> Airlines operate to a much stricter standard than one in a million. If one in a million flights ended in a fatal crash, the US alone would see about 3 airline passenger deaths per day on average.
I think you conflated flights (several 10Ks per day) with passengers (several million per day).
One in a million flights is one accident every few decades.
> at least in the US. Engines will fail
As per the report, this appears to be a structural failure, not an engine failure.
If randomly distributed, one in a million flights crashing and killing all passengers means that one in a million passengers dies.
The US sees about 25,000 airline flights per day, or around 9 million per year. So with one in a million flights crashing, we'd expect roughly 9 crashes per year.
Okay, but it doesn't mean they're regular people. Owning a single one of those plots out them in the 1% of household net worth, even if they had 0 other assets.
Ok but what does that contribute to the conversation? I think a good enough definition for regular people is if the average person can achieve that title with talent and hard work more than luck (not that luck doesn't also play a major factor). Whereas becoming a billionaire has a lot more to do with luck than hard work (even though hard work still plays a factor).
The gulf between well paid white collar workers and regular people is so massive which is "closer" depends mostly on which billionaire you're measuring.
That doesn't pass the smell test. Outside the inflated prices paid by Zuckerberg the houses were worth around $4 million, which likely would be around be most their main net worth (let's say it is 5 million). The median net worth in the US is $200k so let's call the the cut off for "regular person" (by that definition >95% of people on HN would not be regular). So the gap from the millionaires here to "regular people" is a factor of 25, in contrast the factor to the smallest billionaire is 200, so no what you say is simply false.
that would be completely correct... sorry. the export options now read "ASCII Basic" and "ASCII Extended", and "Basic" generates plus signs for corners, as of now. I feel like the behavior might have changed. Extended option seem to use 0xE294xx range for lines.
I think this is a good question that shouldn't be down-voted.
If you look at various definitions of what facism means, you may see something like: "characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition" (from M-W).
A "loyalty rating" implements both economic regimentation (the insinuation that higher scoring companies have better favor) and suppression of opposition (that companies actively avoid being seen as opposition).
So this is text-book fascist behavior.
It's not hyperbole to envision the justice department looking the other way for high-scoring companies, and actively persecuting low-scoring companies. You're right in that this is already happening (like with e.g. Harvard), but implementing a score in the open makes it shockingly easy to carry out fascist directives across the government bureaucracy.
If you sell a physical thing, some percentage of them will have defects. That's just a fact of manufacturing.
It seems unfair to move to "not recommended" due to a single instance of a hardware failure, especially if the manufacturer made it right. And repair-ability is one of their core values!
At most this should've triggered a "this happened to me, keep an eye out if this seems to be a thing." note in the review instead of moving to not recommended.
If you got food poisoning from a restaurant, would you recommend it to your friends? After all, food-borne pathogens and poor hygiene are just a fact of life.
How about if they gave you a voucher for a free drink to say sorry?
Reviewing products is like interviewing people. You have to go by what you see on the day. Your can't review (or interview) based in what could have happened; only on what did.
Yes, if it happened once. If I get food poisoning every time, probably not. Perfection is impossible, I am reasonable and mindful of the challenges of consistency.
Hardware device arrives damaged or non functional? I’m just going to call and ask for another one. If it’s a critical need (I cannot wait for a return and delivery cycle), I’m buying more than one upfront. Spares go in inventory.
> If you got food poisoning from a restaurant, would you recommend it to your friends? After all, food-borne pathogens and poor hygiene are just a fact of life.
There are standard practices that avoid the vast majority of food poisoning. Poor hygiene is not a fact of life, it's a failure of process in a restaurant.
There are no known standard practices to avoid all faulty electronics at anything like a reasonable price. From the sounds of it, this unit worked initially but failed over time. That's what warranties are for, this is why they exist. As a society we've decided that it's kind of okay if _some_ products fail early, as long as the companies make it right when they do. Which it doesn't sound like the company had any lack of intention in doing that here.
There is no corresponding societal understanding for your analogy.
Can you recommend another comprehensive design system? As an engineer, that's the most valuable thing about MD3: the figma design kit and per component design guidelines. It lets me offload a ton of workload I'd otherwise have to do myself (poorly) or outsource to a designer.
I haven't seen another design system that is as comprehensive to material. Express seems like an evolutionary refresh with some things I could use right away, but otherwise most of the content is MD3. It's valuable to me as part of the larger ecosystem.
