IIUC, these are high-confidence predictions, but not the ground truth. It's a step up from exhaustive searches that have been used for decades.

It's highly likely to reduce the problem space by an amazing amount, which is awesome, but we're still operating in best-guess situation. They are good guesses though.

Absolutely think this is the direction. The "drone" of "drone" propellors will basically prevent drones in an urban environment.

But I have very little concerns about a set of Boston Dynamics "big dog" type things stepping out of a truck and delivering 20 items from a truck stuck around a corner.

Beating the air into submission (ie: flying either fixed wing or multi-copter) is way more intrusive than having something on land in the same places that people and animals walk. If we look at what's around us evolutionary, it's quadrupeds and birds. The quadrupeds win at the mobility space.

Of course, black mirror gives an insight into the dual-use issues with big-dog type things carrying an 'aggressive' payload.

I don't see birds being a good model long term (they have already hollowed out bones), but insects for micro- or static-payloads is completely feasible (like pills, surveillance, etc). But it's going to be a quadruped delivering the amazon crap to my door.

Fully agree with this. (Not a cyclist, too many crazy drivers...).

Humans are mostly good at predicting steady state progression. If the next logical step is linear for everything then you can predict within that range. For a car moving straight ahead, it has only 4 options (left/right/slower/faster). The worst thing is to slowdown or move to the right (closing distance). If I see a cyclist from a distance, I might give a bit more room if they have time to integrate my new position into their spatial map of hard things that hurt.. If they are close, I generally assume they have made the calculations that it's safe - so stay the course. Unexpected politeness is just as dangerous IMHO as being an unaware driver. Same goes for people who stop in roundabouts (traffic circles) to let cross traffic go through.

The Cruise car seemed to be doing collision avoidance (moving away) rather than being polite. The cyclist vector before the movement intersects with the car and so it seems to move away (to the left).

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But it does come down to what should be normalized and what will remain an outlier.

Should a female founder be considered a permanent outlier? Probably not. There is nothing intrinsic about an female that makes the pre-disposed to *not* being a founder. The addition of outlier status is a continued identification of it being unique, different. What percentage of female founders does it suddenly not become rare - 1%, 5%, 15%, 30%? I dunno, but if a woman who is a founder is called often called a "female founder", and a founder who is male is rarely called a "male founder", then there is something wrong. I can't find a reference now, but there is a CEO who tells a story about how she always gets a cup of tea as she walks into a high power meetings with CEOs, etc. Her initial read of the room is if she is asked to "hey, can you get me a cup as well?". Those questions are rarely asked of males.

Should a white fox with red eyes, or a (as you put it) "a woman with three tits" be considered an permanent outlier - yes - absolutely. The difference is an intrinsic different that is an outlier only within the context of that individual. It is unique, always will be unique. If for some reason, white foxes become common (I think arctic foxes fit that), then you have particular names prefixed for that reason - Red Fox. Arctic fox. Gray fox. are all specific types of fox, and when talking about foxes you will generally include the type - or rely on the local type as the norm.

More broadly, and more ironically, insisting on calling women who are founders as "female founders" is continuing a stereotype that "founders" are generally male, which makes the biases and behaviors of the founder community negative and potentially psychologically aggressive to female founders.

When people say "Strong" for women, it's isn't the actual attribute. Strong Male actors would typically bring Vin Diesel, Arnold, Dwayne to mind.

For females, strong usually has a connotation of "spirited", "determined", "stoic", etc. Which is equally appropriate.

In response to Cryptimus' post is actually a statement around classifying movies that use women as props, or women as protagonists. I recently binged with the family on the Fantastic 4 . They rebooted it 2015 for a reason. The 2005 version https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FeF0TQHNvrbs%3Ft... is the 'women as prop", there is the completely unnecessary "she's naked and invisible - woops - now she is naked in front of the public". The 2015 reboot has the women as a peer protagonist.

Answering the question @Ostracus has, a lot of it comes with peer support, but keeping an eye on when peer support becomes non-peer exclusion. eg: Women in tech deal with a lot from a lot of dimensions, so having ally/peer groups help a lot. However, if they are labelled derisively, then it goes more to perpetuate. As an example, "Girl Boss Collective" vs "Women Entrepreneurs Group" create two very different group personas. Using my approach above, GBC is an ally group for girls who are bosses", vs "women who are entrepreneurs". You can see there being groups for men implicitly (Founders Club), (Businessmen's Group), but I don't think I'd ever see a "boy boss collective").

