And then, Figure 4, 15 deployments are counted before instillation while no additional mileage is counted for the before instillation group. [pg.16] Could the NHTSA group really have done that? It give us an incredible rate of 15/0 deployments/mi without autosteer which violates some very important law of arithmetic, statistics and common sense.
I'm going to hold my breath until we see the data these claims are based on.
The plot thickens there in Figure 3 where they suggest mistreatment of deployments/miles that occur between `Prev Mileage before Autosteer Install Reported` and `Next Mileage after Autosteer Install Reported` "result in estimates of the true exposure that are statistically biased downward – resulting in crash rates that are somewhat too large." [pg.13]
This bit about before autosteer install airbag deployment counts coming from vehicles with 0 miles of before autosteer install distance is certainly odd, if true. "That is, simply because the data are missing for the Previous Mileage before Autosteer Install and the “Next Mileage after Autosteer Install,” NHTSA’s method of calculation assumes that all of the exposure mileage must belong to the “after Autosteer” category. The three airbag deployments without any exposure mileage in the “before Autosteer” category show this is not the case. " [pg.11-12]
simplicity of neighbors; triangles 3 classes of neighbors, squares 2 classes of neighbors, hexagons only one class of neighbor!
* Subdivisions
Squares obviously do this pretty well but by alternating cw, cww rotations and allowing not quite perfect coverage they get to shard with different resolutions/hex sizes.
* Distortion
"most important" Basically the use case here is visualizations that maintain basic unit appearance. They even pick the location of their vertices to be over water minimizing land distortions.
p.s. as `contravariant` said you can't tessellate a sphere with hexagons so they project onto a icosohedron with pentagons at each of the twelve vertices (positioned over water) https://youtu.be/ay2uwtRO3QE?t=23m00s
@ariwilson you work at google. since we're on the topic of truth and the actions of your corporate sponsor.
but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
"We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."
'codelord:working on ml @google' haha. using accrued inertia/loyalty to bully/force `mit ocw` and `blender` to adopt more convenient terms for the company is, at minimum, a dick move.
but i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
Probably a super unpopular opinion here on hn but your boss `aint completely wrong. It's not a bad strategy when considering starting a business relationship with someone or something you don't know much about.
maybe it's just me but i feel like using of any of these "tools" would slow me down when compared to using the equivalent shell-foo or a language built-in/library.
also seems like a terribly brittle externality to add to my life
Seems like a good kind of work to spread, thanks for sharing.