Next year Tesla will be launching it's robotaxi service, I'm sure all the bugs will be fixed by then!

Or were they planning on having it drive like a typical taxi driver?

Multiple testers reported that the Tesla often changed lanes in ways that a safe human driver wouldn't -- ... and passing on the right.

From Passing on the Right

In most states, it is legal to pass on the right under certain conditions.
In Virginia, a driver is allowed to pass another vehicle on the right:

1: When the other vehicle is making or is about to make a left turn, and its driver has given the required signal;
2: On a roadway that is wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction, as long as the roadway is free from obstructions (such as parked vehicles);
3: On a one-way street that is wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles, as long as the roadway is free from obstructions.

Drivers are not allowed to pass on the right unless they can do so safely. Also, drivers are not allowed to pass on the shoulder of the highway or off the pavement (i.e., off the main traveled portion of the roadway) unless there is a lawfully placed sign that specifically permits passing in these areas.

As far as "cutting too closely in front of other cars", I once squeezed my way into a line of traffic right in front of a Police car. He pulled me over and yammered about cutting in too closely. I replied, "perhaps you were following too closely" (which he definitely was). He let me go, but wasn't super happy about it.

Take a shot every time there is a Slashdot story bashing, or encouraging rants about, Tesla or Apple.
A decade ago it was Microsoft who got the shit kicked out of them on a daily basis here. (Remember the Bill Gates "Borg" icon?)
How times have changed.

Get serious yourself and RTFA. An Air Force attorney is working on the defense of a Navy SEAL accused (by his own men) of war crimes. The Navy prosecutor team sent infected emails to the defense team and to the privately-owned publication "Navy Times" in an effort to track leaks. Since it was one of the Air Force computers that was infected, they are conducting an inquiry into to what exactly happened. This incident has resulted on serious claims of prosecutorial misconduct that could get the case thrown out.

And for the record, bases ARE shared. JBLM, for example, is "Joint Base (Fort) Lewis (and Air Force Base) McChord." The administration of both facilities is shared. Not that it matters since we're talking cyberspace anyway. One would think someone on Slashdot would readily understand that.

Judge Learned Hand wrote about this. There is a choice between two bad alternatives, he wrote. If prosecutors keep their traditional immunity for their actions as prosecutors, bad prosecutors can only be punished criminally or via removal and disbarment, not via civil suits.

  If prosecutors are open to civil suits for every decision they make about what charges to bring and what evidence to put on, it would roughly double the number of court cases. Almost every defendant would want to either sue the prosecutor or threaten to, making that part of a plea bargain.

Even worse, since every not-guilty verdict would be ripe for a improper prosecution suit, prosecutors would know it's either get a conviction or pay up personally - a strong incentive to get a conviction by whatever means necessary.

You mentioned "the 1970s", which suggests you were thinking of Imbler v Pachtman. The prosecutor, Pachtman,
continued to investigate and discovered new evidence after Imbler had been convicted, and brought that to light I case it might set Imbler free. Would Pachtman have kept investgating and brought forth evidence of Imbler's innocence in this case if Imbler being found not guilty would subject Pachtman to liability? Probably not.

Imbler's lawyer said Pachtman's conduct was in "the highest tradition of law enforcement and justice," as a premier example of "devotion to duty." Do we want to discourage that?

There seems to be no good answer.

I kind of miss the days when pretty much everyone you'd find on the Internet was reasonably intelligent. Sure, there were assholes and unpleasant people, but even most of them showed some level of intelligence and rational thought.

Now that the Internet is mainstream, the stupid has gone off the charts.

The original complaints were a combination of legitimate complaints ("storing logs as binary files makes them hard to parse", "There's a buffer overflow in systemd-bananadctl!") and utterly incomprehensibly stupid complaints ("Pottering sucks! The Unix way has always been tiny tools that don't do anything! Nobody ever complained about sysvinit, it was perfect and nobody in the history of GNU ever had a computer not boot up because of dependency problems!")

From what I see, the legitimate complaints have been addressed as they come up. But it's probably hard for the SystemD developers to get a handle on what's a real complaint and what isn't given the campaign against it by embittered 14 year olds who think they know "Lunix" because they're a whiz with PHP scripting.

SystemD isn't perfect, but it's a good attempt to replace something that's been obsolete - in the sense of not suited for the job - since the mid-nineties, when we started to see ubiquitous networking.

