Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Ha Ha...Oh, Wait, You're Serious?
I'm glad others find the whole red baiting thing with Sanders monumentally stupid, and I don't expect better from the actual red scare in this country (GOPers), but that stupidity coming up in Democratic debates, and from the moderators isn't just stupid, it is actively harmful to honest debate. I'd like to hope they'll stop it, but I'm fairly certain the media organization is approximately 90% made up of children who just happen to be 50+ years old.
Friday, February 14, 2020
A Step Back
It can be so easy to get lost in the bad. Horrible things are always happening; we are near powerless to stop most of them, and it can so easily make us feel hopeless. Sometimes it is just good to take a step back to look around us with fresh perspective. The pale blue dot image was taken on Valentine's Day 1990. In the 30 years that have followed we have learned more. Loved more. Laughed more. Cried more. Still, that pale blue dot spinning around a medium yellow sun would look the same today as then. It would look the same if we all gave up hatred, and violence and lived our best selves. It would look the same if we went extinct.
This Valentine's Day, instead of flowers and chocolates, wouldn't it be nice if we could just feel love for all the other people with whom we share this tiny speck of dust in a vast universe.
This Valentine's Day, instead of flowers and chocolates, wouldn't it be nice if we could just feel love for all the other people with whom we share this tiny speck of dust in a vast universe.
NaGaHappen
This is a frustrating article for a lot of reasons, but the three that bug me the most are:
1. After outlining some of the reasons that self-driving cars is a very difficult problem, the article makes it seem like they'll still be here any day now.
2. The idea that self driving cars are going to save lives is almost tautological and so really quite stupid.
3. The insistence that this will be a huge financial boon for [Uber...among others] comes from...?
As for the first point, just no. People who drive think driving is "easy" and so we should be able to have a computer do it even better, but driving isn't like doing algebra. When we drive we are taking advantage of two things that humans do much, much better than computers: visual processing and pattern recognition (and extrapolation). Computers have gotten much better at both of those things, but we do them so easily that we don't even recognize that we are doing them, and computers are still nowhere close to us.
The second point is one of those annoying points that isn't really a point. Yes, if self driving works it will be safer as the definition of it working will be that it is safe (as computers don't drink, fall asleep...if it is safe it will be safer than human drivers) but this comes back to point 1: we aren't actually close.
The 3rd point is the underwear gnomes "profit" point. It glosses over the middle point of how, exactly this will be profitable. I'm sure it will, for companies that license the tech and maybe for auto manufactures who sell it, but for Uber? Their current capital expenses are minimum, they're a middleman who skims off the top, and that is (potentially, generally) a very profitable position to be in. If they plan on owning a fleet of cars, that they will have to maintain and replace, that changes the equation. That will also mean a lot more [actual] employees to deal with these vehicles, plus probably land to park them and charge them up when not in use. Now they do get to keep 100% of the fare in this case, but I don't think that equation will balance out well for them without magical hand-waving.
Behind all of this, and not actually stated in the article (other than a couple benefits) is a notion that self driving cars are actually going to be good for society, and I don't know how that is true either. Yes, there are discreet cases where individuals would benefit from a self-driving vehicle in some way that they wouldn't from improved mass transit or existing taxi services, but for most people they'll be just another neat gadget...and in the case of broad implementation, they are likely to make traffic worse, not better.
1. After outlining some of the reasons that self-driving cars is a very difficult problem, the article makes it seem like they'll still be here any day now.
2. The idea that self driving cars are going to save lives is almost tautological and so really quite stupid.
3. The insistence that this will be a huge financial boon for [Uber...among others] comes from...?
As for the first point, just no. People who drive think driving is "easy" and so we should be able to have a computer do it even better, but driving isn't like doing algebra. When we drive we are taking advantage of two things that humans do much, much better than computers: visual processing and pattern recognition (and extrapolation). Computers have gotten much better at both of those things, but we do them so easily that we don't even recognize that we are doing them, and computers are still nowhere close to us.
The second point is one of those annoying points that isn't really a point. Yes, if self driving works it will be safer as the definition of it working will be that it is safe (as computers don't drink, fall asleep...if it is safe it will be safer than human drivers) but this comes back to point 1: we aren't actually close.
The 3rd point is the underwear gnomes "profit" point. It glosses over the middle point of how, exactly this will be profitable. I'm sure it will, for companies that license the tech and maybe for auto manufactures who sell it, but for Uber? Their current capital expenses are minimum, they're a middleman who skims off the top, and that is (potentially, generally) a very profitable position to be in. If they plan on owning a fleet of cars, that they will have to maintain and replace, that changes the equation. That will also mean a lot more [actual] employees to deal with these vehicles, plus probably land to park them and charge them up when not in use. Now they do get to keep 100% of the fare in this case, but I don't think that equation will balance out well for them without magical hand-waving.
