The way Trump is crashing around the global trading system with his protectionist lunacies, there's going to be a severe economic hit in the US (and everywhere else), not a good story to tell. I see that the Chinese are targeting their retaliation at Iowa pig farmers, which has a certain finesse about it.
Mr. Jessop, and Mr. Sandpit, aye, I suppose that is fair enough. It's just a shame that we aren't even at third practice of the first race and we're already discussing grid penalties.
If either of you missed it, I posted my pre-qualifying ramble and some betting thoughts above. And even if you both saw it, that still remains the case.
Hmm, I honestly have no idea about this race, even more so than usual given the high chance of weather intervening (which makes F1 more fun, unlike in cricket). I’ll follow you in on No SC but be prepared to reverse that if I wake up to rain on Sunday morning.
No excuses for Ricciardo, they have big flashing red lights on their dashboard as well as those all around the track, and he can see on the display in front of him whether he needs to slow down more to make the minimum time. Blowing out the cobwebs after the winter. ISTR Vettel blowing past red flags in Canada last year, and the stewards complained they could award him enough of a penalty, so they tightened the rules around it this year.
He's also another Trump style chickenhawk who enrolled in the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. I have more respect for Corbyn style anti imperialists than warmongers who wouldn't do it themselves.
The way Trump is crashing around the global trading system with his protectionist lunacies, there's going to be a severe economic hit in the US (and everywhere else), not a good story to tell. I see that the Chinese are targeting their retaliation at Iowa pig farmers, which has a certain finesse about it.
What the rest of the world should be doing is scrapping a tariff with each other every time they add a retaliatory tariff against America.
Mr. Jessop, and Mr. Sandpit, aye, I suppose that is fair enough. It's just a shame that we aren't even at third practice of the first race and we're already discussing grid penalties.
If either of you missed it, I posted my pre-qualifying ramble and some betting thoughts above. And even if you both saw it, that still remains the case.
Hmm, I honestly have no idea about this race, even more so than usual given the high chance of weather intervening (which makes F1 more fun, unlike in cricket). I’ll follow you in on No SC but be prepared to reverse that if I wake up to rain on Sunday morning.
No excuses for Ricciardo, they have big flashing red lights on their dashboard as well as those all around the track, and he can see on the display in front of him whether he needs to slow down more to make the minimum time. Blowing out the cobwebs after the winter.
I think the MD suggestion of Raikkonen FLAP looks decent value (& FWIW Kimi was ahead of Vettel on the practice timesheets).
He's also another Trump style chickenhawk who enrolled in the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. I have more respect for Corbyn style anti imperialists than warmongers who wouldn't do it themselves.
+1.
He's also a devious little shit, and quite a practiced bureaucrat (unlike many of Trump's other picks). Dangerous.
Mr. Jessop, and Mr. Sandpit, aye, I suppose that is fair enough. It's just a shame that we aren't even at third practice of the first race and we're already discussing grid penalties.
If either of you missed it, I posted my pre-qualifying ramble and some betting thoughts above. And even if you both saw it, that still remains the case.
Hmm, I honestly have no idea about this race, even more so than usual given the high chance of weather intervening (which makes F1 more fun, unlike in cricket). I’ll follow you in on No SC but be prepared to reverse that if I wake up to rain on Sunday morning.
No excuses for Ricciardo, they have big flashing red lights on their dashboard as well as those all around the track, and he can see on the display in front of him whether he needs to slow down more to make the minimum time. Blowing out the cobwebs after the winter. ISTR Vettel blowing past red flags in Canada last year, and the stewards complained they could award him enough of a penalty, so they tightened the rules around it this year.
Dear F1
Sadly, this year I'm even less engaged with you than last year. After 40-odd years with you, I'm drifting away. I feel detached. I no longer watch your pre-season tests avidly. I no longer follow your practice times. I'm ambivalent over the issue of pay drivers. I care little about your up-and-coming talent. The sexy curves of your cars now provoke just murmurs of desire.
Much of this has to do with my only seeing half of you, but it's more than that. It's not the noises you make, or the increasingly-ludicrous places you go.
No, dear F1, it's me. I've moved on, and you haven't done anything to keep me with you.
It's time for us too get a divorce.
P,s,: I will still treasure our time together: the highs (such as Hill winning in 1996) and even the lows (who can forget our tragic weekend in Italy in '94?). I have so many memories. But it's fear its time for us to end.
