According to multiple Tesla owners in another thread, Autopilot will continue to drive as long as the seatbelt is buckled. There doesn't need to be weight in the driver's seat.
Response to dang: I disagree with the no-delete policy (our comments are ours and we should have the ability to delete them), but more importantly I refuse to leave a comment up when my ability to reply has been disabled.
Edited: Nevermind, I guess HN users prefer to remain unaware of certain undocumented behavior.
To dang: I disagree with the no-delete policy (our comments are ours and we should have the ability to delete them), but more importantly I refuse to leave a comment up when my ability to reply has been disabled.
> “[Investigators] are 100-percent certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact,” Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman said. “They are positive.”
This would only be possible if they were using the autopilot feature.
> the fire service did not know how to deal with the fire.
Tesla's advice is "let it burn":
> Tesla’s guidance suggests it’s better to let the fire burn out than continuing to try to put it out.
It's still somewhat difficult to find a clear explanation because the admins were banning people who mentioned her by name (despite the fact that she is a public/political figure in the UK). That had an extremely chilling effect on the discussions, but now the Streisand Effect is kicking in.
The NY Times accidentally exposed this whole charade when they attempted to justify McNeil's firing by saying "intent doesn't matter".
People immediately started pointing out all the instances where another NY Times writer (Nikole Hannah-Jones) has used the N-word. Many of those instances are tweets that she has only very recently deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211163617/https://twitter.c...
Once again, you are ignoring the context in which the statement was made and then using that to change the subject and justify your pedantry.
The statement was obviously about personality traits, that much was clear based on the context in which the statement was made (this HN thread). You are now ignoring the context in which the statement was made and instead focusing on the use of the word 'context' within the statement itself. To make it easier for you to understand, here is what was implied by the statement given the context in which it was made "There's literally no context where attributing PERSONALITY qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."
Your argument about medical conditions is not only wrong (as pointed out by another commenter), it's completely irrelevant and off-topic. The discussion was only about personality traits until you tried to derail it.
You're changing the subject. This topic is about personality traits, not medical conditions.
This statement is still true: "There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."
You wanted to be pedantic, so you ignored the context in which that statement was made. If you hadn't ignored the context, you would've known the statement was about personality traits and not medical conditions.
> (1) It was not clear to us, with any level of certainty, whether either tool did anything more useful than filter out people who don't want to take the test / don't trust "AI".
There's at least one way this is beneficial for the employer: Desperate, obsequious job-seekers will be more willing to tolerate the degradation of being judged by a computer. It's perfect for finding employees who will ask "How high?" when you tell them to jump.
I applied to a few jobs at United Healthcare and they kept sending me HireVue interview invitations. Every time I rejected them and when prompted for feedback I said I don't want to be evaluated by a computer. Never heard anything from them (and didn't expect to).
I'm always afraid this will happen when I use a VPN or TOR. The internet in general is pretty hostile to any sort of privacy protecting measures, which they justify by saying your activity looks "suspicious". I've already been locked out of my Facebook account once because I forgot to turn my VPN off.
The last time I used TOR it was almost impossible to do anything on the internet. Every Google search was met with "We detected you are a bot" and every website interaction was blocked by never-ending CAPTCHAs.
> How much do you think it should cost to get a former president to give a talk?
Nothing. Or, on second thought, maybe a large donation to a children's hospital. I would expect a public servant from the highest office to be committed to public service. The presidency shouldn't be monetized, but if a former president really needs money they could always sell a book. That doesn't create any perverse incentives like speaking fees.
DoorDash had an arbitration clause that said they would pay the filing fee. Robinhood doesn't have that in their arbitration clause. As far as I can tell, they don't specify who pays but it's possible the arbitration agency (FINRA) has some law governing that I guess.
If not, it's probably safe to assume the consumer has to pay the fee.
I had the same thought because DoorDash was once pummeled with arbitration fees by angry drivers, and it looks like Robinhood doesn't specify who pays the fee. I'm assuming that leaves the burden on the consumer, but maybe their arbitrator (FINRA) has some rule I'm missing.
> I read WSB daily for years and cannot recall a single usage of a racial slur.
Same, I've been a subscriber of WSB since at least 4 years ago. I also check TheDonald.win (now Patriots.win) on a regular basis. Both are constantly accused of racism and/or white supremacy and yet I see none of either.
People use terms like 'racist', 'nazi', 'fascist' and many others as synonyms for "any person or thing I don't like or disagree with". It's also the media's favorite new strategy for discrediting sources that contradict their chosen narrative.