|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Back in the world of disruption, Uber has put self-driving taxis on the road in SF... without complying with state regulations. They're really just being dicks for no reason at this point. That application is like three forms, a $150 fee and proof of insurance, I can't fathom why they wouldn't just do five minutes of paperwork to avoid the PR headache.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I get that you're just abandoning the original point and myopically focusing on a turn of phrase, but you didn't even do that right. The original point was that google is a company that needs to do machine vision research for it's core business of searching/sorting/categorizing images and video and that also applying that to autonomous navigation is a thing that is extremely common and a bunch of machine vision labs also have some robot that uses machine vision and a car is just a subset of that. It was only later that this turned into to a weird circle jerk on if google bothers to make code libraries or not or if they just reuse ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:They're really just being dicks for no reason at this point. That application is like three forms, a $150 fee and proof of insurance, I can't fathom why they wouldn't just do five minutes of paperwork to avoid the PR headache. like much of what uber does, it's not likely that they're actively trying to avoid regulations rather than a failure to do a review of the necessary regulations and just going for it until they get caught. this is a problem with uber, airbnb, or any startup which operates in thousands of different jurisdictions with different regulations on some niche behavior - established large companies have whole legal departments to make sure they're paying local taxes and complying with local labor regulations or whatever, but also there's generally federal/state frameworks so it's easier to comply rather than just having to deal with extremely granular city regulations
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:So does the bottom tier of Adwords support. But the poster meant high end engineers. You don't think the people designing contact lenses that do insulin testing at minimum, and ambitiously much much more, are high end engineers or willing to put cutting edge research ahead of working conditions? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:like much of what uber does, it's not likely that they're actively trying to avoid regulations rather than a failure to do a review of the necessary regulations and just going for it until they get caught. this is a problem with uber, airbnb, or any startup which operates in thousands of different jurisdictions with different regulations on some niche behavior - established large companies have whole legal departments to make sure they're paying local taxes and complying with local labor regulations or whatever, but also there's generally federal/state frameworks so it's easier to comply rather than just having to deal with extremely granular city regulations I'm sorry, I can't take this seriously for a second. You're describing Uber and AirBnB as scrappy, bootstrapped startups that don't have access to legal teams. What resources do "established large companies" have that Uber, the most valuable private company in the world, does not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm sorry, I can't take this seriously for a second. You're describing Uber and AirBnB as scrappy, bootstrapped startups that don't have access to legal teams. What resources do "established large companies" have that Uber, the most valuable private company in the world, does not? Uber/AirBnB are acting like scrappy, bootstrapped startups. They shouldn't be, so they're gambling that they won't get ripped a new one in court (if they ever let it go that far).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:like much of what uber does, it's not likely that they're actively trying to avoid regulations rather than a failure to do a review of the necessary regulations and just going for it until they get caught. this is a problem with uber, airbnb, or any startup which operates in thousands of different jurisdictions with different regulations on some niche behavior - established large companies have whole legal departments to make sure they're paying local taxes and complying with local labor regulations or whatever, but also there's generally federal/state frameworks so it's easier to comply rather than just having to deal with extremely granular city regulations Uber seems to have legal teams sufficient to contest multiple European regulations about labor law and taxis, as well as a track record of ignoring those laws until forced to do otherwise. I'm willing to bet all my Parcplace-Digitalk stock options that their legal team in California is sufficient to have investigated California law on self-driving cars. Konstantin posted:I really hope regulators crack down on this poo poo HARD. If they don't, we'll have cars that can do 99% of driving tasks autonomously, but can't handle a few unusual situations. That is a very dangerous zone, as the driver has liability and is required to be in control, but human nature means they won't be paying attention, since they have nothing to do the vast majority of the time. This is a well known issue with aircraft autopilots, and they are engineered to keep the pilots involved, even though an airline pilot is much better trained and is much more safety conscious than the average driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
La Brea Carpet posted:People need to stop huffing Uber fumes and invest in upgrading our existing public transport options, but lol socialism. Uber, lyft, etc will always be a cheap ride home from the bars or airport for the vast majority of users. The investment is huge because the reason why mass transit kinda sucks these days is people live in low density areas far from the city core, but businesses aren't there as much these days anyway. BarbarianElephant posted:The worst thing about public transport is not the smelly homeless people but the snail-like speed. Millionaires will happily sit next to smelly homeless people on the New York subway because it's usually the fastest way from A to B. But buses will never match this speed - because of their large size and constant stopping, they get stuck in traffic worse even than private cars. Not all buses are like that. There are 'flyer' buses around here that literally only go to one bus stop in a suburb and then go straight to the highway downtown where there will be about half a dozen stops. pr0zac posted:Climate change is increasing snow fall in many areas. When it kills the Atlantic coast current Europe is going to look like Canada during the winter. Yes. Lakes stay warmer later in the year and thus have a lot more moisture able to be swept up in cold fronts to be deposited downwind as snow. Once lake freezes, it cuts down on that snowfall significantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
loving  https://twitter.com/laura_nelson/status/809094886825697280