P.p.s. I know we cannot use the same solicitor, so you can pass me on the details of Max Moseley's lot? I hear they're quite good ...
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
Perhaps - but the Uber device appeared not to react at all, which is definitely not how it ought to work, and its reaction times (to this kind of straightforward situation) ought to be greatly superior to those of a human driver. The human overseer clearly would not have had time to take control even if he had been paying attention - but the fact he was basically dozing is also going to cause Uber problems.
Uber seem to have been cutting corners in an attempt to keep up with Waymo.
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
A human eye has a better resolution than the camera, but also the car is supposed to be using infra red and LIDAR to see in the dark. The biggest obstacles to driverless cars are going to be regulatory - how do we deal with accidents like this?
Another point made on here and elsewhere before is that Level 3 and 4 autonomy is dangerous in itself, when it expects a human to pay attention for long periods of time while doing nothing - but being ready to take control in an instant. Humans just aren’t designed to do that.
Theresa May this morning: "I'll be working with my fellow EU leaders to see how we can secure a permanent exception for the EU for those steel tariffs."
Doesn't sound like a leader on the way out of the EU.
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
Perhaps - but the Uber device appeared not to react at all, which is definitely not how it ought to work, and its reaction times (to this kind of straightforward situation) ought to be greatly superior to those of a human driver. The human overseer clearly would not have had time to take control even if he had been paying attention - but the fact he was basically dozing is also going to cause Uber problems.
Uber seem to have been cutting corners in an attempt to keep up with Waymo.
The operator comes out of the footage terribly I'm afraid.
Mr. Jessop, and Mr. Sandpit, aye, I suppose that is fair enough. It's just a shame that we aren't even at third practice of the first race and we're already discussing grid penalties.
If either of you missed it, I posted my pre-qualifying ramble and some betting thoughts above. And even if you both saw it, that still remains the case.
Hmm, I honestly have no idea about this race, even more so than usual given the high chance of weather intervening (which makes F1 more fun, unlike in cricket). I’ll follow you in on No SC but be prepared to reverse that if I wake up to rain on Sunday morning.
No excuses for Ricciardo, they have big flashing red lights on their dashboard as well as those all around the track, and he can see on the display in front of him whether he needs to slow down more to make the minimum time. Blowing out the cobwebs after the winter. ISTR Vettel blowing past red flags in Canada last year, and the stewards complained they could award him enough of a penalty, so they tightened the rules around it this year.
Dear F1
Sadly, this year I'm even less engaged with you than last year. After 40-odd years with you, I'm drifting away. I feel detached. I no longer watch your pre-season tests avidly. I no longer follow your practice times. I'm ambivalent over the issue of pay drivers. I care little about your up-and-coming talent. The sexy curves of your cars now provoke just murmurs of desire.
Much of this has to do with my only seeing half of you, but it's more than that. It's not the noises you make, or the increasingly-ludicrous places you go.
No, dear F1, it's me. I've moved on, and you haven't done anything to keep me with you.
It's time for us too get a divorce.
P,s,: I will still treasure our time together: the highs (such as Hill winning in 1996) and even the lows (who can forget our tragic weekend in Italy in '94?). I have so many memories. But it's fear its time for us to end.
P.p.s. I know we cannot use the same solicitor, so you can pass me on the details of Max Moseley's lot? I hear they're quite good ...
F1 is the sport that ate itself. Just dull and predictable organised traffic these days. I have the full Sky Sports suite and never watch it. I have better things to do on Sundays. What is astonishing is that people still bother.
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
I don't think so. At the very least, an alert human driver would have been slamming the brakes on. It seems quite extraordinary that the Uber car apparently wasn't doing so - this is surely the most basic thing an autonomous car should do, without fail.
The biggest obstacles to driverless cars are going to be regulatory - how do we deal with accidents like this?
Agreed. It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. Will the human behind the wheel be prosecuted for "causing death by dangerous driving", or whatever the US equivalent is? After all they are still technically in charge of the vehicle. Or will Uber executives be held responsible and prosecuted / sued for millions by the grieving relatives.
Mr. Jessop, there are problems with F1. A concern is that most of the changes proposed or made by Liberty appear to exacerbate or introduce new problems rather than resolve current ones.
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
I don't think so. At the very least, an alert human driver would have been slamming the brakes on. It seems quite extraordinary that the Uber car apparently wasn't doing so - this is surely the most basic thing an autonomous car should do, without fail.