I am not aware of a better alternative. It is a good question, that would be quite helpful!
What I did in the past (with M3) is to add some additional design tweaks (in flutter), like giving buttons an elevation. That worked when I had the designer on my side and since the app came from flutters M2 style, which had similar aspects. But it is cumbersome to argue against a google guideline with only usability knowledge and test results, and it also frankly depends on each component what can be done, which means the adapted design can easily become inconsistent if one is not careful.
To say that it is wholly insufficient to make any safety claims on publicly driven 50M miles, is ridiculous. At the very least, it appears sound, robust and transparent, and able to be validated.
> In the case of Waymo, we have some tentative supporting evidence from this and other studies Waymo has run. However, that is still insufficient, even ignoring the lack of audits by non-conflicted parties, to strongly conclude Waymo is safer than a human. The evidence is promising, but it is only prudent to wait for further confirmation.
You are not making a distinction between concluding unsafe and not being able to conclude safe. It is standard practice to not presume safety and that positive evidence of safety must be presented. Failure to demonstrate statistically sound evidence of danger is not proof of safety. Failure to disprove X is not proof of X. This is a very important point to avoid fallacious conclusions on these matters.
To discuss your specific points. Yes, the data is promising, but it is insufficient.
Traffic fatalities occur on the order of 1 per 60-80 million miles. Waymo has yet to reach even one expected traffic fatality yet. They appear to be on track to doing better, but there is not enough data yet.
The reports Waymo present are authored by Waymo. Even the Swiss Re study is in cooperation with Swiss Re, not a independent study by Swiss Re. The studies are fairly transparent, they point to various public datasets, there are fairly extensive public reporting requirements, and Waymo has not demonstrated clear malfeasance, so we can tentatively assume they are “honest”. But we have plenty of examples of bad actors such as Cruise, cigarette companies, VW , etc. who have done end-runs around these types of basic safeguards.
Waymo operational domain is not equivalent to standard human operational domain. They attempt to account for this in their studies, but it is a fairly complex topic with poor public datasets (which is why they cooperated with Swiss Re) so the correctness of their analysis has not been borne out yet. When Waymo incorporates freeways into their public offerings this will enable a less complicated analysis which would lend greater confidence to their conclusions.
Waymo is still in “testing”. As their processes appear to be good, we should assume that their testing procedures are safer than should be expected out of actual deployment or verification procedures. That is not a negative statement. In fact, it would be problematic if their “testing” procedures were less or even equal in safety to their deployment procedures. That is just how testing is. You can and must apply more scrutiny to incomplete systems in use and prevent increased risks especially while under scrutiny otherwise you are almost certainly going to be worse off in deployment where there is less scrutiny. We have yet to see how this will translate out to deployment, so we will need to wait and see if safety while under test will appropriately apply to safety while in release. This is analogous to improved outcomes for patients in medical studies even if they are given the placebo because they just get more care in general while in the study.
Anyways, Waymo appears to be doing as well and honestly as can be determined by a third party observer. I am optimistic about their data and outcomes, but it is only prudent to avoid over-optimism in safety-critical systems and not accept lazy evidence or arguments. High standards are the only way to safety.
Assertion: "50M miles shows that Waymo is safer than humans".
Counter-point: "That's false because Cruise had an accident for which they were at fault".
OP: "The existence of a case or some cases where a self-driving car caused injury has zero value. What matters is the rate of cases per mile driven."
You: "You do not get to counter-argue."
Yes, they do. OP's point is valid. One can't refute the original assertion by citing one accident by another company. It's a logical fallacy (statistically speaking), and a straw-man (Waymo can't be safe, because other self-driving cars have been found at fault). The validity of the original claim has nothing to do with an invalid counter-claim.
> However, that is still insufficient, even ignoring the lack of audits by non-conflicted parties, to strongly conclude Waymo is safer than a human.
When you have a large, open, peer-reviewed body of evidence, then yes, that's exactly what you get to claim. To reject those claims because Waymo was involved is ad-hominem. It's not how science works. It's not how safety regulations or government oversight works. If you think it's insufficient, you can attack their body of work, but you don't get to reject the claim because they haven't met some unspecific and imaginary burden of proof.
I think you conflated flights (several 10Ks per day) with passengers (several million per day).
One in a million flights is one accident every few decades.
> at least in the US. Engines will fail
As per the report, this appears to be a structural failure, not an engine failure.