No obviously the forces of Ukraine would be scared once he rode in on his unicorn.

A few of us still remembers option 3) Regulation And also 4) Properly working anti-trust laws.

I think the downvote from someone not bothered enough to say “well duh” but also bothered enough to signal their annoyance…

If you are traveling across the Atlantic to get from Los Angeles to New York i would argue that you are traveling the wrong way…

Yes, and?

The point of distance is to take it into aggregate, for both modes of transport.

This is in fact the exact point i am making.

Per trip measurement implies that every trip (regardles of time or distance traveled) has equal danger.

I sort of answered this somewhere else but i will reiterate.

Using this metric you are sort of assuming all trips are equal. No matter how short, or long you are assuming the base danger is the same. This means that driving 100 meters is just as dangerous as driving for a whole day. (See what the problem is?)

And if we look at this premise in isolation: “Am i going to die on this trip”? If the trip is 100m, then a plane is probably out of the question either way. And if the trip is to a different country… then hey, look at that, the sources you cited come into relevance (where pr distance a plane is safer) and you would have to calculate the danger of completing that specific trip in a car VS flying that distance with a plane.

You are generalizing on terms that make no sense, since “total number of trips” in cars include all manner of different scenarios of some times extremely varying degree of danger. So in order to have data that is statistically relevant and in any form comparable you have to choose a different metric.

So to answer the question again “Am i going to die on this trip?” or to extrapolate “should i drive or fly on this trip”, if you cant use generic statistics, the answer will be “it depends. You have to calculate danger for the trip specifically”.

I honestly think you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.

“Per trip” is a horribly poor metric. Because there is a fundamental difference between a trip down to the store, or a cross country trip, even with a car. Also it would be extremely dependent on where you are going, where you live etc. etc.

For the discussion to have any meaning you have to abstract it to a metric that makes sense for all people, or else you would have to also figure in where you usually travel, how good a driver you are etc etc etc.

At that point its a completely meaningless semantics exercise because for instance taking a plane to work is not realy valid for me since i live in the same city as i work… Or lets do it the other way around: If i need to go to Spain tomorrow, its safer for me to fly then to drive there. (This is based on your own sources)

I would think real statistics would be more interesting then peoples emotions when talking about what is actually dangerous.

Very interesting 🤔

And your point about metrics is pretty spot on.

In the end it becomes an exercise in trying to find the metric that best supports your argument.

We have also been jumping around a bit on geographical limitations. And in for instance Scandinavia, the original premise might be closer to real due to better road safety.

I think implying some sort of myth or ruse is missing the mark hard on this subject.

From your own source:

Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles[c] flown,[citation needed] and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by distance traveled.

So I guess this is the point you are trying to make?

Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents

Yes, and how many die every year from plane crashes in sweden?

If we take a relatively big plane (450 passengers) as an example. One has to fall out of the sky every 3. Years to match the car accident number…

3186 deaths over 10 years VS 1.19 million every year.

(This is globally. Sweden and Norway(where i live) will naturally have pretty radically lower numbers then globally when it comes to road safety.)

But look at that air travel number again: 3186. Over 10 years. Globally. Commercial Air travel is fucking safe. Its horrible for the climate. But its safe.

Whatever way you slice those numbers it comes up air travel i safer. Feel free to find actual statistics that contradict me. :)

This is complete horseshit.

Are you aware how many flights take place every day?

Vs

How many fatal accidents pr flight?

The fact is that almost every time a fatal accident happens in a (commercial) plane anywhere in the world, you hear about it. Because if a plane crashes a lot of people die in one dramatic (and rare) event.

Fatal car accidents litteraly happen every minute of every day. Almost none of them go on the news. (Cause reporting them all would be impossible).

Let me also post some sources, since you did not:

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

https://www.icao.int/safety/iStars/Pages/Accident-Statistics.aspx/ Air traffic: (3187 fatalities over 10 years)

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries (1.19 million people every year die on the road)

Didn’t know where in the tread to reply.

This is being worked on from multiple angles.