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:They're really just being dicks for no reason at this point. That application is like three forms, a $150 fee and proof of insurance, I can't fathom why they wouldn't just do five minutes of paperwork to avoid the PR headache. Last I checked, background checks cost less than that and Uber is still refusing to do them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Papercut posted:You don't think the people designing contact lenses that do insulin testing at minimum, and ambitiously much much more, are high end engineers or willing to put cutting edge research ahead of working conditions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm sorry, I can't take this seriously for a second. You're describing Uber and AirBnB as scrappy, bootstrapped startups that don't have access to legal teams. What resources do "established large companies" have that Uber, the most valuable private company in the world, does not? i'm not saying they can't. i'm saying they're not bothering to and then saying "oh well we're too busy disrupting whatever" to dismiss why they should bother. like there's no master plan to skip regulations, they're operating on the level of a child trying to see how many cookies they can sneak out of the jar before mom and dad get really serious
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
there is no practical difference between indifference and willful disregard that pretends to be indifference
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Problem is while Google is the most famous place with a great working environment for engineers, it's not the only one, and Google is not the hottest game in town anymore. Facebook has stolen a ton of their thunder as any poster here in web development can attest. FB keeps dropping amazing open source projects on the community on a practically weekly basis and Google is just not keeping up. The prestige of working on open source is important to a ton of engineers. Source? I'm a backend engineer, but the open source project I've been most excited recently was TensorFlow, probably the most important machine learning toolkit released in many years. Gail Wynand posted:I'm not saying Google is poo poo, just that in the software field they are no longer the hottest employer in The Valley. Based on open source contributions or what? What do you mean by working conditions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:there is no practical difference between indifference and willful disregard that pretends to be indifference there's no difference in outcome but the discussion is about whether they're actively ignoring regulations or just not giving a poo poo until the repercussions are severe enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's no difference in outcome but the discussion is about whether they're actively ignoring regulations or just not giving a poo poo until the repercussions are severe enough There's no way to know unless a smoking gun leaks out showing that it's a calculated strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i'm not saying they can't. i'm saying they're not bothering to and then saying "oh well we're too busy disrupting whatever" to dismiss why they should bother. like there's no master plan to skip regulations, they're operating on the level of a child trying to see how many cookies they can sneak out of the jar before mom and dad get really serious That's fair enough. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Or, in this case, arrogance. You would think, however, that with the number of cities standing their ground on simple things like background checks, they'd take a more diplomatic approach in general. For a company that's losing as much cash as they are, their whole strategy of just not bothering to operate in places where they don't like the rules is going to go very badly for them in the medium to long term. It's funny how when Di Blasio forces them to play nice with the TLC in New York, they go along with it, but when a city like San Antonio or Birmingham tries to do the same thing, they just gently caress right off. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's no difference in outcome but the discussion is about whether they're actively ignoring regulations or just not giving a poo poo until the repercussions are severe enough February 2015 posted:Under new French transport rules known the Thévenoud Law, the police in Paris have been issuing fines since the start of the year [2015] to drivers who pick up fares through UberPop, the company’s low-cost service. "June 2016: posted:A French criminal court has finally reached a verdict in a long-running case against Uber that accused the company of running an illegal transportation service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It was only later that this turned into to a weird circle jerk on if google bothers to make code libraries or not or if they just reuse ideas. Owlofcreamcheese posted:The original point was that google is a company that needs to do machine vision research for it's core business of searching/sorting/categorizing images and video
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Credit where credit is due though, when it comes to cloud computing platforms Google is giving AWS a run for their money these days, and they have a lot of people's attention. they really aren't. aws market share continues to increase. gce is a blip in comparison
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4 Self driving cars are just around the corner waiting to jump out and kill you
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Does it still count as a unicorn if the $4.8 billion sale to Verizon hasn't closed yet? Yahoo says a billion user accounts were stolen in possibly the biggest hack of all time http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-data-breach-billion-accounts-2016-12 quote:This is a separate hack than the one that Yahoo announced back in September, in which as many as 500 million user accounts were compromised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Doggles posted:Does it still count as a unicorn if the $4.8 billion sale to Verizon hasn't closed yet? Yahoo is one of the only "bad" tech companies I don't follow professionally and can actually speculate on without potentially compromising myself by revealing material non-public information. So, I love to talk about Yahoo. My favorite Yahoo moment, and the one where I realized they were past the point of no-return, was when they hired McKinsey last year. Hiring McKinsey wasn't why I realized they were doomed. McKinsey are the best consultants in the world. Every real company interacts with them at some point in some capacity. Their reach is infinite. They are like Goldman in that they punch well above their weight in influence because of the people they hire and where they work both before and after they spend time at the firm. What worried me was that McKinsey, a firm that only drives revenue from advising clients, essentially quit. They only make money by having getting hired and advising people. To walk away from a deal like that means walking away from some serious billable hours for that partner. That means he or she decided, either on their own or with firm pressure, that being associated with the disaster at Yahoo was more damaging to the brand of McKinsey than the ~$20 million it would have brought in (that figure is a total guess, I'm actually not incredibly familiar with what they charge anymore and it depends on scope of work). When client advisors walk away from clients, its a terrible sign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
