They effectively are answering questions like "is this road closed", or "is the object in front of me a solid object or a weird shadow".
These are not the sort of questions that US driver's license is really related to, it's not things like "can I legally turn right on red at this intersection".
Do we require a driver's license to solve Google reCapture questions like "what squares have a bike in them"? Because the waymo stuff is closer to image classification than driving.
I think if you took a buddy with you to the drivers license test in America and asked your buddy these questions during the test. You and your buddy are both failing. Unless test was in India over tea and not in a car.
I guess you're saying that because a waymo car can't walk into the DMV and get a license, it shouldn't be on the road? (which of course it can't, you have to have a legal human identity to get a normal driver's license, and we don't let cars have humanity currently)
Driver's licenses are legal constructs. The DMV certifies self-driving cars as able to drive on the road differently, and sure, those two different processes are different.
I really don't get the point you're trying to make here.
If they have a driver’s license from the Philippines, then it should be enough. Just like foreign tourists can rent and drive cars in the US without needing a US state driver’s license.
Yes. Something you should intuit, and is eaisly confirmed with a quick search. It is licensed to drive and the conditions underwhich it may do so are clearly stipulated. If it didnt require a license elon would have his deathtraps littering roadsides with mangled flesh and steel everywhere. Perhaps ask yourself why you asked such a misguided question and consider what you can do different in your cognitive patternd to avoid it in the future.
that wouldn't apply in this case, because the vendor, Valve, would be on the hook for fraudulent purchases and they would definitely have the deep pockets to pay out. The cc companies only have to worry about the small, fly by night companies that might disappear after a bunch of fraud.
it has to be VS Code by a long shot. They don't charge for it, but it serves as an enormous draw to keep people in the MS ecosphere and keeps MS in the developer game.
I'm not an expert, but I have learned that FDA approval is not actually necessary for treatments and drugs. Your doctor has a lot of leeway when it comes to treatment but she of course experiences more risk of accusations of malpractice when prescribing off label drugs or unapproved treatments. insurance will also rarely cover treatment that is not FDA approved. the requirement for FDA approval generally has more to do with your legal ability to market the drug, treatment, or product.
That's actually super interesting and kinda great to hear, I guess my follow up question is obvious but would insurance companies cover that kind of procedure in the US? I get the impression it wouldn't be.. but if out of pocket.. I know I'd absolutely do anything for my kid.
In my opinion, this is an example of using fancy words to explain something simple that not only hides the meaning, but is actually less precise. The use of de-risk just doesn't work in the context of a resume. It's not "risky" to have a less impressive resume. it's just less impressive.
Probably something more like a trade organization/association would be better. Like the Dairy Farmers Association. Which may or may not hire lobbyists.
It’s not hard. Start a 501(c)3, ask for members to donate and/or pay dues, hold some annual conventions (paid for by vendors) to evangelize the broader mission(s) and recruit new members, hire lobbyists to pursue the collective interests of members, rinse/repeat.
There is one feature I want from a product like this and that is to use facial recognition to remind me of the person's name. I have always been terrible at names (I think I'm a little bit face blind as well) and being able to remember everyone's name is such a super power.
Some significant development needed before this can be done ethically (asking everyone you are talking to to consent to having their names and faces matched at your service provider cloud is likely more awkward than asking what their name was again).
In theory that feature is possible to do in a privacy-respecting manner but that will certainly not be introduced by Meta.
Seems like if they are one of my linked-in contacts or Facebook friend and they have their face publicly available on their profile, then it would be fair game.
Have met someone that mentioned using them for taking photos of their kid while playing together in a hands-free way to capture cute moments but it sounded very much like a hobbyist use case not their intended purpose necessarily.
I would like to see a national law requiring the permanent deletion of mugshots if the arrested is not convicted of a crime within a certain period after the arrest. What percentage of these mugshots that are archived and shared are of innocent people?
The county I grew up in recently stopped posting mugshots online.
There was a whole cottage industry that sprang up where people were selling these like..tabloid periodicals that just had people's mugshots in them. No guilty verdict or anything.
So people would be at the gas station or convenient store and there's a stack of free mugshot tabloids. It was wild. Once or twice a year I'd get texts from friends, "hey did you see that so and so got their mugshot taken!?"
Natural water supply has feces, bacteria, etc too. Civilization has progressed because we have managed to remove them from the water and provide clean water to the masses.
So what you're saying is that, as educated humans with access to decades of scientific research, we can use that research to make decisions about treatment plans for water to keep our population healthy?
Despite consensus this benefits dental health (an important part of heart health) and has no side effects, and the reality that municipalities that already banned fluoride suffered a huge upturn dental issues - particular in children who don't brush as often.
I'm sure the state is ensuring that this little experiment doesn't harm anybody by guaranteeing access to dental care, right? Putting our money where our mouth is and making sure that if they're doing demonstrable harm that anyone affected is compensated?
Oh, no, the poors can just deal with it? Nice.
Makes sense in a bill about "freedom and liberty" that also bans transporting mushrooms that naturally grow in the state and flying drones above farms.
the consensus was that ddt was okay too, and the current consensus is that oil is not a big enough issue to bother with.
the state didn't feed small children radioactive oatmeal for fun oh wait
imo, water is one of those things we should keep simple. today they add fluoride, tomorrow what? maybe "brushing people's teeth for them" in the name of convenience is doing people a disservice. pick up healthy habits or get lost.
signed, fluoride free toothpaste user and boiled tap water drinker.
as for the mushrooms, i agree that it's a stupid law
