> Omnilert later admitted the incident was a “false positive” but claimed the system “functioned as intended,” saying its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification.”
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
"""
The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight.
"""
The article doesn't confirm that there was definitely a human in the loop, but it sorta suggests that police got a chance to manually verify the photo before going out to harass this poor kid.
I suspect, though, that the AI flagging that image heavily influenced the cop doing the manual review. Without the AI, I'd expect that a cop manually watching a surveillance feed would have found nothing out of the ordinary, and this wouldn't have happened.
So I agree that it's weird to just blame the human in the loop here. Certainly they share blame, but the fact of an AI model flagging this sort of thing (and doing an objectively terrible job of it) in the first place should take most of the blame here.
That's mixing up different concerns. If they make an unauthorized site for a restaurant, with no agreements, then the restaurant is getting full menu price.
While the unauthorized sites potentially deliver poor customer service and (the appearance of) higher prices, potentially driving away customers? Who do you know that comparison shops all the different ways to order from the same restaurant?
Price shouldn't be the only thing the restaurants care about.
These stories are horrible, but that doesn't prove restaurants lose money on Doordash. One of my clients bootstraps online ordering for restaurants. About 80% of those restaurants request to be on Doordash, and have been on there for many years. I assume they're not all dumbasses losing money on every order.
Doesn't excuse Doordash taking advantage of anyone.
Not every restaurant can handle the deferred payout either. Their business is based on receiving payment at the time of service. The restaurant model operates on razor thin margins, and they don’t buy their food on net 30 terms, but they have to absorb costs as if they do.
There are other issues, but this setup looks a lot like paying the mafia due to the imbalance of power.
Sure but you're blurting generic talking points that don't address the evidence of Doordash hosting millions of restaurants obviously profitably for the restaurants
I'll echo what some of the other commenters have stated:
I'm not vegan nor vegetarian, but I definitely align with many of the reasons that one would choose to be so. There are environmental and animal welfare concerns with the meat industry that simply cannot be ignored.
With that in mind, I try _choose_ a non-meat-based option when it's feasible. I do my best to vote with my dollar. Beyond Meat and Impossible have made this option available significantly more often in the past couple years.
When I shop for meat at the grocery store to cook at home, I've effectively stopped buying "real" meat for my standard meals. Unless I'm cooking some special or something specific, I simply buy Beyond Meat/Impossible for my standard meals. The same applies when eating out -- if there's a meat alternative, I will go for it (even absorbing the $2-3 upcharge).*
This is not to say that I _only_ go for the meat-alternative-based non-meat dishes. I often go for a tofu or mushroom alternative too. I don't even think Beyond Meat/Impossible taste _like_ the meat they're trying to substitute -- they're just simply good, meat-y, protein-y, umami-y flavors that I simply can't get enough of.
The more options there are for people like me the better. My diet has been able to shift closer and closer to removing meat entirely, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing battle. I just want to eat _less_ meat, not _no_ meat.
* One thing that's frustrating to me as someone that's not _actually_ a vegetarian/vegan is that restaurants often make the assumption that if I'm choosing the meat-alternative, then I must be vegetarian or vegan. No, I still want the cheese or the dairy, or even the meat (e.g.: an Impossible Cheeseburger with real bacon is still delicious). I'm trying to reduce, not _eliminate_, meat from my diet.
If you care about the ethical reasons for plant-based meat, you should look at the companies business practices behind the scenes when they think no one is paying attention - https://x.com/joelrunyon/status/1927531529883762920
You shouldn't take it so personally that they're suing you. They're obligated to try to defend their copyright if they want to be able to continue using it.
This is a super cool visual demonstration of RTOS/scheduling! I love the region-based critical sections!
I took a real-time operating systems course in university as an elective. One of the hardest courses I took the whole four years, but also one of the most interesting. Had a great professor, who gave really demanding, but very instructive, project-based assignments.
I need to find a toy project to play around with this domain again.
I'm curious how effective you feel this specific example might've been if it were delivered during your course. I suspect I've stumbled across a really helpful teaching tool, but having not gone to university, I don't actually know how this stuff is being taught :v
The comment you're replying to is referring to the difficulty to repurpose these buildings without complete replacement.