In the us apple, Google, Microsoft ++ are working on a common framework for this. (Shocking who are working on this in the us)

The EU has a citizens digital wallet program for the same purpose. These programs are also collaborating so that certificates and proof of personhood/citizenship etc can be exchanged between various actors.

The EU model leans heavily into privacy and user control of data, where you as an individual decides with whom to share your credentials, proof of personhood, etc.

This would lead to many possibilities, like for instance being able to confirm digitally prescriptions for medicine across borders, so you can easily get your medication even if you are traveling in another country, without having to spend time and energy getting signed paperwork send back and forth.

The most simple form of this would be that the system simply verifies that yes, you are indeed a human individual. But can be expanded to confirm citizenship, allow you to share your medical data with institutions, confirm diplomas and professional certification etc.

I have a 2018 Passat car net works just fine.

I had to contact the dealer to have them activate the eSIM in the car and register an account their site via the app. (Pretty standard stuff)

And yes it’s a subscription like this for locating the car, updating navdata online and remote heating + charging info. (It’s a hybrid)

Well… I say “just fine” their app is slow and unstable. But everything worked nicely with an unofficial home assistant integration. And when VW moved everything over to their new app, it continued to work on my old car, and it took the HA community about a week to sort most of the new API out.

It’s not perfect, but it does technically work, even on their older models. I can still download and install updated maps on it too for the onboard nav. (Though i usually just use Android auto…)

Even if you decided not to find out how to get it working, doesn’t mean it’s abandoned.

All that being said this is one of many genuine reasons to be concerned about this trend. And a good reason for people that write about and review cars to care about the software in the cars, the support you can expect, and the companys track record when it comes to supporting older models.

And like others have stated. The BMW example with the heated seats is just… rotten.

“why not both?”

Indeed.

Quote me after dealing with print drivers acting up and spooler service crashes for the nth time that day (also worked in it support for several years):

“We can land men on the moon, but somehow getting a printer, a technology that has existed litteraly since before computers had screens, to work is still complete and utter black magic…!”

This is what scares me the most.

I absolutely agree that they need to “play it safe” this time.

But for their consoles they have had a “it’s not worth launching something unless it’s really innovative” philosophy for quite some time. And if they decide on some bonkers idea that screws with my simple wish, a better switch, I think I’m going to be disappointed.

And I say this as a guy who has loved Nintendo and their products since I got my NES back in the 90s. I stood in line to get the Wii at launch, heck I even liked my Wii U. (Even if it was under powered and confusingly marketed, I liked that they tried to do something new…)

But this time Nintendo, just stick to a good, solid, backwards compatible , iteration on your original idea.

This.

Anyone who looks into this tech properly, beyond sensationalist headlines made to draw readers or outrageous claims to attract investors sees this emperor as the naked illusion that it is.

It’s a great tool for what it’s good at (generating convincing text outputs). And completely useless at others.

The risk to jobs currently are owners and managers with little to no knowledge trying to actually replace their employees with llms. These are companies setting them selves up for amazing and spectacular failure at this point in the game.

It’s impossible to say how this will play out in the long run but currently it’s interesting as a research tool, a tool for saving time when writing texts etc etc.

What happens when clever people integrate these models with other systems in intelligent and responsible ways is going to be interesting to follow.

Currently the most important thing to emphasize with AI is that a lot of the coverage and general writing on the subject matter is filled with misconceptions about how the technology works and what it is capable of. It’s full on hypecycle season.

I’m currently deep diving into AI and specifically LLMs to strengthen my ability to give respondible advice about it and to explain it in an understandable manner to our bosses and decision makers at work.

There are lots of great deep dives and explainers out there all ready and a few manage to get the fundamentals right without going completely bonkers technical as well… but the (and I hate using this word as it’s being abused way to much) main stream media is not a source with even a grain of propper comprehension when it comes to what this technology is (and perhaps even more important isn’t).

This is the video I currently recommended to get a good start at the subject of llms: https://youtu.be/-4Oso9-9KTQ

It is general enough for most people to follow but detailed enough to burst the biggest illusions on the subject.