HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

tbp105

no profile record

comments

tbp105
·3 jaar geleden·discuss
> > We can rethink our cities and move parking to the periphery

> Just moving parking to the periphery won't make American cities better or more walkable.

It certainly can make cities better. Removing street parking allows streets to be narrower, giving us room for larger sidewalks, bikepaths, outdoor seating in restaurants.

> > Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone

> If you're assuming that self-driving cars will be perfect and segregated, conditions will always be perfect (e.g. no pedestrians or bikes slipping), etc. etc. etc. Why would you?

Humans definitely aren't perfect, that's why there are so many collisions, deaths and injuries. Many of those occur in "ideal" conditions due to distracted driving. In exceptional conditions (where people, bikes, animals run into the road), humans have a pretty poor response too. You'd have to run the numbers (like insurance companies) to determine when they are generally better than humans.

There's also no reason you couldn't delegate parts of the road system as autonomous only, we already have areas that are pickup/dropoff or taxi only. Just expand them.

> > Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity

> The vast majority of driving can be replaced by already existing, proven and drastically more efficient tech - public transit.

Why not both? Put in your destination in an app and if there are enough people on the way, an autonomous bus can pick you up. If not, an autonomous car does.
tbp105
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
Your definition doesn't really matter... it is defined in criminal code https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...

The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
tbp105
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
Thankfully, the Monty Hall example here is explained well. Oftentimes it is explained in a way to make you think just the opposite. If you assume the House knows where the prize is, they'd have picked it (and won) when they reveal the door. So you'd be a sucker to switch. They went out of their way in this example to say that the host always opens a door without the prize rather than trying to win themselves, which gets you to the "surprising" answer that you should always switch. Maybe if you were familiar with the format of the show (I am not), you'd understand. But the question usually just states that the host knows where the prize is and you are expected to come to the unintuitive conclusion that they don't actually want to win.

The gamblers fallacy is also amusing in that it is almost the exact opposite of what people often think it should be. If you have an extremely unlikely string of "red" on the roulette wheel, rather than think that "black" is due, you should start to consider that the wheel isn't fair. So a gambler who thinks he is due for a win is far more likely to be just getting scammed.

Another way of looking at regression to the mean is basically the law of big numbers... infinity+1 is still infinity so no matter what the starting offset is (streak of improbable events), given enough rolls, it'll be irrelevant and you'll end up with the statistical probability.