- b112It would help in many respects. I'll 100% agree that a solution doesn't need to be absolute, that edge cases don't mean a failure.
- Obviously things will continue to improve, so this is a point in time criticism.
One of the biggest issues with current state of tech I see is, where these cars usually are. They're in cities, and most often in very dense ones, and ones in the south. These are effectively perfect conditions.
From my perspective, I wonder how these cars will behave with ice on the road, with snow, or a typical Montreal Wednesday of "It's a blizzard, you can't see 10 feet, there is snow on the road and ice, it's slippery, all the lines and street markings are obscured completely, oh and the power is out and there are no traffic lights."
Some of this can be resolved by snow tires, or even studded tires which are legal in Quebec. It should be noted that Quebec plows the roads less, and uses less dirt and salt on the road, and also enforces a law that snow tires are on cars in the winter. Of course studded tires give insane grip on ice, but have reduced grip on rain.
And it can 10C and rain, then freeze, then be a blizzard, then move to -40C, all in a few days.
But anyhow, my point is if a Waymo is slow with a missing traffic light, how will it act with a missing traffic light, and 10ft visual range of reflective snow in the air, no ability to see lines on the street, and so on. Humans are great at peering and seeing mostly obscured indications of an intersection, but this is still challenging for a car with a top priority of safety.
Here's another example. The cameras in my car are constantly obscured by slush, dirt, and such on the windshield and all over the car. All the roads are coated with dirt to help with slipping on ice. I often have my car absurdly complaining that cameras are covered, and there's no assist this and that, just because the entire car is coated in dirt.
How will a Waymo operate with all sensors covered in dirt?
There are probably solutions. But it feels like it will be a long while before such cars treat a normal day in winter, as usual.
It should be noted that I've simply discussed downtown Montreal. What of a rural area? And by rural, I mean houses 1 km apart, also with a blizzard, all lines obscured on the road, and meanwhile Canadians just intuitively know where and how to drive it. We just slow down a bit (from 120km/hr to maybe 70km/hr) and just drive on our merry way. If we try to stop, distances are greatly extended, and of course in some places without care you'll just slide into the ditch.
Of course that's just a Wednesday, and you can read the 'signs of the road', and sort of tell where to slow down more. Where to take more care.
Sometimes, you'll see a bunch of cars in the ditch, and think 'Ah, must be particularly slippery here', and slow down a bit more.
- One. One watch. POTUS's watch. And in fact, that's why Boulder is currently shuttered... they disagreed.
- Read up on IOPS, conjoined with requests for sequential reads.
- Hey! Can't I just enjoy my schadenfreude in peace?
I guess the takeaway is that, doubly so, trusting rust code to be memory safe, simply because it is rust isn't sensible. All its protections can simple be invalidated, and an end user would never know.
- I really dislike systemd, and its monolithic mass of over-engineered, all encompassing code. So I have to hang a comment here, showing just how easy this is to manage in a simple startup script. How these features are always exposed.
Taken from a SO post:
Linux is so beautiful. Unix is. Systemd is like a person with makeup plastered 1" thick all over their face. It detracts, obscures the natural beauty, and is just a lot of work for no reason.# Create a cgroup mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup # Add the process to it echo $PID > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup/cgroup.procs # Set the limit to 40MB echo $((40 \* 1024 \* 1024)) > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup/memory.limit_in_bytes - I applaud your efforts, but that seems difficult to me. There's so much nuance in language, and the original spanish translation would even be dependent upon locale-destination of the original dictionary. Which would also be time based, as language changes over time.
And that translation is likely only a rough approximation, as words don't often translate directly. To add in an extra layer (spanish -> english) seems like another layer of imperfect (due to language) abstraction.
Of course your efforts are targeting a niche, so likely people will understand the attempt and be thankful. I hope this suggestion isn't too forward, but this being an electronic version, you could allow some way for the original spanish to be shown if desired. That sort of functionality would be quite helpful, even non-native spanish speakers might get a clearer picture.
What tools are you using to abstract all of this?
If the spacing and columns of the images are consistent, I'd think imagemagick would allow you to automate extraction by column (eg, cutting the individual pages up), and OCR could then get to work.
For the Shipibo side, I'd want to turn off all LLM interpretation. That tends to use known groupings of words to probabilistically determine best-match, and that'd wreak havoc in this case.
Back to the images, once you have imagemagick chop and sort, writing a very short script to iterate over the pages, display them, and prompt with y/n would be a massive time saver. Doing so at each step would be helpful.
For example, one step? Cut off header and footer, save to dir. Using helpful naming conventions (page-1, and page-1-noheader_footer). You could then use imagemagick to combine page-1 and -age-1-noheader_footer side by side.
Now run a simple bash vet script. Each of 500 pages pops up, you instantly see the original and the cut result, and you hit y or n. One could go through 500 pages like this in 10 to 20 minutes, and you'd be left with a small subset of pages that didn't get cut properly (extra large footer or whatever). If it's down to 10 pages or some such, that's an easy tweak and fix for those.
Once done, you could do the same for column cuts. You'd already have all the scripts, so it's just tweaking.
I'm mentioning all of this, because combo of automation plus human intervention is often the best method to something such as this.
Anyhow, good luck!
