Yes.

100% monitoring and control doesn’t exist. Your children will find a loophole to access unrestricted internet, it’s what they do.

Similarly, children will play in the street sometimes despite their parents’ best efforts to keep them in. (And yes, I would penalize Ford for building the trucks that have exploded in size and are more likely to kill children, but that’s a separate discussion.)

I get what you’re saying, I just think it’s wrong to say “parental responsibility” and dust off your hands like you solved the problem. A parent cannot exert their influence 24/7, they cannot be protecting their child 24/7. And that means that we need to rely on society to establish safer norms, safer streets, etc, so that there’s a “soft landing” when kids inevitably rebel, or when the parent is in the shower for 15 minutes.

I’m confused, are you saying that it was the 11 year old girl’s personal responsibility to avoid being the victim of sexual abuse? Or are you saying that it was her parents’ responsibility to be monitoring her technology use 24/7?

Neither seems right to me…

Now the predators will just continue to do there thing in a darker hole that is even harder to find.

If it’s harder to find, then fewer children stumble upon it and get preyed upon, which is a good thing.

But it’s actually not that bad… It’s not good beer but whatever it is, it’s nice 🙂

It can be both, and I’m not sure I see the distinction. It’s a coping mechanism, and that’s not actually an awful thing.

Growing up in church, nobody was creating hypotheticals and then trying to explain it using religion. It’s just not what it was about. But I guess if you brought up babies with cancer, then yeah the “mysterious ways” argument would have been a prime cop out to avoid challenging faith too much.

Most commonly, people just wanted to know how to handle the (typically less hyperbolic) challenges in their own lives. They believed they were good and faithful and didn’t understand why God would allow bad things to happen in their lives. Ultimately the “mysterious ways” line was just a coping mechanism, that came with advice to search for the silver linings, and think about past challenges and how they resolved, as evidence of the mysterious ways. Of course it also served to avoid challenging their faith too.

At the end of the day, religion has its very bad elements that I won’t defend. But it’s silly to ignore that for most people, they’re looking for ways to interpret life in order to find meaning, or maybe cope with struggles. For myself, I’m not religious, but if I were trying to help a friend dealing with something difficult in life, I would still encourage them to look for silver linings and to reflect on past challenges. Not to use it as evidence for some god working in mysterious ways, but just to give them perspective to realize that they have the strength to overcome challenges.

Yeah, I get dinged if I return a gas vehicle with less than 3/4 tank, and yet Hertz is handing out EVs with under half a charge?? That’s some major bullshit.

Usually it’s a bunch of different string hashes of the text content. They could be different hashing algorithms, but it’s more common to take a single hash algorithm and simply create a bunch of hash functions that operate on different parts of the data.

If it’s not text data, there’s a whole bunch of other hashing strategies but I only ever saw bloom filters used with text.

People aren’t misunderstanding the issue. Third party cookie support is being dropped by all browsers. Chrome is also dropping them, but replacing them with topics. Sure, topics is less invasive than third party cookies, but it is still more invasive than the obvious user friendly approach of not having an invasive tracker built into your browser. No other major browser vendor is considering supporting topics. So they’re doing an objectively user unfriendly thing here. This is the shit that happens when the world’s largest internet advertising company also controls the browser.

A classic use for them is spam filtering.

Suppose you have a set of spam detection systems/rules which are somewhat expensive to execute, eg a ML model or keyword blocklist. Spam tends to come in waves, and frequently it can be as simple as reposting the same message dozens of times.

Once your systems determine a piece of content is spam (or you manually flag content), it’s a good idea to insert the content into a bloom filter. This means that future posts of the identical content will be flagged without needing to execute the expensive checks, especially if there’s a surge of content stressing your systems.

Since it’s probabilistic, you can’t use this unless you have some sort of manual reviewing queue or system, as it’s possible for false positives to be flagged. However, you can also run more intensive checks once you’ve flagged content, to detect false positives.

The false positives can also be a feature, not a bug: with careful choice of hash functions, your bloom filter can actually detect slightly modified content, since most of the hashes may still be the same.

I’ve worked at companies which use this strategy so it’s very real world.

In other news, emacs still didn’t ship my init.el as part of the default configuration! Lol

I’d argue that’s not true. That’s what the extern keyword is for. If you do #include , you don’t get the actual printf function defined by the preprocessor. You just get an extern declaration (though extern is optional for function signatures). The preprocessed source code that is fed to cc is still not complete, and cannot be used until it is linked to an object file that defines printf. So really, the unnamed “C preprocessor output language” can access functions or values from elsewhere.

I know this is a joke, but assuming you’re the author, then you’re under no obligation to follow the license. Only people to whom you transmitted the code are bound by its terms.

I think the core issue here is that you believe that it should be common and accepted for individuals to decide whether traffic rules “make sense” and ignore them based on their own individual assessment. I think that’s absurd.

“Impeding traffic” is quite the euphemism for “forcing people to slow down and drive the speed limit.” Call it what it is, a mild inconvenience that you wouldn’t even experience if you were following the rules that you’re upset about people breaking!

