Speed doesn’t matter as much if you’re going to be parked for half the day or overnight.

The apartment complex and workplace chargers I’ve seen all limit how long you’re allowed to leave your car parked at them. I suppose speed doesn’t matter in the sense that having to move your car 20 minutes later isn’t much less annoying than having to move it 4 hours later. Still, I wouldn’t want an EV without my own garage even if I never went on road trips. It seems like a pain.

Odd. A few of my buddies from grad school went to work for military contractors and if “I build inertial guidance systems for ballistic missiles” guy is happily married then maybe Palantir guy is just looking in the wrong place?

we just have to accept their is a wanna be mob boss in the White House

Yeah, that’s how democracy works in this case.

Getting on Trump’s bad side can mean an anti-trust lawsuit or an end to tariff exemptions. The executives would be negligent to act otherwise.

I’m a big fan of his, but I’m also not sure he’s the right person to judge what a mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual should act like.

I meant that I would be paying extra for it as opposed to a hypothetical car manufactured without the requirement. So it would be like having my taxes raised to pay for providing me something I didn’t want.

Maybe this makes me sound like a jerk, but my thinking in that regard was “I don’t have children and rarely drive near other people’s loose children. Why should I pay for hardware I don’t need?”

I deliberately sought out a car without that stuff when I had to buy a new(er) car recently. It’s usually quite annoying - the worst was a rental car that had an alarm buzz whenever I activated my turn signal while there was another car anywhere near my blind spot.

IMO the only technological improvement from the last decade and a half that’s worth having is a backup camera, and that’s only because I must shamefully confess to being terrible at parallel parking without one despite having years of practice. (I was tempted to buy a Miata since they still have real dials, but ultimately I did settle for a car with a digital display instead of an instrument panel.)

Other former staff members were reassigned to Alphabet’s drug-discovery company Isomorphic Labs, which is a DeepMind spin-off.

They’re still actively working on this area of research.

Would having experts capable of telling real videos from fake ones even solve the main problem, that being the problem of public perception? The experts would have an important role in, for example, intelligence agencies, but the public is still going to trust its eyes, and in the presence of multiple contradictory videos, its biases, especially since there’s always going to be someone claiming to be an expert to back them up.

It’s more reasonable than the headline makes it sound. The commissioner pointed out that he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras and told the group of people who wanted to express their opposition to him anyway to pick one representative who would do so.

I’ve been to meetings where people repeatedly express the same negative opinion of a policy to someone with no control over that policy and I guess that’s what the commissioner wanted to avoid.

Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.

I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.

Students fail to make the is/ought distinction.

So? Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t have the moral intuition that an employer generally ought to keep employing people if it can afford to.

I find AI to be a better conversation partner than humans in most circumstances. It’s not perfect but it’s knowledgeable about pretty much every topic and it’s always fully engaged and attentive. Most people, by contrast, aren’t very interesting and most interesting people are busy. Of course I would prefer to talk to someone who was also subjectively experiencing and enjoying the conversation, but I can get a lot out of a conversation even without that.

Are we? I’m looking to buy a car and I think gas cars make the most sense even now, because the change in the price of gas seems like a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. A one dollar increase in the cost of a gallon of gas works out to about $300 a year in extra costs for me. That’s not enough to tip the balance towards an electric car.

For reference, I’m comparing a Hyundai Elantra N to a Tesla Model 3 - the Hyundai costs as much as the base Tesla at about $36.5k, but to get similar performance you’d need the $42.5k premium Tesla, and that price difference pays for enough gas to go 40,000 miles.

Would you say the same thing if you didn’t know that it was AI? I think it actually looks pretty good overall, although some of the changes (like deciding that this character dyes her hair had has undyed roots) are odd.

Edit: It seems to do a better job with the soccer player.

Edit 2: I wonder if it works better with male faces than with female ones. It’s making the woman’s eyes and lips bigger but not the man’s.

We’re going to end up in a situation where whatever is necessary to train AI is permitted, and the main question is whether that will be through (re)interpretation of existing law or the passage of a new law.

If you don’t want legal or medical advice from an AI, you can already simply not ask the AI for legal or medical advice. But I don’t want your paternalistic restrictions on what I may ask.