If any of that was true, companies like SUSE that have been shipping systemd as the default on our enterprise offerings for years would be flooded with service requests from angry users. We simply arenâ(TM)t. Systemd as we are using it today is rock solid and enables many use cases like our transactional MicroOS with read-only filesystem that would be very hard or impossible to implement without it.

systemd is like the Borg. Eventually, it will assimilate the kernel, all gnu utils, and X.

Eventually Systemd and Emacs will have to fight it out. I'm betting on Emacs for the win.

Parents have to actually go through a process to get 504 designation for their kids. Wealthy parents are generally more involved in their kids education than poor parents. This probably accounts for the vast majority of the disparity, and anyone gaming the system--if they exist--is a infinitesimally small minority.

If the take up of extra time is skewed towards the wealthy then either the wealthy are simply less fortunate and suffer from more adverse conditions, or more likely the rules are not being applied properly and fairly to all.

You miss the explanation that because their parents are wealthy they have the resources to identify those conditions in their children and have them appropriately certified so that their children can take advantage of these policies. There are probably children less well off who should have additional time, but their parents never thought to have their child examined or were completely unaware that these policies exist at all.

The general rule is that in any system, the people with the most resources are best able to take advantage of it. For example, subsidy programs designed to help independent farmers have a majority of the funding devoted to a small minority of farmers who are already doing well economically. They found similar results when examining a program designed to help African American business owners and in one case found that one of the people who received a grant was just a figurehead for a company that was really being run by her white husband who was already wealthy from other business ventures.

Take-up rates should not be related to how much time and money the parents have to spend on applying for them, they should be related to the adverse conditions in each child's life.

Sure in an ideal world yes. Unfortunately we don't have the time or money to assess this or even a good way of doing the assessment. Maybe 30 years from now when we've automated more of our economy we'll be able to devote the necessary labor towards individual and personalize education, but it isn't going to happen now.

The number of times I had to finish a math problem in limited time*, outside of a school setting, is exactly zero. So how is a timed math test useful? If anything, it's weeding out people who would be good mathematicians, because that requires thinking for a very long time about a very deep problem rather than reflective applications of well-studied rules. In fact, people I know who majored in math in college weren't very quick doing algebra and arithmetic.

*Yes, there's taxes and such, but the time limit is on the order of months rather than minutes.

Any college professor will tell you that the system is abused often and systematically. Every semester, I have students with no previously declared disabilities who suddenly discover that they have a learning disability after taking my first exam. All they need is a doctor's evaluation (which is easily obtained), and they receive accommodations. It's the perfect system, since the "disability" does not show up on the student's transcript, and essentially disappears from their record the moment they graduate.

What is interesting is that rarely does the extra test time result in any improvement in the student's test performance. If I had my choice, I'd give all of my students two or three hours to work a one-hour exam. Doing so would force many students to confront the truth that lack of time isn't their problem; it's lack of understanding of the material. Unfortunately, the system doesn't work that way. You have to work within the time constraints of the one-hour lecture format.

But the SATs don't need to work that way. This issue can be solved by making the SAT an 8-hour exam for everyone. Give all the students enough time to double-check every answer. Most students will leave after 5 or 6 hours. As for the rest, I expect (from years of teaching experience) that the point of diminishing returns will kick in long before 8 hours is up.

Do that, and the problem of bogus disabilities will largely disappear once the extra time confers no real advantage.

These kind of tests have nothing to do with the types of problems you regularly face with a given programming job.

I'll let you in on a secret: Interviewing isn't about "solving the problem". It is about "interviewing".

The interviewer doesn't much care if you get the right answer. They want to see how you think, and how you approach problem solving. You don't need a "real world" problem for that.

An astounding number of people that apply for programming jobs have no ability to write code. This includes people that have degrees in CS. These people can talk the talk, they know all the buzz words, they can analyze an algorithm for complexity. But when you actually ask them to write code from scratch, they fail. The only way to filter these people out is by including some coding problems in the interview process.

Him getting the one exact question he had prepared for reminds me of a lucky thing that happened to me in an interview.

Interviewer: Which Linux distros are you most familiar with?

Me: I use Redhat / Centos for almost everything.

Interviewer (frowning): We use Debian. Do you have experience with Debian?

Me: Are you on the Debian security mailing list?

Interviewer: Yes ... ?

Me: Can you pull up the Debian announcement from this morning real quick?

