Obviously. The cubicle was invented as a more humane and private alternative to the standard open plan office of the 1960s, let alone hotdesking which is somehow even more of a fungible human cog than the open plan office.
> One can make the argument that the requirements is a much smaller surface to verify than that of the entire program.
This argument is unfortunately empirically false for any program of any meaningful complexity (>1000 lines, probably even as low as >100 lines ignoring well-defined algorithms and data structures) using current formal methods.
Complete formal specifications are usually multiple times larger than the corresponding source code and encode esoteric propertys necessary for the proof, but which are largely even more impenetrable than a undocumented codebase.
So, it is both harder to figure out if you encoded the desired requirements and it is more complex. Your only advantage is confidence that what you wrote down is proven.
> Complete formal specifications are usually multiple times larger than the corresponding source code and encode esoteric propertys necessary for the proof, but which are largely even more impenetrable than a undocumented codebase.
Is it possible that the spec could be factorised into something higher-level and more modular? If not, can you give a flavour of the type of unavoidable esoteric detail? (One area I can see lots of complications is when dealing with versioned data, especially in multiple interacting systems -- naively, correctness needs to be proven for every combination of versions, even if some are never seen.)
Not at all. WASM is a repudiation of the thesis, not a confirmation.
The thesis is that javascript-compatible source will be the substrate of the future. A javascript engine, though one highly optimized to efficiently interpret a compatible subset, is a potential universal platform of the future despite generic javascript being a terrible substrate.
WASM fundamentally rejects this by creating a new javascript-incompatible substrate that is actually designed to be a low level target. Claiming WASM is confirmation of the thesis makes as much sense as claiming that a future where everybody has a Rust interpreter in the browser is confirmation of the thesis.
If you are arguing that, then you are just arguing that web browsers will run code in some form in some language as they already do. As the video is clearly discussing a “surprising” possible future, it makes little sense for it to be consistent with literally business as usual and literally every possible future.
WASM is literally a direct replacement for asm.js. In fact, for a long time emscripten supported both simultaneously - both as outputs from the same tool chain.
They have a lot in common. So it's not at all wrong to say WASM fulfills the prophecy. It's an iteration of the concept that resulted in JS as a compile target and later asm.js.
Huh? It is a argument against government backdoor access to messages.
The government demonstrated that they are unqualified to keep data securely under their control. As such, any argument that a backdoor only allows the duly elected government access is empirically false. Any such backdoor empirically allows nefarious criminals access to your messages whereas the absence of a backdoor keeps your messages safely between you and the other party.
So, your options are:
1. Encryption with no backdoors so all messages are safe.
2. Criminals can freely read your messages so the government can more easily investigate potential criminals.
It most likely does not recognize the sign. Last I saw, after years of furious development they were still unable to recognize standard "Do Not Enter", "Road Closed", and "One Way" signs in the US. Here is a video [1] from a week ago where it fails to recognize a clearly visible "Do Not Enter" sign with "One Way" road indications.
I think that is worse. There are only a few hundred traffic signs in use in Europe and even I could write a supervised learning model in an afternoon that could recognize all of them with very low uncertainty. And if I had Tesla budget I could easily have a tiny portion of my workers label enough data in another afternoon.
If this is true, and Tesla does not do this, that means that somewhere up in Tesla’s chain of command somebody told their workers not to do this. That is, somebody at Tesla made the decision that Tesla cars should not be able to recognize all the traffic signs. If that is the case, this person should be held criminally liable and Tesla cars should be pulled off the market (and the roads) by regulators who are (or should be) concerned about consumer (and road) safety.
You went from ignoring Hanlon's razor in one comment straight to duning Kruger's in your next.
Seems like you just don't like musk and have to find a bad reason...
Personally I like the idea of ideas > event > people...
If I'm wrong on this post and you are really that capable I'd suggest you go work for comma.io because self driving cars/vehicles is definitely in top 5 of best upcoming inventions.
You should have shown the original video and not the one from Dan O'Dowd. He is not interested in pedestrian safety in any way, he is doing this only to promote his own company, Green Hills Software. He didn't have any issues with Tesla until it stopped using his software.
Ah yes, consistently, correctly, and truthfully highlighting serious safety defects and unacceptable design oversights for years in the products of a trillion dollar company with a rabid fanbase well known for running smear campaigns is "not interested in pedestrian safety".
I imagine everybody relishes the opportunity to get smeared by entirely false accusations by Tesla promoters with a conflict of interest. You can tell the Tesla promoters running the smear campaigns are worth listening to because their smears keep getting disproved by video evidence.
Please point at any clearly visible video evidence that their whistleblowing is inaccurate. No "shaky cam" "Bigfoot" evidence where you point at something blurry and falsify a claim to fit your desired narrative.
Your job would have been a lot easier if any of those Tesla Promoters accepted the Dawn Project's offer to attempt the tests themselves with their own Tesla's and their own cameras giving them the perfect platform to debunk the Dawn Project's claims. Weird how they all chickened out on that slam dunk.
In this case, the whistleblowing was done by DirtyTesla (as credited by Dan). Respect to him for that. Dan has created proven fake videos where Tesla is allegedly unsafe, but got caught. So he has lost his credibility.
It's very important to call out these issues AND to do it honestly.
Nope. Those accusations were proven false and the people who made them have lost all their credibility. It was just a smear campaign by Tesla promoters so effective that here you are parroting it against reality to protect a trillion dollar company that actively lies and promotes illegal and dangerous behavior. They really outdid themselves with that smear campaign.
If you disagree, I presented the criteria for evidence needed to support your case. Remember, no shaky cam.
Really, your first instinct is: "The journalists are engaging in a baseless smear campaign."
The video evidence clearly demonstrates it engaging in a clearly signed illegal maneuver that it should never have even begun. Furthermore, your mischaracterization of the video is significant. The car straightens out having crossed the pedestrian walkway clearly indicated on the dash screen. The dash screen clearly indicates the vehicle intending to continue to travel on the bike-only road.
In addition, this is Tesla's own official curated video [1]. Tesla is the one who decided that failure to obey clearly indicated signs and engaging in a illegal maneuver is the best representation of their product they could muster.
You may be not wrong but it literally didn't cross my mind. I just didn't notice the car going into the lane in the video after watching it first 3 times. The guy who replied to me with a wall of text just wants to go off topic.
No, as can be clearly seen from the video, it is doing a right turn onto a road where the only lane is a full-size lane with a sign indicating that cars are not allowed to use that road in that direction.
Okay, so in 14 years they replace all cell phone service in the US achieving 6% of the revenue goal. Just have to find another 15 “all cell phone service in US” and do it all in 14 years and we are golden.
Just add a whole Apple worth of revenue yearly and they can just barely make it.
Ah yes, the horrible anti-feature of IP fragmentation strikes again.
Pair it with the anti-solution of dropping large packets instead of truncating them and we get our perfect storm of bad design that is MTU incompatibility and modern MTU discovery.
reply