(I know the woman in this case was pushing, not riding, the bike).
The system should have been able to detect her. She did not jump out. AIUI she had crossed several lanes unobstructed before she got hit. It did not even attempt to brake or swerve.
Just a WAG, but I wonder if the fact she was walking just outside the bright band of a streetlight might have confused sensors?
I also have big issues with essentially letting the companies investigate themselves over such incidents. There should be a central, independent body, with data shared so companies can put real scenarios to their cars. I think Apple asked for something like that?
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
He's also another Trump style chickenhawk who enrolled in the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. I have more respect for Corbyn style anti imperialists than warmongers who wouldn't do it themselves.
Just watched the Uber footage, I think most human drivers would have crashed too.
I don't think so. At the very least, an alert human driver would have been slamming the brakes on. It seems quite extraordinary that the Uber car apparently wasn't doing so - this is surely the most basic thing an autonomous car should do, without fail.
(I know the woman in this case was pushing, not riding, the bike).
The system should have been able to detect her. She did not jump out. AIUI she had crossed several lanes unobstructed before she got hit. It did not even attempt to brake or swerve.
Just a WAG, but I wonder if the fact she was walking just outside the bright band of a streetlight might have confused sensors?
I also have big issues with essentially letting the companies investigate themselves over such incidents. There should be a central, independent body, with data shared so companies can put real scenarios to their cars. I think Apple asked for something like that?
These accidents should be investigated by the NTSB if fatal or serious injuries occur. Hope that happens in this case.
The biggest obstacles to driverless cars are going to be regulatory - how do we deal with accidents like this?
Agreed. It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. Will the human behind the wheel be prosecuted for "causing death by dangerous driving", or whatever the US equivalent is? After all they are still technically in charge of the vehicle. Or will Uber executives be held responsible and prosecuted / sued for millions by the grieving relatives.
Probably both. Let’s just say I’m not particularly surprised that the first fatal accident involved this company. Their attitude to regulation and safety has always been, shall we say, different.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
As I mentioned yesterday - the only passport manufacturing location fetishists are Remainers and the Daily Mail.
Priti Patel is a Remainer?
She has remained in the 20th century if she is in favour of non strategic protectionism.
Exactly. That's I imagine how it will be put to the De La Rue Gateshead workforce, many of whom probably voted Leave because they were sick of the many injustices piled upon them by the (EU)Man: get over your non-strategic protectionist outlook.
Mr. Jessop, there are problems with F1. A concern is that most of the changes proposed or made by Liberty appear to exacerbate or introduce new problems rather than resolve current ones.
The abolition of the grid girl has in no way diminished my enthusiasm for F1, honest, but I do think abolishing human drivers, and concomitantly most of the safety regs, would liven things up a bit, and save a bob or 2.
Mr. Z, aye. And the fan base would collapse. A separate AI league could work, but the human drama of drivers on the edge is a critical aspect of F1. It's people, not programming.
As I mentioned yesterday - the only passport manufacturing location fetishists are Remainers and the Daily Mail.
Priti Patel is a Remainer?
She has remained in the 20th century if she is in favour of non strategic protectionism.
Exactly. That's I imagine how it will be put to the De La Rue Gateshead workforce, many of whom probably voted Leave because they were sick of the many injustices piled upon them by the (EU)Man: get over your non-strategic protectionist outlook.
Yesterday’s Sky News vox pop from Gateshead was illuminating.
It reaffirmed their decision to back Leave and it was the fault of the Government/EU as a punishment.
Mr. Jessop, there are problems with F1. A concern is that most of the changes proposed or made by Liberty appear to exacerbate or introduce new problems rather than resolve current ones.
The abolition of the grid girl has in no way diminished my enthusiasm for F1, honest, but I do think abolishing human drivers, and concomitantly most of the safety regs, would liven things up a bit, and save a bob or 2.
You’ll be looking for Roborace, next year’s Formula E support series. https://roborace.com
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
I regretted my Brexit vote when Trump was elected; it changed the international mood music on free trade. I became more sanguine as time went by; now back to mild Bregret.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour symbolic of sweet Felicity Arkwright. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
My conclusion is that us tail end boomers inhabit a cultural interregnum - too young to remember the Empire, too old to love the EU.
