I mean, HTML is a plain text format, it was literally made for people to write, and people wrote websites with it, by hand, for years. Literal children with almost no technical skills taught themselves to do it.
There was a time when it was easy. Even Javascript was easy. All of this stuff was made for people, but we've abstracted it away so only machines ever touch it and what used to be easy is now a dark art.
You think something that starts with "less than exclamation point" is made for people? "less than exclamation point minus minus" ah yes it just rolls off the tongue. HTML was clearly designed to add "semantic web" to the existing text data of the internet, no matter the cost to human readability. If it's "made for people" it's only in the roundabout fashion that eventually it gets hidden away by the interface to change the font color, etc.
Human beings are capable of dealing with abstract forms of expression other than natural language. Musicians deal with music notation. Stenographers write in shorthand. Mathematical notation. No programming language with its brackets and parentheses "rolls off the tongue" either but human beings nevertheless write code. HTML is just one such abstraction, concerned with adding markup and hyperlinks to a digital simulation of a paper document.
HTML is "made for people" because it's a text-based markup format intended to be edited by people when designing a web page, simple as. If it were made for machines it would be a binary bytecode format. It isn't because it's meant for human beings to read and write. And human beings are capable of reading it and writing it.
I don't know what to tell you. This is simple, straightforward fact, but you seem weirdly offended by the mere premise.
<!-- strong disagree -->
All I'm saying is that if you were to make a semantic markup of English today, would you really want to use keyboard-convenient glyphs just because it's hardware-convenient?
What would be the best way to add markup to English? It seems like an unexplored question. And if we were to explore it, we would find many alternatives, ranking much higher on the "for people" scale than HTML.
>All I'm saying is that if you were to make a semantic markup of English today, would you really want to use keyboard-convenient glyphs just because it's hardware-convenient?
HTML is not a semantic markup of English, it's a semantic markup of digital text documents. Yes, you would want to use keyboard-convenient glyphs to express this markup because the keyboard is the primary means by which a human inputs text into a computer, which itself is the primary means by which HTML documents are viewed. Also because HTML operates primarily within the context of typography, in other words, because the data that HTML marks up also consists of keyboard convenient glyphs. It only makes sense to use text glyphs to describe the transformation of text glyphs within the context of a textual medium of communication.
Even Markdown is essentially the same thing. There's little real difference between surrounding a word in asterisks versus <strong> or <b> tags to denote bold text, other than aesthetics.
>And if we were to explore it, we would find many alternatives, ranking much higher on the "for people" scale than HTML.
Like what? Interpretive dance? Arcane gestures? Singing the markup into being?
People have been using written language for thousands of years, representing written language with type for centuries, and using keyboards as an interface for generating text since long before computers were invented. It all seems to work just fine for many people. I'm curious what you think would be better.
IF it is not a challenge to invent new glyphs and manufacture new keys, then perhaps we can rethink the markup as well. It is a rather open-ended question and I appreciate your asking. I have some thoughts, mainly inspired by the original inspiration to things like cascading styles, which was an inheritance of concepts and a jumble loosely associated with how magazines are structured and arranged / composed on a series of pages that flip together and have images and text. It seems that there are, by now, largely, conventions that are stuck to in the online realm, so maybe there is an amazing shorthand we could develop to get the same point across, now. What we are discussing is becoming closer and closer a reality because the amount of code pressing TAB will output (autocomplete) is increasing, and evening time and sunset time on actual "coding" might happen in our lifetimes. Perhaps not for microprocessors on solo devices requiring direct register access and pointer circuiting, but the trend is that less or fewer keystrokes can produce just as rich content. The markup language makes it "hypertext," right?
꜐expandꜘourꜛglyph꜅workꜝ Wikipedia has something closer to what I envision as what the dudes who done did CSS done thought. Someothing closer to arranging your magazine on the page for others to surf, and also link it with other pages. The soothing letters of English and their stradivarian font-signatures so carefully plucked and delicately labored on in the ethers of Apple headquarters, are bruised and battered by slashing and elbowing />
You can write "down" with your left because immediately above your hand on the page there's no hand to "drag behind." I had to think about your sentence for a while. (It might just mean I'm not very bright.)
