Amazon are not resolving your issue in minutes because you have power over them. They do it because it is efficient and profitible for them to keep customers happy. Your actual influence over a trillion dollar company is tiny compaired to your influence as a voter. One customer taking there business elsewhere does not affect Amazon in any meaningful way. One vote is counted directly. The gap is between how it feels and how the power actually works. This of course assumes you live in a democratic country.

Your firat two sentences are a total contradiction

Only because you confabulate your personal power with what they really care about.

I read in A Bridge Too Far, the Hawker Typhoons that attacked German positions at the start of the Operation (called in by the Forward Air Comtroller), flew under the opening barrage and one Typhoon disintegrated as it was hit by a shell. I've often wondered if there was any system in place to prevent that sort of thing.

Hitting an aircraft in flight was hard enough if you were aiming at it, I doubt they felt any need to take countermeasures against such a rare occurrence.

As others have mentioned, in WWII, many of the things modern militaries take for granted were in their infancy. In modern times, there are lots of staff meetings and procedures involving nothing other than deconflicting fires. Fast jets hit this, artillery hits that, fighters cover here, surface-to-air assets cover there, etc.

But those lessons are written in blood due to exactly incidents like the one you mention. The "big sky, little airplane" theory is not something to bet your life on.

I also read there was some difficulty in target designation as the pilots had different maps, so the grid coordinates were off.

That was more a choice by individual aircrew than higher command or bureaucracy.

I'm inclined to give, at least, the mid- and late-war bomber crew guys a pass on just about any personal "bad" behavior short of the extremely bad, given their terrible odds of surviving the next few months...

More likely than not they're living their final few weeks, let them paint a pretty lady on the plane's nose.

Too late to edit, I meant early- and mid-war. It did get somewhat less horrifying closer to the end.

Playing right into Putin's hands.

Toddlers don't kill people. People kill people.

It's also like this in small companies, like the one I work for, and I think rightfully so. One of the mobile app projects I was involved in got bogged down for months due to the lead engineer's need to refine and polish the perfect UX and architecture which kept breaking features we'd already completed. This cost us a lot of money and the product didn't look or function to an end user that much different. Management had enough and pulled the guy off the project because it just wasn't getting shipped and what he was doing didn't align to their goals. After he left i was able to tie up the loose ends and ship it live within two weeks. The only way i was able to do that is I knew every component of that system, our deployment infrastructure, our support staff, the real goals of our management team, etc.

Not to mention that when you can't see, you slow down? Does the self-driving system do that sufficiently in low visibility? Clearly not if it hit a pedestrian with enough force to kill them.

The article mentions that Tesla's only use cameras in their system and Musk believes they are enough, because humans only use their eyes. Well firstly, don't you want self-driving systems to be better than humans? Secondly, humans don't just respond to visual cues as a computer would. We also hear and respond to feelings, like the sudden surge of anxiety or fear as our visibility is suddenly reduced at high speed.

Unfortunately there is also an AI training problem embedded in this. As Mobileye says, there are a lot of driver decisions that are common, but wrong. The famous example is rolling stops, but also failing to slow down for conditions is really common.

It wouldn't shock me if they don't have nearly enough training samples of people slowing appropriately for visibility with eyes, much less slowing for the somewhat different limitations of cameras.

I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is basically the entire transportation infra is designed using human eyes a primary way to channel information.

Useful information for driving are communicated through images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.

I dunno, knowing the exact relative velocity of the car in front of you seems like it could be useful and is something humans can’t do very well.

I’ve always wanted a car that shows my speed and the relative speed (+/-) of the car in front of me. My car’s cruise control can maintain a set distance so obviously it’s capable of it but it doesn’t show it.

If your car is maintaining speed of the car in front then the car in front is going speed that is showing on your speedometer.

Yes, that’s true, but I don’t see how that relates to my comment at all.

I said the relative speed. If the car is going the same speed as me then the relative speed is 0mph. I want to see that when I’m not using cruise control.

We are "designed" (via evolution) to perceive and understand the environment around us. The signage is designed to be easily readable for us.

The models that drive these cars clearly either have some more evolution to do or for us to design the world more to their liking.

Yes. I was talking why Tesla choose to use vision. Since they can't control designing the transport infra to their liking at least for now.

That's not a reason to only use vision.

I said one of the reasons. They probably did some cost analysis and realised it's not worth spending engineering effort on other modes when human drivers are able to drive around pretty much using only vision.

I didn't say it was the only reason. Re-read my comment.

> They probably did some cost analysis and realised it's not worth spending engineering effort on other modes when human drivers are able to drive around pretty much using only vision.

Humans and cars aren't equal so this is just incredibly misguided as a principle.

I would think one relevant factor is that human vision is different than and in some ways significantly better than cameras.

The Tesla knows when it's cameras and blinded by sun and act accordingly or tells the human to take over.

Expect when it doesn't actually do that, I guess? Like when this pedestrian was killed?

If we were able to know when a neural net is failing to categorize something, wouldn’t we get AGI for free?

Exactly what i was thinking.

I'd shift the blame somewhat on the owners of the Airbnb properties and Airbnb itself rather than the tourists. They're the ones getting rich at the expense of the locals.

Meanwhile every Euro “destination” town/city will have residential units all over sitting mostly empty owned by some rich person/family.

But that’s not as visible. And nothing new.

Yes, I tend on the side of only tweaking things when I realise I'm repetitively using the same context menus. That's the only point I learn the keyboard shortcuts, or map one, these days. I really haven't had to learn too many shortcuts. The best ones are multi-cursor editing like you've mentioned.