Behind all of this, and not actually stated in the article (other than a couple benefits) is a notion that self driving cars are actually going to be good for society, and I don't know how that is true either. Yes, there are discreet cases where individuals would benefit from a self-driving vehicle in some way that they wouldn't from improved mass transit or existing taxi services, but for most people they'll be just another neat gadget...and in the case of broad implementation, they are likely to make traffic worse, not better.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Good Dem Candidate Rundowns
Not sure how far Vox is going to go with these, but they have three up now, one each for Sanders, Warren, and Biden. They are trying to make the "best" case for each candidate. Reading them all, I think the one for Warren makes the best case for president (i.e. that she would be the most effective president of the bunch), the one for Sanders makes the best case for ability to win [the 2020 general election] and the one for Biden is just, well, weak--it may be right, but it's a weak argument.
At some level, it probably doesn't matter too much who wins, but of the candidates left I like Warren and Sanders both--I had hoped one would drop out to support the other by now but they're both too high up in the polls for that. I think Biden is a bad choice, I don't really care for Buttigieg either, Klobuchar is fine but there are better options no matter what your big issue is, and I've no idea why Steyer or Bloomberg are even in the race or, for that matter, if they still are (also not sure if Gabbard is still in, though she does/did at least have a different perspective on some things even if I disagree with her on those differences).
At some level, it probably doesn't matter too much who wins, but of the candidates left I like Warren and Sanders both--I had hoped one would drop out to support the other by now but they're both too high up in the polls for that. I think Biden is a bad choice, I don't really care for Buttigieg either, Klobuchar is fine but there are better options no matter what your big issue is, and I've no idea why Steyer or Bloomberg are even in the race or, for that matter, if they still are (also not sure if Gabbard is still in, though she does/did at least have a different perspective on some things even if I disagree with her on those differences).
Monday, January 27, 2020
The Joe Rogan & Bernie Sanders Thing
First, read this.
I don't think he should have so publicly accepted/commented on the "endorsement" but I don't think he should [have] reject[ed] it either. What I'm really seeing here is that anti-trans sentiments are far more toxic today than just a few years ago. The LGBTQ community has, in the past 6 years become much more broadly accepted--yes, particularly on the left, but even somewhat on the right--to the point that expressing anti-[any of those] sentiments makes you the bad guy among a sizable portion of the population.
That is, IMO, a good thing.
Still, a lot of the rage directed at Sanders does feel off. How many of the haters were Clinton supporters--the Clinton-Kissinger thing was far worse? How about Obama supporters--among his foibles, he was anti-gay marriage (until he wasn't), his actual actions as president on the war front were less than stellar and his team's reaction to the financial crisis was to bail out banks and screw over homeowners?
I get that Joe Rogan has regressive views that shouldn't be championed, but between Clinton, Sanders and Obama, I'd put Sanders on the highest moral ground (that does not mean I think he would be the best president, I'm not really sure the most morally good person can be a good president). If the backlash seemed like people disappointed that Sanders would do something bad--and some of it may be--that would be more appropriate, but it really seems like people who don't like Sanders seeing an opportunity to pounce.
...it doesn't help that so many Sanders supporters are assholes, but the man himself doesn't seem to be.
I don't think he should have so publicly accepted/commented on the "endorsement" but I don't think he should [have] reject[ed] it either. What I'm really seeing here is that anti-trans sentiments are far more toxic today than just a few years ago. The LGBTQ community has, in the past 6 years become much more broadly accepted--yes, particularly on the left, but even somewhat on the right--to the point that expressing anti-[any of those] sentiments makes you the bad guy among a sizable portion of the population.
That is, IMO, a good thing.
Still, a lot of the rage directed at Sanders does feel off. How many of the haters were Clinton supporters--the Clinton-Kissinger thing was far worse? How about Obama supporters--among his foibles, he was anti-gay marriage (until he wasn't), his actual actions as president on the war front were less than stellar and his team's reaction to the financial crisis was to bail out banks and screw over homeowners?
I get that Joe Rogan has regressive views that shouldn't be championed, but between Clinton, Sanders and Obama, I'd put Sanders on the highest moral ground (that does not mean I think he would be the best president, I'm not really sure the most morally good person can be a good president). If the backlash seemed like people disappointed that Sanders would do something bad--and some of it may be--that would be more appropriate, but it really seems like people who don't like Sanders seeing an opportunity to pounce.
...it doesn't help that so many Sanders supporters are assholes, but the man himself doesn't seem to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)