Scoping work is just as vital as work itself. If you are going apple picking you must go to the correct orchard. You cannot go to a forest bereft of apples and start picking what is not there. Nor can you pick all the apples in one day, or maybe if you do you will be so fatigued that you cannot work any more days that week. Scoping work is the ability to "bite off exactly as much as you can chew" and add "buffer time" so that you can successfully complete that delicious morsel. Indeed, the only way to success is to celebrate small victories, and you must now regulate what those are on your own. That means biting off not too much to chew, and overcelebrating what goes right. And finding the most essential meaningful path to your goal via junctures where you work on just enough of the project to accomplish either the: knowledge gain required, the app upgrade required, or the app creation required. Bit of a free-flow ramble for ya, but hope it helps.
Kanban is good once you have multiple brains looking for idle work. Until then, my recommendation as a driven, solo-starter who has created 3 ~huge projects more-or-less solo, is to rely on a `notes-todo` file where you religiously and often and frequently log the date and time and then write some notes. Append to the TOP of the file so you can see the latest words at the top, and then you scroll down and it's like a historical feed. You can put what you accomplished in the log to start. Eventually you will have design questions, debates, breakthroughs, and even just long treatise on what you want to accomplish. All this is amazing. You need a written record that helps you sort out where you are in the process. Remember, when working it's microscopic zoom mode surgeon style, and when reflecting it's telescope mode from the space station. You need to be kind to yourself moving between the two, and the answer is NOTES
I read the thread on metafilter, apparently its sponsored by the John Muir whatever and is for people who enjoy sketching nature and sharing their sketches, I think.
What do you mean "No" ? I am asking if it's traversing red lights while they are otherwise safe to traverse (no lateral traffic). What's with this amazing pessimism infecting this forum lately.
You asked whether or not the FSD ran the red lights safely. You were given the answer of "No". You never, at any point, asked whether or not "it's traversing red lights while they are otherwise safe to traverse (no lateral traffic)" which is a question that contradicts itself.
If you ask a question, someone answers, and you start berating them because they were either not able to read your mind to determine what the actual question you're asking is or gave you an answer you did not like, then why ask the question?
The article you posted a comment to shows a video of numerous instances of the FSD trying to run a red light when it is absolutely "not safe" to do so.
Usually HN engineers are able to compartmentalize and correctly answer questions like this, but it’s a lost cause with Tesla for some reason. They’re unable to separate “it did a dangerous thing, but did not cause harm” in their minds.
Yes, it has problems. Yes, it has regressions. Yes, sometimes it does dangerous things. But it drove me 400 miles, door to door, last week and did fine. There’s clearly something historic happening here, but all HN can talk about is flaws.
If someone developed a warp drive, and 25% of the time it turned the operator into jelly, we wouldn’t sit here talking exclusively about jelly. We’d talk about how warp drive is cool and what the path to fixing stuff is.
This is a good point. HN posters have some difficulty looking at the objective reality of this situation, for example some are missing the obvious comparison to a completely unrelated sci-fi hypothetical that exists in your head.
Breaking my own rule only once: My car, that I own as a consumer, drove me through town, on the freeway, through another town, and into a parking lot four hundred miles away.
Twenty years ago, that was sci-fi. HN would have been able to reason clearly about it twenty years ago.
(Yes, I know HN wasn’t around in 2004. You don’t need to nitpick that)
This is a thread about Teslas running red lights. Your story about a trip wherein that didn’t happen has no real bearing on this topic.
Your nice trip aside, no sci-fi hypotheticals make running red lights acceptable either.
“What if we invented a reverse microwave but it made everything smell like cheese?” or “What if we invented an interpretive dance that solved climate change but only people over 6’4” could do it?” have the same amount of relevance to Teslas running red lights as the human jelly machine you’ve conjured in your mind.
I actually generally agree with you. It’s amazing. And I actually feel safer with waymo than human drivers. But the idea that running a stop sign is safe because there aren’t other cars is the issue here.
> If someone developed a warp drive, and 25% of the time it turned the operator into jelly, we wouldn’t sit here talking exclusively about jelly. We’d talk about how warp drive is cool and what the path to fixing stuff is
What? Who? We'd ask why the hell people are being put in it.
The hackers of yore, the ones we respect, weren't terrorists. When they phreaked the phone company they didn't try to take down 911.
> did not cause harm
Tesla's FSD has killed people [1]. It's also been the subject of multiple recalls by federal agencies.
I looked at the very first one on the list and it says someone drunk in a non-Tesla hit a Tesla and resulted in a death of the Tesla driver.