Debian security alert email: Ray Morris discovered (a big security issue in Debian)

He had no more questions about my Debian experience after that. :)

From the interviewing side, it doesn't really matter if you got the answer right, or could even complete it. Especially as an entry-level hire. Sure, it's a plus, but it's not a giant one.

What I'm looking for when I ask these kinds of questions is how do you approach the problem, what is your thought process while solving it, how do you respond to any wrenches I throw into it, and do you understand a more elegant solution when I lead you to it or provide it. (It's also a spot-check on do you understand the basics of the language, but that's a secondary use of these questions)

The fact that you could or could not solve it isn't all that important - we can all find google and it's extremely unlikely that you will actually face these kinds of trick problems in the real world.

In the real world, you'd do something inefficient but simple-to-read and only switch to an elegant and fast solution if the profiler show it to be a bottleneck. Saving 100ms is huge, but if you only do it once in the lifetime of a long-running process, it isn't worth your time or the time of everyone after you who has to take 5 minutes to understand the elegant solution.

So the questions are about you and the way you think, not whether or not you get the right answer.

TL:DR - TFAuthor wasn't being asked what they thought they were, so they did not cheat.

On the other hand, I was once asked a question in an interview (convert a C-string of digits to the equivalent integer), I gave the textbook answer from my college's computer architecture course, and the producer interviewing me refused to believe it worked. Even after I stepped him through a concrete example. I did not get that job.

Full story.

I would setup a new table in Oracle with a unique constraint on the column. Then I would use a SQL builder and insert items until I get an error. I would parse the XML error response, and infer from it whether it was the unique constraint that was violated.

Efficiency is my middle name!

The real intention of the programmable browser wasn't to build useful, efficient applications and make them available to people, it was to ensure control over distribution of said applications (and user data).

Going from a so-so scripting language to C/C++ often gives a speed-up like that. The only people surprised by this are members of the current crop of incompetent coders that never used C, C++ or assembler.

Presumably, this is written for a portable device with battery power. In this environment, speed isn't everything. Power usage is important too.

Starting three separate threads to perform the same task and taking the output of the one that wins the race does is not a power-efficient solution. 2/3rds of the power is being wasted.

This sounds like a unprofessional hack in every way.

Conservative is a relative term to the status quo. What you are describing no longer applies to the word "conservative" because the status quo has changed. What you are describing is classically liberal, and - in modern times - libertarian.

The status quo conservatives want to return to does not include racism, nor does if lack vaccinations, nor does it lack space travel, etc. There are bits of modernity that conservatives approve of. You are confusing the manufactured impressions of political operatives of the left with reality.

The reality of generational earnings potential would rather suggest that you were lucky. But if you'd rather attribute your relative success to the failings of others to feel good, then that's ok, too.

Ah, the classic "It wasn't true communism", except for Progressives.

Hint : Progressivism as a movement is what this is. On the surface, virtue signaling. Dig a bit : it's all about narcissist trying to hold themselves above every one else.

... is why don't these obscenely rich companies just drop a hundred million or so and pull up a few microhome areas somewhere near by? It can't be *that* difficult. Yeah, SF has a housing crisis. Well, then, build some houses. Aren't lifestyle designs changing to make this possible without everyone needing to waste half an acre of land for their mansion? How hard can it be? ... I don't get it.

No, I think this will have lasting power. It isn't that that asshole has made the U.S. unreliable for a bit, it is that a sizable portion of the American electorate think this is a good idea. The feeling that the U.S. is not going to be reliable will last for a long time.

Time to move all standards bodies out of the US. We already had to move a bunch of conferences because of travel visa problems.

China can retaliate to this, no problem. I wonder what a month of no Chinese goods arriving at US borders would do to the CHINESE economy.

Fixed that for you. Think about which is more valuable, the cheap crap from China, or the cash the US pays for it. They would be hurting themselves as much, or more than they'd be hurting the US.

Don't underestimate China's willingness to put you in the ice box until you come back on their terms, even if it hurts them in the short term. They know Trump needs to win the 2020 election and they know how much his voter demographic depends on cheap crap from China at Wal-Mart, if Trump wants a trade war with China they'll make sure it hurts. The US owes China 1.2 trillion dollars, one month's lost exports would cost about 45 billion so in the short term it'd be much easier for China to burn money than for the US to find 45 billion worth of goods elsewhere. If you consider that the US has a 107% debt-to-GDP ration and China is at 48% on a 12.2 trillion dollar economy they could easily lend $5+ trillion dollar more if they had to.

