You're right, a human driver might not have remained in place. And as a result they would have risked further injury or death.
"“When it comes to someone pinned beneath a vehicle, the most effective way to unpin them is to lift the vehicle,” Sgt. Kathryn Winters, a spokesperson for the department, said in an interview. Were a driver to move a vehicle with a person lying there, “you run the risk of causing more injury.”"[0]
Yes, but the Cruise dragged her for 20 ft first before stopping and pinning her. So it didn’t even remain in place initially, just after dragging her for 20 ft.
What makes you think the government would be qualified to issue tests? 40k+ human-caused automobile deaths per year would suggest they are pretty awful at judging human driving ability. Not to mention these companies have more rigorous internal safety tests than the government would ever be able to come up with.
What makes you think random companies should be qualified to determine whether or not their product is good enough for the public space?
The FAA does a pretty good job for aircraft some errors notwithstanding, I don't see why there couldn't be a similar institution for road vehicles. Oh, wait: https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/home.aspx
This. Also for the ones stumped by and obstacle…..why’s isn’t there a remote control mode seems like they could easily help it out of situations like that with all of the cameras and sensors these things have
Yeah, he's explaining how you would create the base model, which is actually one of the more straightforward parts given that they've published their architecture (though I'm sure they've withheld a bit of their special sauce).
In reality, putting aside the millions of $$ needed to pay for the GPUs to train the model, the complexity actually lies in the training data acquisition/cleaning and the infrastructure needed to harness the 1000s of GPUs to train it in a remotely reasonable timeframe.
That being said there are a number of companies (Google, AI21, Cohere, and probably others) who have successfully created large language models like GPT3, so it's definitely not impossible when you have the resources.
I actually think this is reasonable. The account was broadcasting his live location at any given point in time and there's a strong argument it presented a legitimate safety risk given so many people's hatred towards him.
It's also hard to say he's banning free speech against himself when it feels like half of twitter is anti-Elon sentiment these days.
The account was re-broadcasting publicly available information. Anyone who wanted to harm Musk would easily be able to find this information themselves without the twitter account.
True, but the account significantly lowers the bar to finding that information, making it much more likely someone who wishes to do harm could act on it.
Seems to me that a lot of the people Elon has targeted with the so-called "Twitter Files" would say they were making the same type of situational harm-reducing judgment call.
It can be preferable because RSU's typically have a basis that reflects the price of the stock at the time they're granted. So if you're granted $100k in RSU's per year at year 0, and the price of the stock doubles by year 1, you'll actually receive $200k worth of stock.
And when it halves (like it happened to most tech stock over the last year) you get $50K by year 1. If that doubles you finally get your 100K again by year 2.
I think the point is that RSUs are preferable if the stock goes up, and cash is preferable if the stock goes down. If the stock stays flat, there is no difference between RSU/cash split.
I think most people's assumption that the market will go up over time so most people would prefer RSUs. How accurate that assumption is in the short-medium term remains to be seen.
To be more general, RSUs are preferable if the stock goes up higher relative to other investments that the grantee could have picked, and cash is preferable if the stock performs worse than other investments that the grantee could have picked. For example, if the stock rises but performs worse than an index fund, then the grantee would have been better served to have gotten cash and put it into a no-effort index fund. If the grantee has an aptitude for stock picking, the balance sways even more towards cash being preferable.
And yet if you look at most tech stocks that "halved" this year (which, btw, is an overstatement for most), they're still up from 2 years ago. My company's stock is down 25% but my RSUs that vested this year were still worth a hell of a lot more than when they were granted 2,3, or 4 years ago.
