likely to be judgment proof.
On the other hand, dealers usually include a warranty of some kind with their “certified pre-owned” vehicles. And as repeat players, they have a reputation to keep. The manufacturer also imposes further rules on them to protect the car brand.
Fwiw, I strongly oppose laws that protect the dealership business. But this specific thing you’ve noticed is not some grand conspiracy (how would that work anyway?). It’s just rational consumer behavior.
It's highly unlikely that's a car with 150k miles gets listed as a CPO. And, regardless, that should not affect the market price of the vehicle in general for private sale / trade in.
> You buy a car from a guy on the street, it could break on the drive home and you’re mostly shit outta luck.
Then why did the private party value double overnight?
Probably because the Kelly blue book is just sourcing local data and the dealer’s listing had an outsized effect on the average, like another commenter pointed out. KBB is not the be all, end all.
That doesn't quite seem responsive to your parent comment. They recognize that the dealer price is higher.
What's weird is that every price jumped after selling the car to a dealer, not that the retail price was higher than the trade-in price.
> Trade in value quoted at three sites (kbb, edmunds, carfax) was $3500. Private party sale was $4100, retail sale that a buyer would pay at a dealer $5200.
> Dealer puts new tires on it lists for $9999 and suddenly the three sites list “fair market” retail at $11,000, trade in at $7000 and private party at $9000.
That's their summary of what was changed. It's likely not the full list. The car would typically get a full detailing, inspections, cosmetic repairs, etc. as part of that process.
I tried that 'buy from a man on the street' thing a couple of times. Young, wasn't spending much anyway. I was fairly experienced at spotting the easy problems. Both times I bought someone else's well-hidden problem. One lasted a year, one a month. Friends, then dealers (with a warranty).
Recycling is a scam. Just about everything you recycle gets sent to the landfill anyway. The only difference is that you feel good about yourself as you sort it into the recycling bin. One exception, I’ve been told, is aluminum.
> The study ranked each state according to its recycling rate for CCPMs in 2018, with the 10 states with the best recycling rates comprising: Maine (72%); Vermont (62%); Massachusetts (55%); Oregon (55%); Connecticut (52%); New York (51%); Minnesota (49%); Michigan (48%); New Jersey (46%); and Iowa (44%).
Note for comparison purposes, that US report is on CCPM (plastic bottles and trays, glass bottles and jars, aluminium cans, steel cans and cardboard and boxboard), which the EU calls out seperately as "packaging waste" with an average of 66%.
And it's 'material reprocessed rather than material collected for recycling' they count.
That recent Greenpeace USA study suggests that only type 1 and 2 plastics are close to meeting their 'actually being recycled into more of the same stuff' targets across the USA.
If you have a bank account with $100 in it, a $10 daily expense will deplete your account in 10 days. A $10 daily opportunity cost would never deplete your account.
>A $10 daily opportunity cost would never deplete your account
Well that's assuming you have no expenses. In your example the difference between realizing the opportunity cost or not is the difference between 10 days of runway and paying the bills in perpetuity.
Bills pile up no matter what, so there's only a limited amount of opportunity cost you can afford to eat.
When? He bragged in July when the MoM rate was zero and the YoY rate fell by half a percent. I can't find him bragging anywhere that the rate is holding steady though.
Can't tell if he's trying to say that it only went up a little in September ("was 8.2 before"), but if he is then he's wrong - the YoY rate has come down every month since July.[1] So we still haven't passed the second derivative (which he did brag about in January apparently).
The MoM rate (the amount prices increased in July) was zero (down from 1.3% in June), not -0.5%, meaning that prices stayed the same. If it had been -0.5%, that would have meant prices decreased in July by half a percent. The YoY rate is what fell by 0.6% (not 0.5% like I thought), meaning that prices had risen a total of 8.5% since July 2021, a decrease from 9.1% in June (vs. June 2021).
>0.9% in October, 0.8% in November and 0.5% in December, according to the Labor Department.
Definitely similarly tone deaf, but in this case he was bragging about the second derivative, not the third - prices continued to increase, but the rate of increase (inflation) was indeed falling.
Errmm? He says “we are making progress in slowing the rate of price increases”.
(making progress in (slowing the (rate of price increases)))
3 ————————— 2 ————— 1 ———————————
The question is what you think “progress” is doing in that sentence. Slowing the rate => 2nd deriv is decreasing but progress, to me, implies that third deriv is what is being pointed at. 2nd deriv would be “we are slowing” to me.