My takes: As you point out, a human driver would probably have hit the cyclist. An alert human might have been able to brake a second or so before impact and slow the car enough to make the difference between injury and death. I could see with radar etc that a working autonomous system might do a lot better than a human in this situation.
The driver will probably get the blame but I think the test programme is misconceived. You can't use humans as guinea pigs while you get the bugs out of the system. You use live testing only to certify systems that have already been validated to fewer than baseline accidents, which means millions of miles of testing before taking the car on the road. How do you do this: You model the software, then you test the edge conditions that are specified for this type of vehicle. What hazards need to be recognised under what conditions and what actions should be taken? Live testing starts heavily choreographed. Once the basic manoeuvres are validated, you stretch the system more and more, so each time you test you add a bit more understanding of how the systems behave. This is how aeroplanes get certified. It's a fiddly business, as demonstrated by the Chinese ARJ21 and Boeing 787 certification programmes.
Mr. Z, aye. And the fan base would collapse. A separate AI league could work, but the human drama of drivers on the edge is a critical aspect of F1. It's people, not programming.
We’d be denied iconic moments like ‘Fernando is faster than you’
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
I regretted my Brexit vote when Trump was elected; it changed the international mood music on free trade. I became more sanguine as time went by; now back to mild Bregret.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour meaningless. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
But it's not even the right blue. That is the real betrayal.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
Mr. Jessop, there are problems with F1. A concern is that most of the changes proposed or made by Liberty appear to exacerbate or introduce new problems rather than resolve current ones.
F1 needs to (somehow) get the manufacturers out of the game. An IndyCar type model with a control chassis, choice of two engines and maybe the teams doing there own aero would work much better.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
My takes: As you point out, a human driver would probably have hit the cyclist. An alert human might have been able to brake a second or so before impact and slow the car enough to make the difference between injury and death. I could see with radar etc that a working autonomous system might do a lot better than a human in this situation.
The driver will probably get the blame but I think the test programme is misconceived. You can't use humans as guinea pigs while you get the bugs out of the system. You use live testing only to certify systems that have already been validated to fewer than baseline accidents, which means millions of miles of testing before taking the car on the road. How do you do this: You model the software, then you test the edge conditions that are specified for this type of vehicle. What hazards need to be recognised under what conditions and what actions should be taken? Live testing starts heavily choreographed. Once the basic manoeuvres are validated, you stretch the system more and more, so each time you test you add a bit more understanding of how the systems behave. This is how aeroplanes get certified. It's a fiddly business, as demonstrated by the Chinese ARJ21 and Boeing 787 certification programmes.
I think the problem is that the self-driving car can say avoid 40% of such incidents where the human driver avoids only 10%, but the 60% is still detrimental to the idea of the car because we have fully internalised the 90%.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
I regretted my Brexit vote when Trump was elected; it changed the international mood music on free trade. I became more sanguine as time went by; now back to mild Bregret.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour meaningless. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
But it's not even the right blue. That is the real betrayal.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
The trouble is they never ask *how* much people care. Is this a trivial annoyance that'll be replaced by next weeks trivial annoyance or are people ready to go to the wall over it?
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
The trouble is they never ask *how* much people care. Is this a trivial annoyance that'll be replaced by next weeks trivial annoyance or are people ready to go to the wall over it?
Nor did they ask whether foreign governments should discriminate against De La Rue, the vast majority of whose sales are export. What's sauce for the goose...
Mr. Ace, disagree with that stark course of action, though I agree with the underlying implication that the playing field is far from level (in both regulatory and financial terms) and that must be addressed.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
We should offer an artisanal passport experience. Cheapskates and EU-quisling-traitors can have a cheap, mass-produced French made one, while plucky Brexiteers and rich folk can luxuriate with a hand-whittled version hand dyed by a sturdy member of the British yeomanry.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
My takes: As you point out, a human driver would probably have hit the cyclist. An alert human might have been able to brake a second or so before impact and slow the car enough to make the difference between injury and death. I could see with radar etc that a working autonomous system might do a lot better than a human in this situation.
The driver will probably get the blame but I think the test programme is misconceived. You can't use humans as guinea pigs while you get the bugs out of the system. You use live testing only to certify systems that have already been validated to fewer than baseline accidents, which means millions of miles of testing before taking the car on the road. How do you do this: You model the software, then you test the edge conditions that are specified for this type of vehicle. What hazards need to be recognised under what conditions and what actions should be taken? Live testing starts heavily choreographed. Once the basic manoeuvres are validated, you stretch the system more and more, so each time you test you add a bit more understanding of how the systems behave. This is how aeroplanes get certified. It's a fiddly business, as demonstrated by the Chinese ARJ21 and Boeing 787 certification programmes.
