The bar set for self-driving cars: Can it recognize and respond correctly to a deliberate optical illusion?

The bar set for humans: https://youtu.be/ks11nuGGupI

For the record, I do want the bar for self-driving safety to be high. I also want human drivers to be better... Because even not-entirely-safe self-driving cars may still be safer than humans at a certain point.

Also, fuck Tesla.

Ahh that makes sense, your English is is very correct, just harder to tell with more reserved English speakers. Your situation is certainly very normal and not at all unique to younger folks!

I guess another pragmatic thing people do sometimes is, if they know they're going to see someone they get weird about, they'll leverage their refractory period so it's less intense when they meet.

Ahh, I see. Pardon my assumption, but your phrasing does suggest to me that you might be younger/teenage--are teens on Lemmy now? Out of an abundance of caution, I'd recommend you try talking to someone a bit closer to you that you trust, like a counselor, older friend, or parent as this does get into a more sensitive topic. Talking to randoms on the internet can be helpful, but also very risky as it's wild out here and there are all kinds of predators let alone bad advice. I don't know what your life circumstance is and counselors/parents aren't perfect either, but it's usually a much safer starting place. Use your head, verify what you hear.

If you're an adult, totally apologize. I hope you'd agree with with my caution.

As others have mentioned, there is clearly a communication breakdown. It's probably not the only thing, but the key thing I see is a lack of communication about expectations.

It's clear you care about this relationship because you're experiencing a lot of hurt over his actions. And it's clear you care about him as you're doing things for him the way you like to be cared for. And under normal circumstances, sure this is one way to communicate expectations and develop reciprocation. Your feelings are totally understandable. His actions didn't meet your expectations of caring for you and the relationship, and that feels like he doesn't care or even feels like an attack on you, and it can feel unjust because you're doing the things.

However, when you're in a rough patch and arguing, it's not the status quo anymore and expectations aren't as clear. It can be confusing, especially when things are tense/fraught, to ask someone to do something and expect them to do something else. If he's repeatedly not meeting expectations with what you assume he knows in the moment, then you might have to reconsider your assumption and re-communicate that.

So during fights, it might be more helpful to explicitly feel out each others' expectations and wants at a base level on common things like special occasions. Which brings us to the other side. Understandably, you're focuses on how you feel about it and your frustrations. It's a frustrating situation with deep implications for a relationship that's incredibly important to you. What we haven't heard much about is what you know about his expectations and how he likes being cared for. Did you know what his expectations around Valentine's were? For some people, acting like everything is normal and exchanging gifts right after a major fight can feel painfully disingenuous and forced. Do you know what his expectations were around your birthday?

This isn't to call you out or anything, especially when you're upset about the situation, but rather to point out a gap. If the goal is to reconcile and develop a resolution to the fraught situation, it has to start with mutual understanding of each others' expectations and where both your feelings are coming from. This doesn't mean immediately accepting blame or agreeing with the other's justifications in the broader arguments. It just means creating the space for each other to be genuinely seen and heard.

From a cis/straight guy's perspective, I used to find myself in this situation a regularly. I've found a good combination of pragmatic coping strategies and reframing the person is helpful. Others have mentioned common coping strategies like distraction and minimizing contact, but I find this alone doesn't help set you up for healthy relationships because it only treats the person you're infatuated with as the "forbidden/unworthy object of desire" rather than their own person. So a lot of the reframing I'd do was geared towards reframing then as anyone else that you're not interested in pursuing, so things like "I'm not their person and they're not my person", "they're not into me and that's not hot", "they're a friend/sibling who has their own life, I'll support them in theirs, but I should focus on mine"

It's also always good to put yourself in their shoes. If you were in a relationship and knew someone who you're not into was infatuated with you, how would you want them to act? I doubt you'd want them to pursue you or conversely treat you like toxic waste just to cope.

It's infatuation, it will pass. Love must be mutual and is built over time.

TL;DR: As a guy, this usually ends up being a lot of "Don't be a creep, just be fucking normal."

In the same boat with the same CPU. The beast is running Cyberpunk 2077 fairly well at 1440p with a DLSS/ray tracing card but it can't run Windows 11 🙄🙄🙄

Whoosh. They're not mutually exclusive.

An analogy is a comparison. I was comparing a case of labeling something I see as obviously terrorism to a case of labeling something obviously killing. I wasn't making a comparison to say Tesla is equivalent to OBL.

