HN user
But AI algorithms actually deployed by other cloud services do not. You’d hope that they wouldn’t flag a baptism or bris photo but currently fielded systems are flagging doctor-patient medical photos and have ruined lives, so.
That and being 175 feet below the surface. You’re not getting “sunscreen” on mesophotic coral.
Yet, they didn’t.
And for those commenting about risk from tourism, this is mesophotic coral at 175 feet. It’s out of range of recreational scuba much less shallow-reef snorkelers. Only technical divers can reach this reef. That’s why it hadn’t even been explored for all this time.
It’s not that deep. The model was prompted to mine for humor in a mundane dataset and it dutifully did its best to find something chuckleworthy. It got OP to laugh out loud for some reason and take the time to post this. Presumably there weren’t system prompts to criticize and refuse to engage with juvenile attempts at banal humor. And why should there be?
After all it’s training data would include a vast corpus of body-function humor, fart jokes, and very old supermarket shopping list jokes that are being tested here.
Different experience at small town independent grocers that greet their regular customers by name and are summoned with a bell.
ISO 26262 does have serious lifecycle standards but again it’s a voluntary industry standard that has no government oversight or regulatory authority. Oversight is typically largely internal and is strongest in the auto parts/components market. It’s largely toothless to automakers/integrators and again the likes of Tesla simply don’t use it and have no obligation to.
The infotainment system itself may be QM but there has to be assurance that it is in fact separated from higher safety level system.
The real cost is manufacturing with all the different options at different trim levels (combined with different paint jobs etc). Automakers have always made bank on options and trim. It is in fact cheaper for them to build all vehicles with the relatively cheap options and sell it as a subscription or add-on enabled by software. Engineering is in fact a large part of the option cost to begin with. The big task of the automakers is overcoming customer resistant to the “you will own nothing and be happy” model without feeling swindled being charged to use something they already own—or at least putting up with it and still paying. See Matt Walsh’s most recent monologue on this very topic.
Lewis Black’s shtick is tired and old and yet he manages to put a lot more humor and wit into his rants than anything in this article.
It’s essentially “My car’s infotainment system fucking sucks! Fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking fuck! Fuck my life and fuck all this shit! Did you notice I used the word fuck? FUCK!” Such great writing, so original, so millennial.
I have first-hand experience unlike your third-hand anecdotes. AUTOSAR is a private industry consortium that develops specifications. They are voluntary and self-attested and don’t have anything like the verification and documentation processes that are mandated by DO-178 in the aviation world by regulators with both independent engineering certification and regulatory oversight. Tesla and Rivian don’t participate at all. There is no comparable regulatory framework for automotive software—at all. It is purely reactive.
And lest you take issue with my characterization or claim Tesla is a rogue outlier, let me remind you that Volkswagen shipped deliberate software emissions defeat code in 11 million diesel passenger vehicles over eight model years including half a million in the USA, and was only caught by academic researchers.
That’s true, however a properly engineered safety-critical system provides separation between assurance levels, so you don’t need to have the same level of assurance for the infotainment system software that you do for safety-critical displays and controls.
The FAA has historically done a good job on this front with aviation (notwithstanding the 747 MAX debacle, which was a failure implicating flight control software but not a failure of separation of assurance levels). Automotive software and standards and NHTSA is far behind on this front. Cost is certainly a factor; it is not economical to apply aviation safety and engineering standards and processes directly to automobiles. But in the meantime, it is an absolute Wild West for any contemporary drive-by-wire car.
His good points here are undermined by the profane, emotional high-cortisol crashout. There’s a place for well-written, witty diatribes and polemics, but throwing F-bombs and F-yous into complaints is not that.
They may have some theological distinctions but they aren’t related to the plain/fancy distinctions at all. Holiness/methodists are culturally extremely mainstream and Methodists have always been at the forefront of uniting church with “popular” worldly culture, as opposed to the separatism (in particular of culture down to dress and technology) of plain people. Holiness/Wesleyan people are “fancy.” So are almost all contemporary Quakers and many or most mainline Mennonites.
Outside Columbia? She’s an adjunct there.
https://arts.columbia.edu/news/ruth-franklin-examines-anne-f...
6,000 words of nonsense from a woman from New York City visiting a small Missouri town and basically taking a giant dump on it. Doesn’t get much more on the nose than that.
“Fancy” is has a very specific meaning as as opposed to “plain” here and “upper class people are also fancy” is not generally true. “Plain” refers very specifically to lifestyle rules and modes of dress and sometimes speech adopted by conservative Anabaptists, most notably Amish, and historically, Quakers (very few of whom are meaningfully plain anymore although “simplicity” is still taught as a Quaker value). It has nothing to do with social class, there are many examples of plain peoples who were better off as a whole than their “fancy” neighbors. Fancy, in the context of plain people in America, is just anyone who lives according to the dominant culture or otherwise isn’t bound by the rules of plain people. Those being things like what kind of fasteners or colors you can have on your clothes, what kinds of hats men wear, head coverings and dress standards for women, etc., and for the Amish extending to bans on mains electricity, automobiles or self propelled vehicles, etc.