I agree with that. There's potentially billions to be made from this tech (in the data as much as the cars themselves), and everyone's rushing to be the first to market. In so doing, they're cutting corners and over-selling their tech (I'm looking at you, Musk).
And since they're rich companies, government organisations are bending over backwards to accomodate them.
The issue is that these things can be 'easily' made to work well in 90% of the situations they'll encounter (such as motorway driving). Another 9% is more difficult. But that last 1%, the really unusual or difficult edge and corner cases, are much more difficult.
But in this case, the sensors should have seen her way before impact.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
The question is whether De La Rue stick to their guns, surely they have to come in with a new tender and match the French price. It's their own fault for trying to gouge the UK taxpayer. Additionally it seems like the French might use their UK manufacturing site to make the passports so it's really a win/win for the government. We keep the jobs and skills and get a lower price for the taxpayer.
We should offer an artisanal passport experience. Cheapskates and EU-quisling-traitors can have a cheap, mass-produced French made one, while plucky Brexiteers and rich folk can luxuriate with a hand-whittled version hand dyed by a sturdy member of the British yeomanry.
Perhaps they should have given the contract to Smythson.
I used to read Risks Digest a great deal before my career started, and have always loved learning about how things fail. Early on, I decided I'd prefer never to work on anything where a failure of my code could easily lead to someone's death.
I've never regretted that decision. Although to be fair, most such code is worked on by teams nowadays, not individuals.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
That would have been illegal.
Well It could change the law to make it legal then, in France it is illegal to give a French passport contract to a non French company
Depressing that Brexit has brought back economic protectionism and nationalism.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
Nationalism is a long-time thing. Given the contract was awarded to a French firm, it seems you're on dodgy ground here.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
That would have been illegal.
Well It could change the law to make it legal then, in France it is illegal to give a French passport contract to a non French company
But that wouldn’t fit with the government’s narrative about Global Britain open to anyone.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
That would have been illegal.
Well It could change the law to make it legal then, in France it is illegal to give a French passport contract to a non French company
But that wouldn’t fit with the government’s narrative about Global Britain open to anyone.
Which is rubbish anyway as half the point of Brexit was to end free movement from the rest of the EU and leave the single market which is precisely what the government is still committed to do.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs and banning migrants and visitors from certain countries but it does mean we will be more protectionist than before
Depressing that Brexit has brought back economic protectionism and nationalism.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
Nationalism is a long-time thing. Given the contract was awarded to a French firm, it seems you're on dodgy ground here.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
But look at the YouGov findings. Economic protectionism is back.
Those voters are thick as mince and clearly don’t deserve the vote.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
I regretted my Brexit vote when Trump was elected; it changed the international mood music on free trade. I became more sanguine as time went by; now back to mild Bregret.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour meaningless. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
But it's not even the right blue. That is the real betrayal.
Which is rubbish anyway as half the point of Brexit was to end free movement from the rest of the EU and leave the single market which is precisely what the government is still committed to do.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs but it does mean we will be more protectionist than vegore
So the global Britain promised by the cabinet is a lie?
Depressing that Brexit has brought back economic protectionism and nationalism.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
Nationalism is a long-time thing. Given the contract was awarded to a French firm, it seems you're on dodgy ground here.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
But look at the YouGov findings. Economic protectionism is back.
Those voters are thick as mince and clearly don’t deserve the vote.
Voters like a lot of disreputable things. The death penalty. Nationalisation. No parole for murderers. Pay caps. The very idea.
Blue passports are important. If someone - Theresa May - says Single Market, Customs Union and Common Agricultural Policy, I would detect a sigh of relief from most people. We don't need to worry about bothersome borders in Ireland and the English Channel, we can still most of what we do currently, we are not entirely cutting ourselves off from our neighbours or the outer world.
