If you want humanitarian aid or be a government supplier, you’ll probably accept it. But I imagine it’d need to be something like USDC
I don’t expect to see the government paying aid recipients or suppliers with ethereum or something similar directly.
You can still get all the blockchain tracking and smart contract stuff with USDC.
We know USDT doesn’t actually hold a dollar for a dollar. Assuming they even pass an audit, it includes things such as but maybe not specifically real estate that don’t have relatively fixed values.
AFAIK usdc is actually better pegged. Dollars, bonds etc.
The only buyer you need for USDC would be circle or coinbase, you don’t need anyone else.
Edit: I don’t know what the status of the reserves would be should they go bankrupt though. E.g would a non usdc holder have any claim over the billions in usdc in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Will be interesting to see the decline in that number over the next 4 years or longer from the permanent damage it causes.
Someone with no filter will always say the ‘don’t say that aloud’ part aloud
How am I supposed to play my game of do they support the GOP or not, when they put it in the headline.
Except they can’t really because of the above which was explicitly to prevent trickery like that.
No explicit source, but it’s common sense and within their abilities, keep in mind recently changed rules around searching in general have changed recently…
Border agent: I’m going to search your phone give me the password.
(eventually you agree because it’s a burner)
You: Here you go
Border agent: There’s nothing on this phone, no email, no pictures, nothing? What are you trying to hide?
You: Well it’s a new phone I just got
Border agent: And you haven’t logged into anything yet?
You: Ya.
Border agent: looks like you’re trying to hide something, this isn’t normal behaviour
You: start looking nervous as the border agent’s tone changes
Border agent: You’re looking a little nervous now, are you hiding something?
You: no, just trying to travel
Border agent: Goes away and talks to someone, then comes back and says, sorry were going to deny you.
They can deny anyone for any reason. It would ultimately come down to how you handle the situation, but DO expect to be grilled about it if you haven’t set it up to look real.
They may have used the proper glue… that foot pedal recall, proper glue, but the workers had trouble installing it so they added soap to the pedal without properly vetting it and that fucked up the glue.
Something like that could have happened again
Edit: Just thinking of a made up stupid reason like the soap and thought it was funny…
E.g: We were supposed to use a size 3 glue applicator as per the asssembly spec, but it was causing some excess glue to come out along the edges as we placed the trim down and it was a lot of effort to properly wipe up on each vehicle, so we started using a size 2 applicator with less glue! 🤦
If you bring a burner phone and they search it and see nothing on it, they’ll think that suspicious too and might deny entry.
I knew they wouldn’t necessarily investigate it, that’s always their discretion, but I had no idea there was no actual bite to the rule if they didn’t comply. That’s stupid.
AEB braking was originally designed to not prevent a crash, but to slow the car when a unavoidable crash was detected.
It’s since gotten better and can also prevent crashes now, but slowing the speed of the crash was the original important piece. It’s a lot easier to predict an unavoidable crash, than to detect a potential crash and stop in time.
Insurance companies offer a discount for having any type of AEB as even just slowing will reduce damages and their cost out of pocket.
Not all AEB systems are created equal though.
Maybe disengaging AP if an unavoidable crash is detected triggers the AEB system? Like maybe for AEB to take over which should always be running, AP has to be off?
Well it’s not that it was a crash caused by a level 2 system, but that they’ll investigate it.
So you can’t hide the crash by disengaging it just before.
Looks like it’s actually 30s seconds not 10s, or maybe it was 10s once upon a time and they changed it to 30?
The General Order requires that reporting entities file incident reports for crashes involving ADS-equipped vehicles that occur on publicly accessible roads in the United States and its territories. Crashes involving an ADS-equipped vehicle are reportable if the ADS was in use at any time within 30 seconds of the crash and the crash resulted in property damage or injury
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-06/ADAS-L2-SGO-Report-June-2022.pdf
I think the older Tesla system (HW3) was around 300w, but I think the newer system is more now as they beefed up the compute, but I haven’t seen a number on that. The old system is pretty much maxed out though with no room to grow other then making things more efficient vs just more raw power usage.
A lot of the older hardware back then wasn’t purpose built for driving and was more repurposed general graphical compute, so it was less efficient hence the 2Kw you were seeing. Tesla built ASICs for the driving computer to bring costs and power usage down.
With the newer purpose built Nvidia stuff I’m sure that has brought the power draw down a lot though, likely relatively close (better or worse I don’t know) than Tesla’s watt per performance.
edit: clarity
A mile per hour is probably about right, but that’s probably per lidar. Waymo has 4 for example, so on a 300mile vehicle that could be 17 miles at 70mph.
Even if you can make it aerodynamic it’s still not going to be as aerodynamic as it not being there.
Sunk cost fallacy make sense, but I’d say it’s also the fear of the massive lawsuit/upgrade cost if wrong due to his statements.
Ya, no redundancy is a problem for sure.
Because the car actually does stop for things that aren’t fake walls made to look like a road, and at least for people as tested by testing agencies
This is the euro NCAP testing.
Note: not all of these cars have lidar, but some do.
Oops haha, 10 seconds.
That’s not really true.
He use lidar in SpaceX because he knows it’s the right tool for their specific job.
His stance is it’s not that cameras are better, but that cameras have to be so good for a truly AV that putting effort into both means you’re not going to make your cameras good enough to do it and rely on lidar instead. That and cost.
If the car can’t process and understand the world via cameras, it’s doomed to fail at a mass scale anyway.
It might be a wrong stance, but it’s not that lidar is flawed.
Tesla even uses lidar to ground truth their cameras
Edit: just adding a late example - Waymo, Cruise, and probably everyone out there still use humans to tell the car what to do if it gets stuck. I even bet Tesla will if they ever launch a robotaxi as they need a way to somehow help the car if it gets stuck. When we see these failures with Waymo and Cruise, it’s less “is something there” and more “I don’t understand this situation”. The understanding comes from vision. Lidar just gives the something is there, but it isn’t solving their problem.
They were much more expensive years ago when the decisions were made to not use it. Costs have come down a lot. And cars can have more than 1 if you’re going to use it. That also means more compute needed so a stronger computer and more power draw meaning less milage, which means bigger battery for same mileage. It all adds up.
Edit: might even impact aerodynamics, which again means more battery, which is more expensive.
They’ll just find cash jobs instead of the risk of being deported for paying taxes.