If the buttons are incompatible with the absence of the feature, I'd expect the buttons not to exist when the feature is disabled. Anything else seems like a straight up footgun. I guess it'd also be acceptable to pop up a scary warning box asking "are you sure?"
> If the buttons are incompatible with the absence of the feature, I'd expect the buttons not to exist when the feature is disabled. Anything else seems like a straight up footgun.
It's called a "dark pattern." They want you to shoot yourself in the foot, so they'll do their best to aim your gun at your foot and put your finger on the trigger. And then when you do, because you don't have perfect understanding or execution, they'll say "your fault!"
You could have looked up the collisions instead of making vague accusations of bad faith. In one, a Tesla going 98MPH collided with a line of vehicles (including a Waymo) stopped at a light. In the other, a motorcyclist hit a Waymo from behind and fell off their bike, where they were struck and killed by another vehicle (that fled).
There's no legislated standard in the US, nor pre-sale verification that a vehicle has met most of the other automotive standards. That's just not how the US regulatory environment works.
There's the beginnings of a standard for L2/L3 vehicles in Europe, and ongoing discussions about what L4 standards could look like, but neither addresses "adversarial" situations.
China is going for what's sometimes called "L3.5" - hands off wheel, eyes off road, driver may have to take over if alerted, but if the driver doesn't, the vehicle must safely stop and pull over if possible.
The trouble with "driver assistance" systems is the handoff to the driver. That's not reliable. Results from the aviation community indicate that it takes about ten seconds after an autopilot disconnect before the pilot has stable control of the aircraft. "L3.5" accepts that. The < 2 second response required by some L2 systems does not.
An ADAS would be L4 if it was designed to be truly autonomous. If it's not designed to be truly autonomous, you have to somehow address the attention problem. Even a good attention monitoring system isn't sufficient, because people have the ability to appear superficially attentive by all external metrics, while not engaging with the driving task mentally.
The data to differentiate these levels is pretty limited for a variety of reasons, and the problem only worsens when you conflate AEB with ADAS as the IHS/IEEE do in this article rather than use an OEDR-based definition.
using C safely is 99% just using Valgrind and some specific GCC or llvm flags and you’re done
I wish that were the case, but it's not. Dynamic analyzers are fantastic and everyone should be using them constantly, but they don't solve the problem of UB. They tell you whether your code, as translated by a specific compiler using a specific set of flags today has detectable problems. There are still gaps, and what's true today might not be true even for the same source code built tomorrow, or given different inputs. Asserting my safety-critical code does X or Y is important to me, and neither C nor C++ have standard tooling that fully addresses that need.
Other languages are much farther along than this. You can in theory take a pile of Rust and isolate exactly the points where undefined behavior might occur, or eliminate them entirely in Ada/Spark.
I don’t even know what “see the file system” means.
It just means they want to see the hierarchy that the filesystem exposes. Here's a useful diagram [0] from the Wikipedia page on hierarchial file systems [1]. There are ways to show paths and directory structure in finder, but you're fighting against the intended usage.
I don’t get how this is any easier in windows explorer. In both windows and Mac I can just pin the drive itself or just the root directory to the sidebar and then use list/grid/nested columns to pop in and out of the hierarchy however I want. In both Mac and windows, the default home folders (like “documents”) sort of hide the rest of the filesystem from you.
I'm however so confused by Windows' top level of the hierarchy. Like the Desktop contains the computer which contains the Desktop, yet that one doesn't have the computer in it. And likewise for the bin, the Configuration Panel, yet not Settings, etc. etc.
Desktop > My Computer > C > Users > Me > Desktop
or perhaps even on my work laptop
Desktop > My Computer > C > Users > Me > OneDrive > Desktop
Also worth pointing out that when the census can't collect individualized data, they estimate it based on existing government data. The quality of data varies significantly depending on the local government, and pretty much all governments were struggling to figure out the current state of things during the pandemic.
How is ensuring checked bags have boarded passengers not also theater? Airlines openly sell unattended cargo space on passenger flights and it's screened the same way as checked luggage.
Do you get to specify the plane it goes on? Can you purchase it untraceable, the way you can you a plane ticket with a prepaid card, check in and check luggage without any ID?
You can constrain the plane it goes on because there's only a small number of flights between city pairs with a given carrier.
You also can't buy a plane ticket for an anonymous person. It has to be for a legal person, which the government is informed of before the flight takes place. That ID is attached to the luggage when it's checked, which is how they can implement bag retrieval when the passenger doesn't board. I'm sure there's an airline somewhere out there accepting checked bags without tickets or ID, but it's not supposed to be allowed.
For air cargo, someone provides an ID, but it's usually the shipper or some other person with no real involvement beyond working in the supply chain. There's a chain of check boxes that says "I received this from an entity I have a legitimate business relationship with" and that's good enough in practice.
reply