I’m not sure what inflation number you’re looking at, but CPI for Oct/Nov/Dec of 2021 was: 6.2%, 6.8%, 7%
Rate of increase in prices = inflation = first derivative of prices. Slowing the rate of increase in prices = lowering inflation = second derivative. I wouldn't interprete 'making progress in lowering the rate of increase' as 'lowering the rate of increase of the rate of increase' which is basically how you'd have to read that to get to the third derivative. As the article points out, Biden was talking about MoM inflation, I quoted the numbers there for those months. They're in the article.
Damore was (with a lot of benefit of the doubt) totally clueless. Sure, he'll talk about how he thinks that discrimination is bad, and how he doesn't approve of sexism. He turns around and says that women are just neurotic and "more people focused", based on suspect evidence.
Of course you will point out that he was juts talking about the population, and reducing people top that is very bad mkay. He is totally not talking about the fine gals at Google!
I could believe that he believes this, but the end result is that the 20% of Blind that is just misogynist assholes get more brazen.
Manu (lightly!) criticized his company with lighthearted cartoons. Demore in practice called 30% of his coworkers neurotic weaklings.
Uhh, if you need a currently logged in device to bypass the phone number login, then I wouldn’t say it’s a “possible backup”. Phone number is the primary authentication mechanism for Authy.
Huh? I use Authy because it allows me to use TOTP codes, from multiple devices, including devices without cell service. I switched to it from Google Authenticator specifically for that reason.
If you have “Allow Multi-Device” enabled, your keys are stored on Authy’s servers. You simply download Authy on a new device, sign into your account and you are done.
Yes. I can’t speak for all countries but even if you fail to pay for your plan and get it cancelled you might have a chance to re-claim it within a few months.
Numbers have generally started being recycled after a shorter rest (only a few months).
When I worked with a system handling portings it should have been possible to find where your number went.
Do you still have the physical card or the papers that came with it originally?
Try to get the carrier to file a real bug report, something that reaches the developers, with your ICCID, found on the physical card or the documentation that came with it.
That goes for both carriers. Either one has an error receiving or the other has an error porting. Communication between the carriers could be near nonexistant though. I hope there is a way =\
Genuinely curious why you're using the words "bug report" and "developers" here - would this actually be an implementation-specific software issue? All this squishiness sounds like a manual process simply didn't get followed correctly or something.
We had to manually investigate and handle individual screwed up number portings _all the time_. And we did so every single time we (the developers/maintainers) got a report about something having gone wrong.
The sending carrier has that number port logged, and the receiving carrier will if they received the request.
So, what kinds of things would actually go wrong? "Bits of proprietary software yelling at each other in non-standard-ese"? Crazy scripting fixing frequent human mistakes? Or...?
I'm very fascinated with this sort of thing given it's treated like such an impermeable brick wall.
>you might have a chance to re-claim it within a few months
Which is probably utterly useless to the OP. At this point, they probably have no real choice but to go through whatever paperwork is required to recover access to their accounts without having the phone number.
No it’s not. The only thing regulated is that phone companies have to make the numbers portable so they can’t hold them hostage. But you don’t own any right to your number, if there is a renumbering you are SOL.
The number can’t be gone of course, it belongs to a range operated by a provider (where it originally came from) who can see who it is being forwarded to. But no one is under any obligation to help you with that setup. All they have to do is make a credible offer to port the number if you move to another provider.
Not sure what you’re on about, but every provider is going to offer new customers a porting service to encourage you to switch. And with a few exceptions (moving from wired to wired in a new geographic area, or moving certain small rural providers), your old carrier must let the new carrier port the number.
That is the same thing. Practically the original provider has to offer a service where they forward your number to a new carrier. But that doesn’t mean the customer has some kind of ownership like claim to the number.
The significance is that even though you can port a number from provider 1 to provider 2 and then port it again from provider 2 to provider 3, practically the number remains at provider 1 who forwards it first to provider 2 and later to provider 3. But the number remains with provider 1 because it is part of a range serviced by that provider. That is the only ownership like claim there is.
The fact the providers provide this forwarding service doesn’t mean the costumer gets a claim to the number, which is what this article is all about. A customer angry the number was ‘taken’ from him. It was never his. The providers are required to provide the porting service but if something goes wrong and a number is somehow lost, the costumer doesn’t have a right to go and demand it back from someone. Just like when the providers renumber an area, people come and complain they have to redo their preprinted letters and the lettering on their cars. Too bad, the number is not yours.
He can go and ask to get his number back, or he can make demands and then try complaining to the FCC. But I don’t think they’ll do anything.
Looks like the only time they are legally required to, ATM, is if you switch from one wireless provider to another. Introducing a VoIP providers probably means this dude isn't getting his number..
You found the wireless page so that’s all it discusses, but that’s not true. What is true is that for wired providers, you are geographically bound. But you can still take your wired number and port it to your wireless plan and then move wherever.