Recycling raw materials is important, but ideally we shouldn't be constructing buildings that are single-tenant, requiring a complete demolition just to make the land have utility again.
I currently commute by train _and_ bike, but this only lets me filter by one or another, unfortunately.
This seems to be a common problem with navigation systems in general. It's easy to get walking+transit directions, but nigh impossible to get bike+transit, even though all the buses and trains near me let me bring a bike onboard.
Yeah the "mixed" navigation option sometimes provides it, but with many caveats:
- it never suggests bike+bus, only bike+train
- it will only ever try to put the biking on one end of the train ride, never both. I guess it assumes I'd be parking the bike at the station, not bringing it on board
- you can't actually "start" the navigation for some reason. It will just show the route overview
I have seen it schedule the bike at both ends. But it does seem like it assumes the bike is an 'option' like all the other forms of transport, which makes sense
for bikes hired by the minute, but not if you're taking your own with you - you need all segments to be bike-friendly.
The spire in Scottsdale is also a big pointy object that was completed (but long after he died). Looks like it was originally meant to be at the state capital, so perhaps it's the same one you're referring to?
Note that diesel is taxed nearly 40% higher than gasoline per gallon in the US. And shipping trucks use a lot more gallons of gas (total and per mile).
Should the rate be higher? Perhaps. But it's already a bit slanted towards vehicle weight based on fuel type and consumption.
Electric vehicles, and especially electric shipping trucks, are going to require finding new taxation sources.
Oftentimes "ingredients" will be an incredibly long list. As someone that needs to pay attention to ingredients on food for a severe tree nut allergy, it's so so so much easier to quickly parse a two-item "contains" section than a 40 item "ingredients" section.
I've made mistakes on food that has _just_ "ingredients", missing entries while scanning at the grocery store.
Unfortunately, "contains" isn't required, and its location isn't always obvious. imo it should flatly be always required and always in a standardized layout/location (e.g. in a clear to read box).
I've seen enough comments from you on technical computing subjects over the last decade to know that you have a firm grasp of concepts such as caching and other related ways to take advantage of usage patterns to optimize things.
Just as caches are useful in computing even if they are too small to hold everything so too is a contains section that only lists the top 9 allergens. That covers 90% of food allergies in the US.
This is a strawman. It seems obvious the number of items covered is a balance between the size of the affected population and the size of the list. I use "it seems obvious" intentionally.
Even if we assume smartcar--pedestrian collisions are just as dangerous for pedestrians as pickup--pedestrian collisions, a smartcar--smartcar collision is going to be a lot less dangerous for the occupants than a smartcar--pickup or pickup--pickup collision at equal speeds.
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but vehicle size and weight still contribute an awful lot to the >40000 vehicle fatalities in the US each year.
Statistically, the majority of pedestrian deaths each year occur on high speed roads, with cars doing 45-55 mph. The v^2 part of the equation is going to dominate. We should get average speed down in areas where pedestrians are, and take steps to ensure that pedestrians are nowhere near the places we allow cars to go highway speed.
About half of all pedestrian deaths are caused by drunk driving, so that's another relatively low hanging fruit we could aim for if we really had the political will to do so.
I used to be against speed limit like this, but when I realize it's MPH instead of KPH and starts converting, I realize that the speed is quite extreme from what I'm used to. My motorcycle-addled road already feels quite dangerous if the riders goes to 60 kph (<40 mph) and no car reach 50 mph. Now I understand some seemingly draconian suggestion that people here says to curb this behavior. People say that Asian roads are dangerous but our average speed is much lower to compensate.
But other comment suggesting to lower it to 20mph (or 10??) is egregious. It's standard for a pendulum to swing from an extreme to an extreme I guess.
20mph on a residential street is perfectly reasonable. Urban roads on the other hand are usually more like 30-35mph where I live, which is also perfectly fine.
I guess this is using American convention where people are expected to go 1.2x or 1.3x the speed limit. Although funnily residential roads I know doesn't need speed limit for this, solely because of road quality.
No, it's in Europe and you're not "expected" to go over the limit at all.
If you want to step on it, leave the city. Most non-access roads in non-built-up areas are 50mph, and more for motorways. Some major urban thoroughfares are also 45mph.
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
""" The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight. """
[1]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/