And the people who are “speeding but still being safe” do impact others too. It makes it much more dangerous for drivers doing the limit to merge into the left lanes in case of stopped vehicles, slow trucks, and merging traffic.

Honestly I was thinking more like 100mph

I remember doing that for my first (and only) time on the empty highways outside Salt Lake City in the early morning. It was exciting to try but fully concerning. I couldn’t imagine doing that around other vehicles.

It’s my belief that the people that jump on the highway and get 3 lanes over and just squat there not passing anyone that cause most traffic issues.

I mean, I think it’s clear that those are the people who cause the most issues for people who want to break the speed limit. And I fundamentally don’t believe you have the right to speed on a highway, and shouldn’t complain about missing out on opportunities to speed.

Like, I’m not saying left lane squatters are driving correctly, they should be over in the rightmost lane. But also all the other drivers, including you, should be going the speed limit. Why does one arbitrary rule about lane positioning matter so much to people, while the arbitrary speed limit is fine to ignore? Real talk: they’re both arbitrary rules. If you’re breaking the speed limit: SHUT UP about the lane squatters.

Speaking as a person who does the limit (65 locally) in the right lane, sometimes the second to right lane in case there’s a lot of entering/exiting traffic… 120mph? What? The fuck?

Humans aren’t designed to react to things at that speed. You need insane following distances to drive that speed safely. With all that extra following distance you don’t get much more throughput (vehicles per unit time). But what you do get is a ton more fatalities, because at that speed, when you meet stationary objects, all you can do is hope you had your affairs in order. No amount of crash safety tests help there.

I gotta say, that if you’re the person who’s so frustrated about people driving the speed limit on a highway, you’re the asshole. Like yeah, sure, they should be in the rightmost lane practicable. That’s annoying, but it slows you down by a few mph for a minute or two and that’s it.

If you want to move at 120+mph safely to your destination, take high speed rail. If you don’t have that in your region, start complaining.

Or, alternatively narrow and calm the road, because something is wrong with it. If a 20mph limit is set, there’s probably a good reason, but it’s not good enough to just put up the signs, you need to make people feel uncomfortable driving more than that on the road via calming measures.

I would imagine the risk of bias here is much lower than, for example, the predictive policing systems that are already in use in US police departments. Or the bias involved in ML models for making credit decisions. 🙃

someone playing music on their phone though the car audio (super common now) tapping the phone to ignore a call is just as much a crime as texting a novel to an ex.

They are all crimes. Set up your music before you go, or use voice command. Ignore the call with voice command or just let it go to voicemail. Lol. It’s not hard.

And you are kidding yourself if you think almost every person driving for a living is not at some level forced to use their phone by their company (I was)

This is a great of the strength of this system: this company will find its drivers and vehicles getting ticketed a lot, and they’ll have to come up with a way to allow drivers to do their jobs without interacting with their phones will moving at high speeds.

I would much rather have someone pulled over when driving erratically then the person getting an automated ticket 3 weeks after mowing down a pedestrian.

The camera doesn’t magically remove traffic enforcement humans from the road. They can still pull over the obviously drunk/erratic driver.

I literally watched cops driving while on their phone everyday after it was made illegal. Nothing was done, Nothing changed, they hand out tickets while breaking the same rules.

I mean yeah, fuck the police :) Seems like we’re in agreement here.

Might kill someone is a precrime, a issue with these tickets in this case is that without the AI camera nothing would have been seen (literally victimless). If someone crashes into anything while on their phone the chances it will be used in prosecution is low.

Using your fucking phone while driving is the crime. This isn’t some “thought police” situation. Put the phone away, and you won’t get the ticket. It’s that simple. We don’t need to wait for a person to mow down a pedestrian in order to punish them for driving irresponsibly.

In the same spirit, if a person gets drunk and drives home, and they don’t kill somebody – well that’s a crime and they should be punished for it.

And if you can’t handle driving responsibly, then the privilege of driving on public roads should be revoked.

I don’t think texting while driving is a good idea, like not wearing a seatbelt. However this is offloading a lot to AI, distracted driving is not well defined and considering the nuances I don’t want to leave any part to AI. Here is an example: eating a bowl of soup while operating a vehicle would be distracted right? What if the soup was in a cup? What if the soup was made of coffee beans?

This is such a weird ad absurdum argument. Nobody is telling some ML system “make a judgment call on whether the coffee bean soup is a distraction.” The system is identifying people violating a cut-and-dried law: using their phone while driving, or not wearing a seatbelt. Assuming it can do it in an unbiased way (which is a huge if, to be fair), then there’s no slippery slope here.

For what it’s worth, I do worry about ML system bias, and I do think the seatbelt enforcement is a bit silly: I personally don’t mind if a person makes a decision that will only impact their own safety. I care about the irresponsible decisions that people make affecting my safety, and I’d be glad for some unbiased enforcement of the traffic rules that protect us all.