Contributing to something which could be used by the military is different to contributing to something which will be used by the military specifically.
For two year old top tier video cards which are only top-tier because the manufacturer is not releasing later models to try and get rid of the old stock? Probably not.
(I have no evidence that they are not releasing newer cards just to continue to sell the older stock at MSRP).
This has been a real problem with facial recognition. Faces used to train engines are typically Caucasian, so the ability to distinguish other ethnicities is quite sub-par.
It was always going to be that way. Threadripper 2 is just Threadripper with the two blank spacers in the IHS replaced with two more Zen dies, and a fab process change from 14nm to 12nm (but not architectural changes). It's very much what would be a "tick" in Intel CPU terminology.
The segway died because it was trivial to tip it over without a lot of practice and training, which is not ideal for adults, and it cost thousands of dollars to purchase.
The total outlay for a 1.5M Bird trip is a buck 90, and you can use one if you've ever ridden a push scooter or bicycle as a child.
Why not ask them to do it? No need to be confrontational. "Hey, could you put that in the rack just down the street? It gets in the way of disabled people, families with strollers, the elderly... Thanks."
Which part of my abridged version missed vital technical details or changed the fundamental meaning of what Linus said? It's not PR speak, it's treating others with dignity. Linus seems to think that isn't important. He'll be programming the Linux kernel with only AI for companions at this rate.
Swearing in general doesn't damage morale, but swearing at and verbally abusing someone does very much so. That's exactly the kind of treatment that would lead me, if I were a developer, to walk away from the project.
In fact, here's an edit which gets his point over in less words, and more clearly:
"Honestly, this looks questionable to me. [U]sing a union to do type punning is the traditional AND STANDARD way to do type punning in gcc. In fact, it is the documented way to do it for gcc. The fact is that gcc documents type punning through unions as the "right way". You may disagree with that, but using the [C] standard to push it - the same standard that came up with the completely mis-guided aliasing rules - is not a valid argument. his is why we use -fwrapv, -fno-strict-aliasing etc. The standard simply is not important, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.
So what's the _real_ reason for avoiding union aliasing?"
No swearing, no abuse, all points covered, less typing required. No talk of splinters.
They do expect you to change that posture if Autopilot does something you think is dangerous, though. Wandering out of lane uninitiated (lane change indication, for example) and accelerating towards a barrier would likely count as one of those situations.
I've yet to see an incident so far where a human driver, properly engaged with the driving experience and road conditions as they should be when in charge of a vehicle, couldn't have taken action and prevented the accident. There were 7 seconds between the beginning of the maneuver and impact; Human reaction time (including taking action) is typically 0.5 seconds. That leaves 6.5 seconds to correct steering or apply the brake, bearing in mind that Autopilot will always relinquish control in either situation.
Not apologising for Tesla, they need to sort out this edge case, but that's exactly what it was and exactly why the driver is supposed to remain engaged.
While using Autopilot (Big A), there should be a loud klaxon every 30 seconds followed by a notification "CHECK ROAD CONDITIONS" and "REMAIN ENGAGED WITH DRIVING" in the same urgent tone of an aircraft autopilot (small a) warning system.
Tesla did make a mistake calling it Autopilot, but only because regular folk don't understand that aircraft autopilot is literally a heading, altitude, and speed, and will not make any correction for fault. Aircraft autopilot will fly you straight into a mountain if one happens to be in the way.
How long ago was this? You could take it up with someone higher up the food chain, providing you can demonstrate your successes and prove the review is unjust. A decent company doesn't want to lose talented, hard working employees through the malicious actions of middle managers.
But this is an enclosed system. Can't those blinding factor values also be pulled via the same monitoring techniques, or at least give enough information to reduce the number of possible values for brute forcing them?