But as Brexit will still be disruptive and costly there has to be SOMETHING you get from it. I think four largely symbolic things. But symbolism matters here. Blue passports to indicate independence. Out of the Common Fisheries Policy because there is something about controlling your waters that resonates with the national psyche. In fact we would be advised to stick close to the CFP for stock management. The main practical effect is a 13% tariff on processed fish that will decimate salmon smoking and filleted fish exports. An agreed migration management policy, eg require job offer then work permit before residence. Finally third country deals. The aim is to make these identical to EU ones (third countries won't always agree), but the point is that these are BRITISH deals with a union flag on them. The Prime Minister can get their signing ceremonies in front of ornate fireplaces and flanking flags in foreign capitals.
Which is rubbish anyway as half the point of Brexit was to end free movement from the rest of the EU and leave the single market which is precisely what the government is still committed to do.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs but it does mean we will be more protectionist than vegore
So the global Britain promised by the cabinet is a lie?
Well he’s talking about Gove, Boris, Davis, and Fox.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
That would have been illegal.
Well It could change the law to make it legal then, in France it is illegal to give a French passport contract to a non French company
AIUI the issue in France is that they have kept passport production 'in house' - if they were to put it out to tender, De La Rue could bid....
Which is rubbish anyway as half the point of Brexit was to end free movement from the rest of the EU and leave the single market which is precisely what the government is still committed to do.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs but it does mean we will be more protectionist than vegore
So the global Britain promised by the cabinet is a lie?
Depressing that Brexit has brought back economic protectionism and nationalism.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
Nationalism is a long-time thing. Given the contract was awarded to a French firm, it seems you're on dodgy ground here.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
But look at the YouGov findings. Economic protectionism is back.
Those voters are thick as mince and clearly don’t deserve the vote.
Voters like a lot of disreputable things. The death penalty. Nationalisation. No parole for murderers. Pay caps. The very idea.
It certainly has come as a shock to the metropolitan, wealthy, highly educated liberal elite that their values of free trade, neoliberalism, social liberalism, unchecked immigration and EUphilia which have held sway for the last 2 decades and they assumed were the values of the centre ground are not shared by the oiks in the provinces
Which is rubbish anyway as half the point of Brexit was to end free movement from the rest of the EU and leave the single market which is precisely what the government is still committed to do.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs but it does mean we will be more protectionist than vegore
So the global Britain promised by the cabinet is a lie?
It was not 'global Britain' which won Leave the referendum no, if anything Leave voters would prefer 'closed Britain'
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
I regretted my Brexit vote when Trump was elected; it changed the international mood music on free trade. I became more sanguine as time went by; now back to mild Bregret.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour meaningless. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
But it's not even the right blue. That is the real betrayal.
Depressing that Brexit has brought back economic protectionism and nationalism.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
Nationalism is a long-time thing. Given the contract was awarded to a French firm, it seems you're on dodgy ground here.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
But look at the YouGov findings. Economic protectionism is back.
Those voters are thick as mince and clearly don’t deserve the vote.
You can't trust the public, they drink prosecco over champers for christmas lunch and don't think die hard is the best christmas movie
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
The trouble is they never ask *how* much people care. Is this a trivial annoyance that'll be replaced by next weeks trivial annoyance or are people ready to go to the wall over it?
Nor did they ask whether foreign governments should discriminate against De La Rue, the vast majority of whose sales are export. What's sauce for the goose...
Isn’t De La Rue the world’s largest specialist security printing company? Their website says they have customers in 142 countries, print 7bn banknotes and 15m passports every year - plus a load of other commercial work like holograms for product identification.
Blue passports are important. If someone - Theresa May - says Single Market, Customs Union and Common Agricultural Policy, I would detect a sigh of relief from most people. We don't need to worry about bothersome borders in Ireland and the English Channel, we can still most of what we do currently, we are not entirely cutting ourselves off from our neighbours or the outer world.
But as Brexit will still be disruptive and costly there has to be SOMETHING you get from it. I think four largely symbolic things. But symbolism matters here. Blue passports to indicate independence. Out of the Common Fisheries Policy because there is something about controlling your waters that resonates with the national psyche. In fact we would be advised to stick close to the CFP for stock management. The main practical effect is a 13% tariff on processed fish that will decimate salmon smoking and filleted fish exports. An agreed migration management policy, eg require job offer then work permit before residence. Finally third country deals. The aim is to make these identical to EU ones (third countries won't always agree), but the point is that these are BRITISH deals with a union flag on them. The Prime Minister can get their signing ceremonies in front of ornate fireplaces and flanking flags in foreign capitals.
