cerevant @ cerevant @lemm.ee

These are all me:

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

123

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agree. I had a bot account banned, and despite the requirement that bot accounts have contact info, there was no attempt made to contact me. Regardless of whether or not the ban is justified, courtesy does not seem to be a priority for them.

Let’s remember that a bastard who married rich that had a good deal of influence on how our government works. He definitely was making sure that he had a future.

Yeah, I’ve been working in aerospace, automotive, industrial and rail safety for over 20 years. You don’t get to say “this software does thing” and then in the safety manual say “you don’t get to trust that the software will actually do thing”.

Further, when you claim the operator as a layer of protection in your safety system, the probability of dangerous failure is a function of the time between the fault (the software doing something stupid) and the failure (crash). The shorter that time, the less safe the system is.

Here’s a clue: Musk doesn’t know anything about software safety. Their lead in autonomous technology has less to do with technical innovation and more to do with cutting corners where they can get away with it.

Attempt? That was the original intent. They still wanted aristocracy, they just wanted it to be wealth based instead of hereditary.

Thank you! Even for someone technical, that needed an ELI5.

So, the software doesn’t actually do anything, it just gives the illusion that it does. That’s sounds safe.

If you are relying on T&C as a get out of jail free card for your safety system, then it isn’t a safety system.

It is a nice break from my day job, where I am certifying software for critical systems.

sigh

Yes, so much. It drove me crazy when a car company argued “but our logs say it was the driver’s fault”. We’re arguing that your most critical software failed, and you want us to trust the logging subsystem?

The NTSC needs to be qualifying car software the same way the FAA qualifies aircraft software. We need to stop trusting the manufacturers to self police.

Again though, how often do those injuries happen in a pile vs when the players are in the open field? When the players are upright and moving fast, it is much more likely their feet will get stuck in the turf and make joints vulnerable. Meanwhile, players in a QB sneak are nearly horizontal, and it is much easier for their feet to come out of the ground.

Energy = mass x velocity^2

Slow speed plays don’t get players hurt. High speed plays do.

Along with the rest of crypto, but don’t tell them…

Of course. It is a joke, but also a valid commentary on the weakness of WotC’s meta rules system. This is an area Paizo excels at.

Of course it is, that’s the joke - as explained by the headline.

PHB says "attack with a ranged weapon" which is not necessarily a ranged attack.

Correct. It says an attack with a ranged weapon.

This is the reality of safety engineering: he will go on for days about his statistics that say it is safer to drive a Tesla, but when it is you that rolls a nat 1, suddenly they aren’t safe enough.

Agree. This is a really bad move.

Republicans: see? Now we have evidence that the liberal biased mainstream media take their marching orders from the Democrats.

Subscription to what?

Is this a question? Endorsement?