Sure we can debate the definition of terrorism, which I'm open to being wrong about. When you say "calculated" I understand that as premeditated with some thought towards planning the action. Hypothetically say we have someone who regularly carries a gun, and is walking around during Pride parade. Say he's historically anti-queer/DEI, what ever stereotype. Say for whatever reason he gets angry enough, something's happened and it's the last straw and he wants to put an end to the leftist agenda and starts shooting at the crowds, while spouting his political ideology. It's a caricature, but has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack except on the point not being "calculated", it's a spur of the moment, unplanned attack. I'd still call that terrorism.

Another point though, I think many of the people who have been vandalizing Tesla did calculate their actions. Especially the arson cases must have involved some degree of thought/planning. And part of that thought is the political stance that Musk is wrong and billionaires like Musk should be afraid of the people.

I wasn't comparing Tesla to Osama Bin Laden? I was making an analogy to clarify my point of calling an obvious spade a spade. Terrorism doesn't have to be calculated, it just has to be politically motivated. I happen to agree with the political motivations and stance of the violence in this case. That doesn't change what it is.

Well that's my point, we should be arguing the legitimacy of the action, not whether or not it constitutes terrorism, which it obviously is.

Totally agree.

This is coming from someone who doesn't necessarily disagree with burning down Tesla dealerships.

1. Define terrorism

2. Explain how burning down Tesla dealerships to resist Elon's political takeover is not terrorism

I hate Elon and I don't even disagree with targeting Tesla. But let's be real. Mass targeted vandalism and especially arson are clearly forms of violence. The victims of this violence are civilians and the purpose of the violence is to achieve political goals through instilling fear.

Agree with the actions or not, that's terrorism.

If people started targeting and burning down costcos for being woke/DEI, that would be terrorism for the exact same reason, not because the ideology is different.

People need to stop pussyfooting around the label and accept that words mean certain things. The issue is not whether or not it's terrorism. The argument should be whether or not the actions are justifiable.

It's like whinging about whether or not we say "Osama Bin Laden was killed" or if the person who shot him is a "killer" because killing in general is bad/wrong.

Now the government response of categorizing certain people vs others as terrorists matters. What it means for people resisting Trump matters. But those are different arguments.

I think it would help if you clarify what "propaganda" means to you, as I have a sense we mean different things.

For me, I understand propaganda as media/content/communication aimed at manipulating people towards a particular point of view. It's often characterized by reduction, misrepresentation/deception, disingenuous argument, and etc. That is also to say that I make a distinction between manipulation and persuasive argument. So, a piece of content can make an argument, display inherent biases, employ persuasive techniques, without being propaganda. That's because all forms of expression necessarily hold an ideological position.

The book is an exploration of and presents an argument for militarism. That alone doesn't make it propaganda. While many of the sentiments, implications, premises in the book carry a clear bias, the book nevertheless invites the reader to engage with and reflect on the ideology rather than aiming to manipulate and indoctrinate the reader.

I'd say the earnest argument presented by Heinlein in ST is flawed and morally objectionable, but not a piece of propaganda.

More than that, it was bipartisan with Republican contribution

You are correct, tariffs hurt everyone. The direct cost is paid by the importer not the exporter. Part of the reaction-turned propaganda point about the US is that American people will bear the brunt of the tariffs. This is because Trump/MAGA framed tariffs as a tax that other countries would pay the direct cost of, not the Americans importing the goods.

This led to a downplaying of how it would negatively affect the foreign industries exporting the goods, and apply political pressure on those countries. This is how tariffs usually work, you put tariffs on certain goods to apply economic/political pressure towards specific goals, e.g. tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect NA auto industry. This still hurts NA consumers in that they don't have access to cheap Chinese EVs, but gives NA auto a chance to catch up. Tariffs are a normal economic tool that can help with bringing industry back into your country, but it's a tricky balance.

Canada is under no illusions that we will have to pay tariffs on imported American goods. There's also a nationalist reaction to boycott American goods to an extent for starting this trade war, but Canadians will still hurt. The alternative would be to take it and submit to America's whims, which is not a real option.

This trade war is not within the norms of standard economic diplomacy/negotiation though, it's just unhinged chaos. IMO the chaos is the point, giving cover for Trump&friends to solidify complete control as they turn the US into an authoritarian regime and helps to bring American industries to heel under their rule.

Or they could just respect the ceasefire they agree to when they finally do agree to one, which is the point of this piece.

Well they are accountable to the FAA, which is why Elon is dismantling it

Fuck Elon and the argument is cute... But SpaceX is not exactly the right target for it because these tests are funded with private money and the whole point of these tests is to give the tech a safe and controlled opportunity to fail so they can write a report on why it failed so they can address it for the next test.

Perhaps you can find some big publically funded projects under Elon's companies that lack scrutiny.