osuairt

Yes, and a car company is just the company to make things right!

I swear, I read the most smooth-brained commentary here.

Because they just parrot whatever Elon tells them to, they fall for his schtick.

National Highway Transportation Administration is responsible for public safety in these matters, and will investigate the situation, and they will make a determination.

Tired of Elon's psyops shit.

It's people like you that Elon hopes will downplay problems for him on social media.

The National Highway Transportation Administration is charged with the safety of the public foremost, not Tesla's stock price.

They will conduct their investigation, ask for whatever information they want. If it is no big deal, they will say so, not Elon on social media, or you parroting whatever he wants you to.

It's gotten worse.

I asked it, 5 black children or 5 white children, and it says 5 black children.

Then I increased it to 8 white children before it would save the white children.

This is weird.

So, many of the other banks in Norway, accept Apple Pay.

Sbanken was recently purchased by DNB. They originally offered Apple Pay, that service has been shutdown as of last month.

DNB is roundly considered a poor banking experience in Norway, they are the largest, but most people don't come away from their customer support feeling great.

Yes.

Of late, I have unfortunately seen Norwegian politicians or institutions have an exaggerated sense of themselves, when it comes to their international influence, or the size of the market they represent.

Agreed.

You want to have some form of manufactured scarcity.

If you have a single point of energy generation, that is expensive, and specialised, and relies on an element mined from the ground, it is great for the fossil fuel industry.

If you have a distributed form of energy generation, that is inexpensive, not specialised and is made from sand, it is not so great for the fossil fuel industry.

I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok about nuclear being the magic bullet. They talk about Germany, and they refer to nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels. When you mention renewables, they talk to you like you are an idiot, that renewable technologies are just infeasible, are harmful to the environment or they are too expensive. The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. You then have to go on to point out that 50% of Germany's energy mix is from renewables now. And as this article points out, the price of solar just keeps falling, because it can be mass produced and improved at a pace similar to semi-conductors.

I tire of what seems to be very opinionated right wing men, not putting together how things work, and after they are proven wrong, say that they have always said that, or that is obvious.

Facebook is cancer.

If you have to mine a finite Uranium resource from Saskatchewan, you do not have renewable energy.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-green-energ...

Yes, the vision only approach isn't something that you do in robotics.

There is usually a hierarchy of sensors, mainly for redundancy. Example: Bumper sensory at the wheel base, sonar / Lidar at the mid, and a camera at the top for advanced sensing.

For the sake of cost cutting Tesla has done away with their radar sensors at the front of the vehicle. It would be a substantial cost overhead, but have very real repercussions when it comes to safety, while also providing a "ground truth" to what at least the front facing cameras are seeing.

I don't think Lidar is a practical sensor for them to adopt, because it is quite bulky and has limited viewing angles, but I would expect them to have adopted some novel, lower cost radar solution.

Apart from the lower cost of the camera, I think Elon's rationale for having a camera only FSD is not valid, has made the problem needlessly complex and unsafe. He believes since we have eyes, and we can drive a car, then it should be sufficient to drive the car, but we only use eyes because these are the sensors we were born with, it is the best we have. In my mind, Elon's approach is like looking at a horse, and saying to yourself, that you want to build a car based on a horse, where instead of wheels, you have four mechanical legs, and those mechanical legs are limited is so many ways, but they should still at least "work", but there is no reason to limit locomotion in that way. The same with the vision system on a FSD, the whole spectrum of light is available, with any number of configurations, providing data at rates and with precision far beyond what a camera system can do.

There is a push by conservative Canadian politicians in Ontario and Saskatchewan to use Uranium.

Saskatchewan wants to have a mining contract. While Doug Ford of Ontario, wants to maintain the energy monopoly in the province, and has actively torn down recently completed and functional wind farm projects.

I would gather that you will be hearing less about this after Doug Ford leaves.

That just isn't the case.

And I am sorry to say but the many countries have made great strides on running their countries on more and more renewable energy sources.

In 2018, Scotland generated 98% their energy from wind alone.

Denmark 72%, Germany 45%, Uruguay 97%, Norway 93%.

It's a whole patchwork of solutions, depending on geography.

Nuclear is not this magic bullet, and just means flipping a switch, it has a major cost, logistical, technological and risk overhead associated with it. If you are France, great, but they have been doing Nuclear since the beginning, it doesn't mean that the world has to do the same, when far simpler, cheaper and safer alternatives are in abundance.

"ideological reasons"

Can you tell us what those ideological reasons why be?

Or are you straight up trying to dismiss their approach as irrational and dogmatic in the eyes of reader by suggesting it is ideological only?

"Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label."

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in Europe.

Yes, Agreed.

There seems to be a tendency by pro-Nuclear people, to try and frame nuclear as the only alternative energy source. They will say things like, "nuclear is by far the safer option, especially considering coal or gas"..

They keep trying to frame the use of nuclear next to fossil fuels, while pretending that solar, wind, hydro and geothermal haven't increasingly been adopted for 10 years now.

It is a very selective way of framing nuclear.

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure.

Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries differently.