It's hard, it's a slow generational shift. But there is a huge difference in the last 20 years already. Much work to do too.

Absolutely, but Trump mastered it to pejoratively skewer opposition. His adjectives used for support and endorsement are "blah" and unimaginative in comparison.

I'm not judging the past, but I'm assessing the now and the future. I much more prefer SARS-Cov2/COVID-19 than China Virus. The ability to have sensible conversations around transmissibility, immune protection and so on are much better than with "China Virus". Taxonomy is important.

If you can't swap race/gender/etc for equivalent terms. Don't use it.

If you can't say Boy Boss, don't say Girl Boss
If you can't say He Is a Strong Man, don't say She's a Strong Woman
If you can't say He's a Pretty Little Thing, don't say "She's a Pretty Little Thing"

Obviously it's more nuanced than I'm saying above, but it's a good rule to at least be sensitive to, if not avoid.

More professionally, you won't hear a discussion of "What does he do? Oh, he's a male founder." But you do hear *way* too often the female equivalent. Drop the gendered or marginalizing adjective unless it is *really* needed.

Our most recent window in politics is showing the extreme polarizing power of unnecessary adjectives. Trump et al started relying on pairing strong adjectives (radical agenda/sleepy Joe/crooked Hillary/china|wuhan Virus). With repetition they begin to stick and become hard to work through.

Same for in the workplace, we use it quite a lot, just listen.

Awsome, well ahead of it's time video on this...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nfb.ca%2Ffilm%2Fto_be%2F

Before reading the article, I had originally had images of a the car AI freaking out the same way that a smal child does when the machinery starts moving past the car giving that slightly uneasy fealing that the car is actually moving. That paired with the sudden movement and noise freaks any 3 year old out. How would a car handle it.

Unfortunately, the article was about sensor care, which disappoints me greatly. I would have assumed that autonomous vehicles would just disappear from the driveway for a few hours for the car equivalent of mani and pedi. I'm assuming that a standin car could also come drop by to keep the driveway warm.

I was at a conference around 2000 where this sort of topic came up. Yes CC was all about sharing and growing, there were a few people arguing that *everything* should be CC, or at least CC-BY.

I took a fairly contrarian stance talking about what could go wrong. The example I used was more topical for the issue of the day (I can't really recall it), but I did raise the CC-BY can be even more damaging for a creative person.

In the example, a hate speech group not only uses the soundtrack because it goes well with their content and *they are legally allowed to*. It becomes downright awful when the same hate speech names *you* and *only you* somewhere on the track. Bringing a direct association of you with their message with the BY part of CC.

Fortunately, it is relatively rare from an occurrence, but with today's media, if it sticks and it sticks well you are pretty much screwed. A great example of that is the appropriation of Pepe the Frog (originally by Matt Furie) as the mascot for the Alt-Right. Could happen to anything...

Wrong. I was talking USD based salaries (ignoring FOREX, which has been mostly stable - and we didn't actively consider that either).

My point is that the "Low Cost" outsourcing to large population centers (China/India) is cutting back quickly, as the incomes normalize. China is already mostly normalized with the US (or tech knowledge work), India has a few more years (maybe 5) before the combined impact of the normalization and inflation remove the cost benefit and it moves to a decision based on skill, coordination, and cost (mostly in that order).

Exactly, for China/US software work, it is more of a balanced decision, choose for reasons other than straight cost. India will get there too.

Some numbers from my personal experience.

1) Salary Growth. In general, the Indian Salaries are increasing by 10%, US Salaries are increasing by 3%.
2) Salary Scalability. In general, Junior staff are about 5 offshore to 1 onshore. Mid level staff are about 3:1. Senior staff are 2:1.

China used to be a good low cost offshore location, however senior staff are now more or less the same cost (assuming remote team management). You offshore to China for reasons *other* than cost reduction. India will ultimately be no different.

Mid to senior engineers will be generally cost neutral within a decade, junior engineers - not so much.

Near-shoring will likely replace the off-shoring - in some cases it already does.

Okay. Happily schooled. That said - the use of inflexion, even in the british context is rather an oddity. Yes, it is an alternative spelling, but it is also considered archaic and not used heavily since the mid 20th century. The google ngram search shows some interesting trends for it.

Inflexion, really? I thought it was a lazy writeup by the submitter, but instead it is in the actual article.