As someone who has worked as a consultant to various companies for various reasons, there are exactly three things that have ever made me straight up walk away: 1. Breach of contract 2. Refusal or inability to actually take my advice 3. Doing something so egregiously, publicly awful that I couldn't be associated with them. Given Yahoo's history, I would bet it's heavily the second one. Everyone seems to blame Meyer for everything, and the management buck does stop with her, but everything I've seen tells me they have one of the most profoundly lovely boards in history. of course, carol bartz certainly seems to think so
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
That would be my guess as well. Yahoo is essentially a failed state, and while Marissa Mayer does bear some of the blame for the confused strategy since taking the helm, everything I've ever heard about their board and upper management makes it out to be an incomprehensibly toxic environment. One half of the board is in a knife fight with the other half, everyone immediately below that are petty dictators looking out for their own fiefdom, below that is a thick layer of middle management filled with people too clueless to find work elsewhere, and below them are the normal employees beelining for the exits. Even if Mayer had the perfect vision for what Yahoo could be (she didn't), she'd have to have been an unparalleled organizational genius to actually execute on it (she wasn't).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The particulars of the software will be different from use case to use case, but the algorithms, and particularly the training sets (which is the real hard bit about this sort of ML, building good training corpora), will be useful in lots of different scenarios. The code that uses the models will be different, of course, but the models will probably be very similar, if not the same. It would not surprise me in the least if a lot of their machine vision codebase was built as a high-performance C++ library by a dedicated team and deployed in about a billion different environments for different purposes. I mean, it's not like that's something that's actually difficult. Especially when they have tons of people working on the compiler itself and can ensure it generates excellent code in all of their environments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
jre posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4 Allow me to quote my nemesis silence_kit posted:I sincerely believe that some posters in this thread would defend to the death even the most stupid, pointless, and wasteful government regulation if it gave them an opportunity to rag on a startup company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:One half of the board is in a knife fight with the other half, everyone immediately below that are petty dictators looking out for their own fiefdom I'm not sure what you mean here -- everyone immediately below the board is Marissa Meyer. Do you mean the rest of the C suite or their directs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
California DMV to Uber: Oh, no, you don't.quote:Uber is flouting state law by offering rides in self-driving cars in San Francisco and “must cease” until it gets a permit, according to a letter sent by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Huh. My understanding matched Uber's, which is why Autopilot is legal. I'll be interested to see the DMV's arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I mean, I'm sort of repeating myself here, but it's $150, proof of insurance and three forms to fill out. Couldn't they just take ten minutes and do the loving paperwork and be done with it? It must be costing them more time and money to respond to all of this bullshit than to just sign the god drat paper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
They don't want to set the precedent that it's required, because not all states have the process and they want to run these experiments everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It must be costing them more time and money to respond to all of this bullshit than to just sign the god drat paper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Huh. My understanding matched Uber's, which is why Autopilot is legal. I'll be interested to see the DMV's arguments. For one, autopilot users are individuals, Uber is a company. Secondly, Tesla is being investigated by the NHTSA so I'm not sure it's the sterling example of "legal".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:They don't want to set the precedent that it's required, because not all states have the process and they want to run these experiments everywhere. That's not intuitive. Uber refusing to participate with this program is only blowing it up in the news, drastically increasing the likelihood that other cities will adopt this sort of thing. It's the political Streisand effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:For one, autopilot users are individuals, Uber is a company. Why does it matter who owns the car? If you lease your Model S, Tesla owns the car. What matters is who's driving. The NHTSA isn't investigating Tesla, it's investigating a crash. Nobody has made the slightest assertion, even against the standards of a preliminary investigation, that Tesla was illegally operating an autonomous vehicle. (Other manufacturers, such as Mercedes, have similar systems.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Huh. My understanding matched Uber's, which is why Autopilot is legal. I'll be interested to see the DMV's arguments. Well, Telsa has the permits required for one. And probably because what's publicly available on a personal Tesla is more a driver assist suite than an autonomous driving system right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why does it matter who owns the car? If you lease your Model S, Tesla owns the car. What matters is who's driving. Because marketing autopilot as a feature for a consumer car is different than marketing autopilot as a feature for taxis. The liability chain is more complex in the second case, which is why more scrutiny is deserved. quote:Nobody has made the slightest assertion, even against the standards of a preliminary investigation, that Tesla was illegally operating an autonomous vehicle. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...453f_story.html Like I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's clearly still up for public debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
I honestly think Uber must have some major libertarians at the top, and believe that complying with any sort of government regulation just encourages them. They argue about even the most minor of restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
duz posted:Well, Telsa has the permits required for one. Sure, but AFAICT it (and Mercedes' and Audi's(?) equivalents) is legal everywhere, like cruise control. Are there specific functions of the car that can't be automated without the permit? Beyond control of speed and steering, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 02:21
|
|