there aren't that many accidents. It's also more dangerous to jump in ways that attempt to skirt laws (jumping near dark, trying to evade capture, etc)
If it had been legal, and had he jumped in broad daylight, I think he’d have survived that day.
Right. It's the Park Service to blame. Right there with the "it's the cops fault I crashed and burned because if driving 140mph was legal I would be fine".
then we need tort reform to address the root cause. This is so silly and unfortunate that wild spaces are litigated and made illegal for things that are normal and wonderful elsewhere.
No, but if you run a shadow or offline camera-only model in parallel with a camera + LIDAR model, you can (1) measure how much worse the camera-only model is so you can decide when (if ever) it's safe enough to stop installing LIDAR, and (2) look at the specific inputs for which the models diverge and focus on improving the camera-only model in those situations.
It’s way easier to “jam” a camera with bright light than a lidar, which uses both narrow band optical filters and pulsed signals with filters to detect that temporal sequence. If I were an adversary, going after cameras is way way easier.
A key idea is that addition for logs is equivalent to multiplication. To multiply two numbers you line them up on a log scale and then read out the sum, which is equivalent to the product. There is much more they can do but that was one aha moment when my dad showed me his.
I've never used a slide rule but recently developed an interest in them (and also in nomograms [1])
My fascination stems from a belief: that slide rule usage helps users develop a certain intuition for numbers whereas the calculator doesn't. To illustrate, suppose someone tries to multiply 123 and 987 with a calculator but incorrectly punches in 123 and 187. My hypothesis is they'll look at the result but won't suspect any problem. The equivalent operation on a slide rule requires fewer physical actions and hence, is less error prone.
Nomograms are cool. They're little charts that let you compute a function physically, e.g. by lining up a ruler. A nomogram isn't a picture of a function: it is the function. If you're clever, you can make a nomogram that encodes complicated nonlinear mappings or even complex-valued relationships on a 2D plane.
Occasionally nomograms are just better too: because they're continuous and analog, they can naturally express things digital logic people can do only awkwardly, just like Rust people can only awkward approximate things natural in Verilog (e.g. truly parallel CAM search).
Nomograms are basically the tabletop gaming of math. Like a good tabletop game, a good nomogram requires a special kind of cleverness. Sure, coding something like Factorio is also hard: but it runs on a CPU. Something as rich and complex as Power Grid and High Frontier? Running on cardboard? Whole other level.
I recall one tabletop two-player game that featured a single-player mode in which you played against an "AI" that you ran by hand by moving cardboard pieces around on a game-provided template under pseudocode-ish rules from the game manual. It's hard enough to code a decent game AI with all the resources of a CPU at your disposal. It's an OOM harder to do it when you're limited to physically-realized lookup tables, a literal handful of registers, and a scant few clock cycles of logic per turn.
Coming full circle, some of these tabletop game "AI"s incorporate nomograms to help them fit their logic within the constraints.
Example of a cool nomogram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_chart. Smith charts let you compute complex (pun intended) relationships in RF signal processing with just a compass and straightedge.
Also: part of the fun in making nomograms is that there's no general procedure you can follow to make a good one, just like there's no general compiler from computer game to tabletop game. They're art: specifically, one of those forms of art that, like architecture, has to meet functional requirements while tickling our aesthetic sense. It's kind of funny how when you optimize this kind of art for aesthetics under their functional constraints, you end up supercharging the functional part by side effect somehow.
With a slide rule you always have to estimate the expected answer in your head before you begin any calculation. So you develop a feel for how quantities scale with multiplication.
With a slide rule you can only multiply the significant digits, not the magnitudes -- which you have to do in your head. So you do exactly the same thing with the slide rule to multiply 123 and 987, 1.23 and 9.87, and 1,230 and 9,870. In all three cases, you get exactly the same answer: 121 or maybe just 120 (you only get 3 digits of precision at best). You still have to multiply the powers of ten in your head, to get the answers 121,000, 12.1, and 12,100,000.
I am just old enough to belong to the last generation of slide rule users. I used them in high school and college, then scientific calculators came along.
You don't have to multiply the powers of ten in your head. In your examples, the slider of the slide rule must be moved to the left of the body of the rule. This means the number of digits left of the decimal point in the answer is the sum of the number of digits left of the decimal point in the two multiplicands.
If the slider had been to the right of the body, the number of digits left of the decimal point in the answer is the sum of the number of digits left of the decimal point in the two multiplicands MINUS 1.
.
Yes. I don't recall doing this, though. Maybe because in scientific and engineering calculations we often worked in scientific notation so 'digits to the left of the decimal point' wasn't meaningful - we had to keep track of the exponents.
It's not the number of actions, it's because the slide rule is analog and physical. The smaller numbers are to the left, the larger to the right, and you have to slide the rule to the first number, then the hairline cursor to the second number. There's no way you could mix up a large number like 987 with a small number like 187.
Exactly. Using a slide rule shows how some complex operations in one domain can be made much easier in another.
One you understand slide rules and logarithms, it is easier to understand convolutions in the FFT (frequency) domain...
Almost like programming in APL, where you can solve a problem by expanding it in extra dimensions and getting the answer by re-compacting the complex object using a different view.
Maybe this is not helpful either, but I wonder if that person is correct. The national debt is already bad. With the trillions of new national debt from the Trump administration, and also the destruction of basically every foreign relationship, how will the country manage its finances? I feel like the only way out is to print money and cause extreme inflation. But that also means the death of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
Look at any other country that went through a similar period. These regimes never voluntarily relinquish power, but they're forced to within 20 years due to some crushing military defeat, economic collapse, assassination, violent revolt, etcetera. It's never ended with a peaceful transition of power and a smooth winding down of the bad stuff.
Kind of a good, non-political, encapsulation of one thing that's majorly wrong with the internet nowadays. Somebody that has so little clue what they're talking about is coming here, posting messages, and having as much voice to manipulate the minds of others as, for example, some tenured economics professor does. No way to tell the two types of people apart, the posts looks the same, know way to know what experience/knowledge/credentials the poster has. Now imagine all the people posting their thoughts in regards to something like the latest middle east conflict - what percentage of those posters know any better what they're talking about than this guy does about economics?
I mean, you can always evaluate the arguments instead of going by authority. It is not like famous economists or professors are always right.
But if we take statements at face value and do not think critically… Also there are bad actors trying to push a direction. One cannot assume one account equals one person.
Yes, but it felt so sudden. Thanks for reminding me about it as you are probably correct.
Its a shame what we lost. On one hand we could maybe have a real life identity system that would stop the bot problem but at the same time that anonymity blossomed so much unique internet culture that we would lose (maybe its already lost).
reply