- I feel dumbfounded. All I've ever heard from rust users, is the equivalent of football fans running up, waving pendants in my face and screaming. So much so, that everything else said seems like the wild fantasies of "our team gonna win".
Then things like this appear:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/First-Linux-Rust-CVE
And I'm all warm and feeling schadenfreude.
To hear "yes, it's safer" and yet not "everyone on the planet not using rust is a moron!!!", is a nice change.
Frankly, the whole cargo side of rust has the same issues that node has, and that's silly beyond comprehension. Memory safe is almost a non-concern, compared to installing random, unvetted stuff. Cargo vet seems barely helpful here.
I'd want any language caring about security and code safety, to have a human audit every single diff, on every single package, and host those specific crates on locked down servers.
No, I don't care about "but that will slow down development and change!". Security needs to be first and front.
And until the Rust community addresses this, and its requirement for 234234 packages, it's a toy.
And yes, it can be done. And no, it doesn't require money. Debian's been doing just this very thing for decades, on a far, far, far larger scale. Debian developers gatekeep. They package. They test and take bug reports on specific packages. This is a solved problem.
Caring about 'memory safe!' is grand, but ignoring the rest of the ecosystem is absurd.
- Only a left or right, one or the other world view would think such.
As with almost everything, it's both. Some morality is relative, some is absolute.
- You seem to have missed the context in the post you replied to, and the original. I've said it several times, he said effectively "why am I looking at this woman", but countered with a complement to ensure his statement was not taken incorrectly. EG, he had no issue with the woman in film visually.
You should not be confused, for politeness is not a thing easily turned on and off. It is often automatic. Further, a film is shown to contemporary audiences, and those viewing, audiences of less sophisticated times with media, may find his comment rude otherwise.
Viewing another culture is difficult at best, but I find it more so when it's your culture yet shifted by time or location. An example being British vs US culture.
The statements are the same, but sometimes subtly the meaning not.
This chart is a good example:
https://tommccallum.medium.com/british-business-language-tra...
Peering into the past is much the same. The language seems the same, but what is conveyed is sometimes different.
I think you're really missing my point, and not really attempting to view this 60 year old film as I suggest culturally.
Regardless, the main point is... viewing the past needs to be taken without finger pointing.
I don't think there is much value responding beyond what I've said. You appear to be slicing concepts out of the whole, and responding to only those portions.
Regardless, have a good one.
- [flagged]
- Sleazy? I'll have you know, the ToS clearly says it's in beta.
- That may or may not be the case for the words afterwards.
However, what I cited would be taken as mere politeness. Failure to do so, rude.
- Amusing comparative to today's mores.
What always strikes me these days, is how old film is now. This "attractive young lady" is likely in her 80s or 90s, if she's still among us. EG, let's take 2025 vs 1965 + 25 years.
There was a time when paintings were the best we knew of the past. Then blurry photos, but we're now over 100 years of motion pictures. Our ancestors had no capacity to see the past, as we have.
I do my best to not blame the past, for most in it were simply ensconced in the culture and mores of the time. And it makes me think that quite surely, many things we do today will be seen as quaint, or improper 100 years from now. Certainly our descendants will think us uncouth, and over things we imagine as proper today. Things we think of as "doing the right thing", will be seen as uncouth, horrible, perhaps vile to our descendants.
Take this out of context statement about the young lady (the context being "the era of the 60s"). Back in the day, women expected such complements. They also expected doors to be opened for them. Chairs pulled out. For a man to stand whenever a woman was to be seated.
In this film, the gentleman says "why are we looking at this woman", yet also felt obliged to couple that with a conditional "she's attractive", for it could be misconstrued as "OMG, why am I looking at this hag!". Societal politeness dictated he do so. He would be doing the young lady a disservice, and seen as impolite by his peers did he not. And further, she'd expect it as her due.
I find today that often people take so many things out of context, from the past. Judge without knowing the circumstances (not saying the parent is judging here). We should understand context, culture, history, before pointing I think.
- It's amusing how much ads hurt, once you're weaned off of them.
Even with traditional TV, growing up, I didn't really mind ads. Then I setup MythTV years ago, and had commercial skip... and of course just downloaded things without commercials too.
When I'd visit my parents back then, any commercial felt like intense agony. So this isn't just about the web, it's really about useless annoying juke being fed to you, when you're used to not having it.
The closest I can compare it to, is once I rented an airb&b which was under a freeway, beside a bridge, and adjacent to another freeway. Yet after a while I just sort of got used to most of the noise.
I wonder if the CEO of Mozilla doesn't use adblock, and just doesn't, literally, understand.
- Wow. Force-Supporting the same company they're battling daily, on multiple issues.
- I have 117 thousand tabs, and it starts up fine. Just adjust your shm ratio.
(I'm kidding)
- Not sure what your point is? It doesn't matter the number of users, because the GP's point is that those users are going to immediately bail, for a browser thsy supports ad block.
So that extra money will never materialize. And usage numbers will again crater. This is the point.
(You can disagree with that assessment, but that has nothing to do with telemetry, which cannot gauge users hanging around with blocked .. adblockers)
- Plus, the announcer is standing in front of a hedge.
I'm not sure why, but every corporate picture I've seen of someone, in this context, is standing in front of a hedge. Seems to be a California thing?
(Where I live, we only have leaves on hedges 6 months of the year)