> According to the Albuquerque Police Department, on July 1, Sandoval-Martinez was driving drunk, speeding, and without a license when he ran a red light and hit Tiger Gutierrez’s Tesla, as well as a Toyota Corolla.
Not sure why the website is putting that under a Tesla death, probably to inflate counts since there aren't many Tesla deaths due to them being very safe cars.
Why are you attributing and referencing these incidents as FSD killing people?
> Why are you attributing and referencing these incidents as FSD killing people?
Nobody is.
The first entry, case No. 432, appears to have a null value in the Autopilot claimed and Verified Tesla Death columns. The first Autopilot claimed death is No. 410 [1].
> probably to inflate counts since there aren't many Tesla deaths due to them being very safe cars
How is 555 deaths across millions of cars sold refuting that? The bold text at the top clearly states "Tesla Deaths is a record of Tesla accidents that involved a driver, occupant, cyclist, motorcyclist, or pedestrian death, whether or not the Tesla or its driver were at fault."
You're the one that referenced that site as a source for FSD allegedly killing people. And now the only thing you have is an Autopilot death and quote the site text that says it includes deaths whether or not the Tesla or its driver were at fault? Where are the FSD deaths you claimed? Most people don't check sources and assume a comment is true because one is linked.
The fact that deaths are included as a 'Tesla death' regardless of who's fault it is shows that the site operator has an axe to grind and that the data cannot be trusted.
> How is 555 deaths across millions of cars sold refuting that?
555 deaths over 11 years worldwide is quite low given that about 45,000 people die in auto accidents just in the US every single year and 1.19M people die worldwide every single year.
I believe the NHTSA's fatal FSD crash refers to No. 225 on that list [1].
> Most people don't check sources and assume a comment is true because one is linked
I'd assume anyone responding to a comment would be curious and competent enough to look at a source.
> fact that deaths are included as a 'Tesla death' regardless of who's fault it is shows that the site operator has an axe to grind and that the data cannot be trusted
Judging fault is subjective. Judging whether someone died is not.
> 555 deaths over 11 years worldwide is quite low given that about 45,000 people die in auto accidents just in the US every single year and 1.19M people die worldwide every single year
Yes. That's the point. It's a dataset that shows Teslas to be safe, Autopilot not so much and evidences FSD having killed at least one person.
> it drove me 400 miles, door to door, last week and did fine
I call BS. Even in perfect weather on perfect roads with perfect visibility, 400 miles is at least 10 times as long as FSD can go without a disengagement.
I dunno what to tell you. It did it. A disengagement every 40 miles is not what I’m seeing on my car.
(By the way, this is part of the reason Tesla owners get called Elon-worshipers: we see the sentiment in places like this, it doesn’t line up with the reality we’re seeing every day, and trying to correct the discrepancy comes across as worship. It’s not, it’s just that it seems like something other than truth is driving these conversations.)
How did it even go 400 miles in the first place without stopping to supercharge?
I have a Tesla. My second so far, and I've been driving one since the first Model 3 was released. Pretty happy with the car. FSD is cool, better than I expected in many way, but I just can't envision it going anywhere over single-digit miles without a disengagement. I never got more than 3 or 4 miles before it did something requiring me to take over. And it was worse on the highway, not better.
Not interested in a fight, but I remain very skeptical every time someone makes a wild claim of hundreds of miles continously on FSD. It just doesn't match my experience at all, nor any of my friends who also drive Teslas and have experienced FSD.
400 miles is at least 5 hours of driving, which is a bit long for not even having a pee break. Since you're driving a BEV, it's also above the maximum range of your car, so you had to have stopped at some point, which suggests that there are details in your claim that are already missing because (you feel) those details don't matter to the essential truth of your statement.
I believe that you believe you made a 400-mile drive with full self-driving without any issues. But I also believe that belief can be made in good faith even if there were issues during that drive--either the things that did come up you don't mentally classify as issues, or you've just failed to commit what did happen to memory.
That's not a knock on you, by the way; recently, I've been struck in a number of instances the times where I have physical proof something happened yet I have absolutely no memory whatsoever of it happening while feeling that I would have had to have that memory. Human memory is notoriously finicky and fallible.
It doesn't even have to run over a pedestrian to be dangerous, such a move could very well lead to the driver being pulled over and extrajudicially executed by a trigger happy cop