If Verhofstadt gets his way and it is possible for UK citizens to buy EU associate membership, and if such membership entails paying a few 1000s of £ and having a different, UK but also EU passport which is burgundy, blue passports are going to be the biggest lack of status symbol since Russia stopped branding serfs. An unintended consequence.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
18 to 24s interestingly believe the contract should be offered to which company offers the best price or service but all other age groups believe the passport contract should be offered to a UK company regardless of price or service
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one I think.
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
It will be pensioners, Tory voters and Leavers (ie the Tory base) most annoyed by this though so the government should just have offered it to the British company offering the best price regardless
That would have been illegal.
Well It could change the law to make it legal then, in France it is illegal to give a French passport contract to a non French company
The issue is there is no French passport contract. The government department that issues them bought a big and expensive printer or two, and do it by themselves.
The passport row is interesting because it makes opponents of Leaver autarkists and Leaver free traders. The government evidently remains on the free trade side while equally evidently there's a body of Conservative opinion who are autarkists.
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Having seen the difference in price, I think the government has done the right thing.
The trouble is they never ask *how* much people care. Is this a trivial annoyance that'll be replaced by next weeks trivial annoyance or are people ready to go to the wall over it?
Nice and simple solution. If going with a UK company would cost 20% more, are people willing to have the price of their next passport increase by 20% in order to ensure it's made in the UK?
If "yes", we can do it at no extra cost to the taxpayer. If "no", then we don't do it. Anyone who demands we ignore the price as irrelevant but then jinks at paying the increased price they've demanded is a hypocrite.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RichardGowan1/status/977040255948910592
https://twitter.com/multilateralist/status/977016853997465600
No excuses for Ricciardo, they have big flashing red lights on their dashboard as well as those all around the track, and he can see on the display in front of him whether he needs to slow down more to make the minimum time. Blowing out the cobwebs after the winter. ISTR Vettel blowing past red flags in Canada last year, and the stewards complained they could award him enough of a penalty, so they tightened the rules around it this year.
https://twitter.com/mrtcharris/status/976933516884807680?s=21
Next you’ll be saying men airkissing men on the cheek is good manners.
https://twitter.com/silvesterldn/status/977135017720762368
https://twitter.com/sanyaburgess/status/976952662775263232
EDIT - this is how:
http://maketrumptweetseightagain.com
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/977134163039084544
He's also a devious little shit, and quite a practiced bureaucrat (unlike many of Trump's other picks). Dangerous.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/976890694232166400
Hostage taker claims to be from ISIS.
Sadly, this year I'm even less engaged with you than last year. After 40-odd years with you, I'm drifting away. I feel detached. I no longer watch your pre-season tests avidly. I no longer follow your practice times. I'm ambivalent over the issue of pay drivers. I care little about your up-and-coming talent. The sexy curves of your cars now provoke just murmurs of desire.
Much of this has to do with my only seeing half of you, but it's more than that. It's not the noises you make, or the increasingly-ludicrous places you go.
No, dear F1, it's me. I've moved on, and you haven't done anything to keep me with you.
It's time for us too get a divorce.
P,s,: I will still treasure our time together: the highs (such as Hill winning in 1996) and even the lows (who can forget our tragic weekend in Italy in '94?). I have so many memories. But it's fear its time for us to end.
P.p.s. I know we cannot use the same solicitor, so you can pass me on the details of Max Moseley's lot? I hear they're quite good ...
Ta.
The human overseer clearly would not have had time to take control even if he had been paying attention - but the fact he was basically dozing is also going to cause Uber problems.
Uber seem to have been cutting corners in an attempt to keep up with Waymo.
Another point made on here and elsewhere before is that Level 3 and 4 autonomy is dangerous in itself, when it expects a human to pay attention for long periods of time while doing nothing - but being ready to take control in an instant. Humans just aren’t designed to do that.
Doesn't sound like a leader on the way out of the EU.
I've linked to this before (inc. the other day), but there are big problems with autonomous cars and bikes:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-selfdriving-cars-bicycle-problem
(I know the woman in this case was pushing, not riding, the bike).
The system should have been able to detect her. She did not jump out. AIUI she had crossed several lanes unobstructed before she got hit. It did not even attempt to brake or swerve.
Just a WAG, but I wonder if the fact she was walking just outside the bright band of a streetlight might have confused sensors?
I also have big issues with essentially letting the companies investigate themselves over such incidents. There should be a central, independent body, with data shared so companies can put real scenarios to their cars. I think Apple asked for something like that?
