They're "No Entry" signs, common across Europe and large parts of the world.

They matched for road type, vehicle type and location, but not for weather. So yes, the human-driver data may include miles done in weather conditions the driverless cars would refuse to operate in. But the study used data from California, Arizona, and Texas. How much bad weather do those states have? (I genuinely have no idea).

The paper did discuss this in the intro, and said the rates were "similar in magnitude", but Uber/Lyft may be under-reported:

I viewed that list on my phone, which showed one of the study titles as:

Blimey, that's one hell of a study! (obviously, it's been truncated)

Driver 61 on youtube is having a go at this: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplayli...

It sounds like that would work for hotel lobbies, but the ban on hotel rooms seems to be absolute.

No, SethJohnson was being satirical. Your satire meter is broken,

There is indeed. This is all about developing quantum inertial navigation systems for real-world use. Clocks are just one part of it.

This is a strawman argument. Almost no-one is saying you should be able to do what you want with other people's creative works,, Most people agree that:

1) It is NOT OK to copy and distribute other people's creative works without permission
2) It IS OK to learn from other people's creative works, and use the knowledge gained to produce new, different works.

The question is, how much is it OK to get a computer to help you do 2), or indeed to automate 2) entirely. This doesn't seem to be what copyright law was designed to stop, but it's the only hammer people have to try to stop something they see as unfair (AI learning from other people's work on a scale no human could match, but not acually producing copies of it)

Personally, I put this in the same catagory as recording car number plates, or taking photos of people in public and trying to identify them. Historically, it's OK to do these things, but problems can arise if these are automated and done on a massive scale (and the results kept forever). They may be qualitatively the same, but quantitatively they are very different. I think it is OK for the law to do distinguish a person doing something on a small scale, and a computer doing the same thing to everyone and everything, everywhere, and all the time.

Ideally, I would want judges / juries (in any legal cases brought) to rule that AI learning from copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. And then government could decide if we, as a society, want to allow this thing. If not, government can pass new laws specifcally forbidding using copyrighted works for teaching AIs without permission. But I fear that is hopelessly naive of me :(

After the split up of Bell, and subsequent mergers etc, the current Baby Bells operators are (somewhat simplified):

• AT&T: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin (21 total)
• Verizon: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia
• Lumen Technologies: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.
• Frontier Communications: Connecticut and West Virginia.
• Consolidated Communications: Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont

I thought in C arrays are just syntactic suger for pointer arithamtic. That is, when referenced a static array is converted to a pointer to the first element of the array, and "array[n]" is identical to "array + n", which uses pointer arithmetic. And dynamically allocated arrays are always pointers to the first element. Does that mean you can't use arrays in Mini-C at all?

Why not buy really short seat belt extenders, and leave them plugged instead? That way the belts would still work, and they're only $15 a pair.

So what did you mean by "key" when you said "SpaceX holds all of the key patents". What is key about them? If they can be avoided by doing things a different way, surely they're not key patents.

No, it's know that vaping some chemicals is not safe. People (manufacturers as well as end-users) have put all sorts of shit in vapes, and of course some of it is going to be bad for you. That doesn't mean all vaping is unsafe.

Assuming there is IP involved, then you either have to deprive the customers use of a product they have already paid for, or you have to deprive the license holders fees for the continued use of their IP.

I would say there is overall less harm in letting the customers continue to use the product, but I have no idea how that could be made to work in practice.