Then each QA human will be paired with a second AI that will catch those mistakes the human ignores. And another human will be hired to watch that AI and that human will get an AI assistant to catch their mistakes.

Eventually they’ll need a rule that you can only communicate with the human/AI directly above you or below you in the chain to avoid meetings with entire countries of people.

I think the same about anyone who fears LGBT+ trying to convert their kids like they believe someone can be convinced to be gay rather than just convinced to accept their sexuality.

Like I don’t see any problem with being gay but it’s not for me. I sometimes think dating would be easier if I was bi, but it’s about as appealing as knowing it would be easier to fill my stomach if I ate sawdust.

So it’s very telling when someone talks about gays tempting them or that they worry about a gay agenda of turning everyone gay like it’s a realistic possibility.

So the rest will be immortal (going by Logan rules)?

Yeah, one that I always think of is the see-saw one where a sky diver’s parachute failed so he aimed for a see-saw with a girl sitting on one end which resulted in the girl launched shot upwards and then landing safely on top of a building.

Their first test used basically a metal plank on a fulcrum and the forces did more to bend the plank than they did to launch the girl and she didn’t get high enough.

Their second attempt used a see-saw that was built using suspension bridge tech to essentially make it instructable, resulting in fatal forces from the launch. At this point, they called it busted.

But I see two unrealistic extremes where reality would exist somewhere in the middle where see-saws are designed to not break easily but not to the point of being indestructible and there might be a sweet spot where the forces are high enough to launch girl several stories up but not high enough that she dies from the forces.

Also, for the bull in a china shop one, I’m guessing that saying resulted from a bull ending up inside a china shop during a running of the bulls event, where stress would be high and there wouldn’t be an easy and obvious path out on the other side, plus maybe a shopkeeper suddenly trying to get it out in a panic. I think that would get the expected result, especially after a few shelves have broken and each step makes more broken sounds.

Opposable thumbs and ability to vocalize a wide range of sounds also helped. Though with the brains, we probably would have figured out a way to communicate with more complexity than other animals regardless of the 2nd one.

And the mechanism for that infinite stamina also enabled our hands to be even more useful (and if I had to guess, bipedalism probably arose as a result of our ancestors wanting to hold things while they moved instead of that being an extra bonus).

Case in point:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEEY_c9KunA

They do hurt him, but it’s more of a case of being too enthusiastic about greeting and playing with him than wanting to cause him harm because they are wild animals.

The wild animal part means they are unpredictable, not automatically homicidal. All of our domesticated animals descend from wild animals, so at one point they would have been relationships between humans and wild animals. There might have been different levels of bonding as they were bred for sociability, but given the guy in the video’s bond with lions and knowing that he is far from unique in that with big cats, I’d say there were probably some humans early on that befriended wolves or wild cats with strong bonds.

And there were also likely many that were killed by wild animals they had bonded with or were trying to. And that might still be the future fate of that guy in the video and it might even be over before he realizes it’s any different.

Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).

An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.

Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.

And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?

The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pizza place sell small pizzas for a decent value. They price them to not sell. I’m guessing because they aren’t as predictable for the amount of volume you might need.

It wouldn’t have been cheaper to go for bigger (ignoring deals), but it wouldn’t have been much more and you’d have leftover pizza for lunch the next day.

You cannot say that with statistical certainty. There’s about 8 billion people who haven’t eventually died yet and all it will take is one of them to break that 100%. You should include a disclaimer with an error range or you might get sued by someone who spikes someone’s drink with dihydrogen monoxide and then they don’t eventually die for botching their assassination.

That said, the statistics are pretty strong. 99.9% is basically 100% plus wiggle room so no one can sue me, so readers should be aware that this dangerous chemical can also go by the name of hydrogen hydroxide and some food manufacturers try to sneak it by with the name aqua in their ingredients list.

For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.

Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.

It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.

Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).

Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.

Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.

Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant “stupid” instead of “smart”.

Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.

A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

I think the play here is to make accusations about laws many on the left don’t give a shit about to bait the “who cares?” responses and then apply that sentiment to the laws Trump has been convicted of or accused of that they hope their base doesn’t give a shit about.

Yep, looks like it was fooled by the fake contour on her right cheek.

There’s another layer to it, too. Businesses are built and run with a combination of capital and labour, but all of the power about the direction and continuity if the business goes along with the ownership of the capital.

So not only do the owners decide how to divide up the proceeds generated by the business, they also have the power to completely change it, including who, what, where, when, and how.

He looks like a bee sting.

Yeah, though I’m learning about Japan’s history and, as much as I don’t like how things went in European history, it could have been much worse.

Like one big moment for me was when I realized that the whole seppuku ritual thing was actually rational and intended to prevent an even worse outcome.

A European King (or church) could only kill so many people even with trials before unrest would start up. A Japanese Lord could just politely request subordinates kill themselves at their earliest convenience.

Or just make it a chamber modification that can be applied to any gun that reduces the size of the round that can fit in it to something that isn’t a standard size.