I'm in favour of free trade so I think the government has made the right decision. Will they stick to it though?
Now "kissing hands" is no more than the constitutional term for the formal installation of Government ministers to their office.
In his autobiography, John Major said: "The phrase is traditional and outdated - the Queen's hand is not kissed."
By convention, however, the Queen's hand is kissed when the Prime Minister attends his first meeting of the Privy Council in his new role.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555863/Meeting-with-Queen-shorn-of-formalities.html
I'd imagine the Blair story just confuses the two occasions, else we'd have to believe that he'd not been briefed on his way in.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/23/james-mattis-defense-secretary-how-to-succeed-in-trump-cabinet-without-getting-fired-217699
It reaffirmed their decision to back Leave and it was the fault of the Government/EU as a punishment.
In terms of the passports, the whole affair has left me somewhat bemused; the old passports (I used to have one) were too large and cumbersome and the colour symbolic of sweet Felicity Arkwright. That we've selected the lowest bidder for the contract seems unremarkable. Of course, it's a pity that the winning firm was French, but we can't have everything.
My conclusion is that us tail end boomers inhabit a cultural interregnum - too young to remember the Empire, too old to love the EU.
The driver will probably get the blame but I think the test programme is misconceived. You can't use humans as guinea pigs while you get the bugs out of the system. You use live testing only to certify systems that have already been validated to fewer than baseline accidents, which means millions of miles of testing before taking the car on the road. How do you do this: You model the software, then you test the edge conditions that are specified for this type of vehicle. What hazards need to be recognised under what conditions and what actions should be taken? Live testing starts heavily choreographed. Once the basic manoeuvres are validated, you stretch the system more and more, so each time you test you add a bit more understanding of how the systems behave. This is how aeroplanes get certified. It's a fiddly business, as demonstrated by the Chinese ARJ21 and Boeing 787 certification programmes.
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/d53ce3e5-2db8-11e8-ab68-5b0358f6f1b4/question/5184fe1d-2db9-11e8-b97d-27a68b3ef7b9/age
Mr. Sandpit, had no idea that was coming. Will be intriguing to see how it does.
*Fails*
If the difference is say £100m the reaction would have been "jingoism costs taxpayer £100m"
And since they're rich companies, government organisations are bending over backwards to accomodate them.
The issue is that these things can be 'easily' made to work well in 90% of the situations they'll encounter (such as motorway driving). Another 9% is more difficult. But that last 1%, the really unusual or difficult edge and corner cases, are much more difficult.
But in this case, the sensors should have seen her way before impact.
For that alone Leavers should be kicked in the balls/fallopians until they recant their heresy towards free trade.
I used to read Risks Digest a great deal before my career started, and have always loved learning about how things fail. Early on, I decided I'd prefer never to work on anything where a failure of my code could easily lead to someone's death.
I've never regretted that decision. Although to be fair, most such code is worked on by teams nowadays, not individuals.
I'd add that free trade became the British mantra once we'd had a lovely, languorous century or two of mercantilism to make sure we had a decent economy.
That does not mean imposing Trump style tariffs and banning migrants and visitors from certain countries but it does mean we will be more protectionist than before
Those voters are thick as mince and clearly don’t deserve the vote.
But as Brexit will still be disruptive and costly there has to be SOMETHING you get from it. I think four largely symbolic things. But symbolism matters here. Blue passports to indicate independence. Out of the Common Fisheries Policy because there is something about controlling your waters that resonates with the national psyche. In fact we would be advised to stick close to the CFP for stock management. The main practical effect is a 13% tariff on processed fish that will decimate salmon smoking and filleted fish exports. An agreed migration management policy, eg require job offer then work permit before residence. Finally third country deals. The aim is to make these identical to EU ones (third countries won't always agree), but the point is that these are BRITISH deals with a union flag on them. The Prime Minister can get their signing ceremonies in front of ornate fireplaces and flanking flags in foreign capitals.
Surely this demonstrates 'global Britain'....
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/976962128069451776
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/977156759772106752
NEW THREAD
If going with a UK company would cost 20% more, are people willing to have the price of their next passport increase by 20% in order to ensure it's made in the UK?
If "yes", we can do it at no extra cost to the taxpayer. If "no", then we don't do it.
Anyone who demands we ignore the price as irrelevant but then jinks at paying the increased price they've demanded is a hypocrite.