That's really the problem in everything dealing with China, as much as we'd like to punish them for pollution and human rights violations and stealing IP and aggression in the South China sea and whatnot their economy runs well and is too big to be effectively punished because they'll just punish us back. Even when you know it's happening big companies would rather get a piece of that pie even though it's got poison in it. And from afar it has a certain ruthless efficiency to it, as long as you don't look too closely at the individuals they steamroll. They draw high speed rail lines the way European imperialists drew borders in Africa, all it takes is a map and a ruler. Just don't ask the Africans what they feel about it.

That's how American governments portray every government it wants to get rid of...

True and utterly irrelevant as the Chinese gov't makes no attempt to hide the fact.

I'd say, publicly at least, this is about the *potential* for spying.

Privately, this is more about Huawei's systemically awful business practices. When they were first getting into the backbone business, they'd have people working at Ericson and Nokia feeding them RFQs from prospective customers, then they'd send salesmen to those customers with quotes half as much. It didn't matter what the equipment or service actually cost, the Chinese government was funding everything and selling at a loss just to get in the door. They've been busted multiple times for this, but nobody at corporate gets into trouble (or if they do they are rotated into different positions.)

https://www.voanews.com/a/huaw...

Xenophon describes whole armies equipped with them in Western Armenia. Others had grass shields with a similar reinforcement and slight figure 8 shape.

Xenophon describes whole armies equipped with them in Western Armenia. Others had grass shields with a similar reinforcement and slight figure 8 shape.

Most European shields were thought to have been made of either plywood or planks glued together at the edges and faced back and front with 3mm rawhide. This is well documented, largely due to the Scandinavian's obsession with sacrificing large quantities of captured weapons by throwing them into bogs. The plywood construction was thought to have been lost after the fall of the Roman empire until a couple of these shields were found in Norway and another in Germany which additionally was edged with a screen of braided grass. Which was a complete surprise since nothing of the sort is depicted in contemporary art or mentioned in contemporary texts other than a single sentence in a 12th century Norwegian law mandating plywood shields. This picture contains the grand total of the three original shields found by archeologists that date from the year 1000 to about 1250 or so that still survive in museums:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals...

This is the same as archaeologists 3000 years from now trying to reconstruct the equipment of 21st century armies while having only to having two AK-47s and a Steyer AUG rifle to go on, in that case they'd be unaware of the M4 which is one of the most heavily used combat rifles of our time. The fact that this shield is made of bark makes this shield quite unique and interesting. An even more interesting question is how long were shields like this made and used? Into the dark ages? The Middle ages? The Renaissance? It just brings into focus how big the gaps in the find material for any kind of organic objects are (due to decomposition) and even non-organic metal objects (due to metal recycling).

Training to be a youtube star? That's just stupid.

Not at all. Look at the world around you. Look at who's in the White House.

Being able to exploit and manipulate social media is probably the most important skill there is.

... signing my kid up now.

$375 for a week is cheap even if you look at it in terms of daycare. $1000 a week is less than many other summer camps.

-- It's not about the money, money, money. - Shmoop

Yeah. And $10,000 will seem cheap compared to the psychologists you're gonna have to hire by the time these kids hit puberty, after being professionally trained to be a social media narcissist and internet addict, only to find the world doesn't need more of you.

Part of the formula for winning the social media lottery (an accurate description of the chances of success) is uniqueness. Start running every wanna-be-narcissist through the same Look-At-Me Boot Camp, and the end results are likely as predictable and boring as watching the next generation of YouTubers look and act all the same.

Normally as a parent we cheer on success, but in this case, I hope dreams are crushed every day. A sense of worth should not be tied to clicks, likes, or online "friends", and yet that is exactly what we're fostering. And you wonder why kids would become damn near suicidal when those comments go viral negative, or their online popularity drops drastically.

Fuck Narcissist Boot Camp.

The camp is designed for those in first through sixth grade

I thought YouTube had age limits for it's users. Hey, wait: affirm 18, or affirm over 13. Does that give YT any legal shielding for teenagers? AND, I didn't realize that children (not of-age, or below 13 in the "contract") could enter into legal contracts anyway. OTOH there's no signature, so NO PROBLEM I guess.

12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service
You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, Blah blah blah. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the Service is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the Service.

Train rides you to work... Seriously, we will never have anything remotely this cool here, because Republicans can only cut taxes for the wealthy while making the middle class pay for everything else.