A person that cares for coding will inevitably code more then 9-5 and consequently get familiar with new syntax
A person that invests time into their language knowledge will not have issues handling new syntax because they spend as much time as necessary to get familiar with the new syntax
So the criteria is being a 9-5 who doesn't particularly care about coding and doesn't invest time into their language knowledge
Not GP, but I assume the suggestion is that it's difficult to stay abreast of new developments within the constraints of a typical work day. Especially if your job utilises older technologies, as most do.
If a customer's balance is under $1 at the end of the month, we delay charging them for up to 60 days and send email reminders. If it's still under $1 after 60 days, we charge at least $0.50 and credit the difference (after fees) to their account for future use.
Funny nitpick, this definition applies to most drones, because most drones sold are x-copters and do not have wings, they always take-off and land vertically.
Yeah it's a strange term because it probably originated relative to fixed wing planes. Ie a VTOL plane. But now multicopters are the predominant species so VTOL can sound redundant to most drone builders today.
We could extend the argument more. Why build a self driving vehicle at all? Build a humanoid robot to drive the car for you! The argument that computer systems can outcompete human drivers, without using lidar, is at least reasonable, although not yet proven
(I didn't just want to just make sure - this is a stab)
I agree. I don’t know where this obsession comes from. Obsession with resembling as close to humans as possible. We’re so far from being perfect. If you need proof just look at your teeth. Yes, we’re relatively universal, but a screwdriver is more efficient at driving in screws that our fingers. So please, stop wasting time building perfect universal robots, build more purpose-build ones.
Given we have shaped so many tasks to fit our bodies, it will be a long time before a bot able to do a variety/majority of human tasks the human way won’t be valuable.
1000 machines specialized for 1000 tasks are great, but don’t deliver the same value as a single bot that can interchange with people flexibly.
The shape doesn't matter! Non-humanoid shapes give minir advantages on specific tasks but for a general robot you'll have a hard time finding a shape much more optimal than humanoid. And if you go with humanoid you have so much data available! Videos contain the information of which movements a robot should execude. Teleoperation is easy.
This is the bitter lesson! The shape doesn't matter, any shape will work with the right architecture, data and training!
Purpose build robots are basically solved. Dishwashers, laundry machines, assembly robots, etc. the moat is a general purpose robot that can do what a human can do.
Despite the law, driving in America is a necessity for many. That means our bar for taking it away is high. Quantify the safety delta and have an available alternative, and we can start lowering the bar for taking dangerous drivers off the road. (Frankly either >1 DUI or >1 at-fault crash should result in license revocation. We should also delay license issuance until 18 years old and have restrictions on the license until 20 [1].)
> Quantify the safety delta and have an available alternative
I would love it if these comparisons included "bus stats / average passengers". There are ways to just reduce the miles driven and the chances of collisions at the same time, without new tech improvements.
"the police are total idiots with no [...] knowledge of the law [...]" AND "are willingly corrupt and will brazenly break the law to line their own pockets"
