My positive summation of both the paper and the article.
Strong correlation found between women that identify as GEEK GIRL GAMERS and Women Who Study PSTEM.
Statistically insignificant correlation found between MALE subgroubs GEEK GAMERS and MEN THAT STUDY PSTEM.
Suggested implication is that given [PRESUMPTION; Supporting Scientific Evidence Exists] that due to
Underlying PERSONALITY Substructers people who vary at the extreme from their group norm along one dimension of measurement GEEK GIRL GAMER are more than likely to also vary at the extreme of another form of measurement Women Who Study PSTEM.
This suggests [PRESUMPTION; Further Scientific Study] that due to Presumed underlying PERSONALITY Substructions women [= specifically] who that have an interest or apptitude for in gaming are likely to have an apptitude of interest in PSTEM.
Possible Application that it MIGHT Be beneficial to encourage exposure of young women who have an interest or talent in the field of Gaming to PSTEM, as research suggests women and girls that identify or show an interest in Gaming are LIKELY have to have an Aptitude and or Interest for PSTEM.
I like this idea too. Because battery positioning within a car is quite important (at least what have read about the teslas it is) there could be a smaller 100km (60 mi) range swappable battery that is easy to remove and replace.
It might even be feasible to have a system like a drive-through carwash, that instead lifts specially compatible EV's, remove the old battery "strip" from the lower portion of the car, and then install a new one. If it could get down to 3-5 minutes, especially if your car could interface with the "hut" so you don't need to be in it...
Elon Musk demoed Tesla's battery swapping capability a few years back: https://youtu.be/FE81S26XG8c. I'm not sure if it's gone live at any supercharging stations yet. Maybe someone else can confirm rollout or not.
See that is just incredibly cool. I honestly see no reason why they, or someone, shouldn't be able to make it work. The barriers would probably be having enough of an installed userbase, but that's always the problem.
I just read the article and I found the premise of the article that its difficult for non-scientists (the uniformed) to make a judgement on the validity of the fact present to them without indepth personal research. Then I read the comments. It seems not a single person understood the premise and began arguing with each other the validity of climate change.
I would agree that the ability of computers to identify novel problems and hazards (such as a falling mattress) will continue to be inferior to that of humans for a long time.
However identification of a novel problem and the anticipation that it will be a harzard in the near future is a trait that is only needed if your reaction time is too slow.
A self driving cars reaction time will be fast enough that it doesn't need to anticipate anything. It will identify the the velocity of objects (it does not need to know what the object is) in front of it within in milliseconds of it becoming a harzard and decide on the correct corrective manouever to avoid it within milliseconds again.
In addition even assuming that computers will not be as good at novel situations than humans (I don't agree with this, but I'll assume it for the purpose of this argument), we also need to assume that (damage prevented by himan's reactions to novel situations) > (damage caused by humans failing in non-novel situations), for the authors argument to work. I don't think this is evident st all, and if asked to pick, I would overwhelmingly favor the opposite.
Further, for self driving cars, the moment something novel happens to them, it won't be novel to pretty much every self driving car running on the same software anymore (and assuming some basic data sharing between manufacturers, probably to all self driving cars). So a mattress falling is a novel situation for every driver the first time it happens to each individual driver. It's a novel situation for self driving cars only the first time it happens to any one of the self driving cars sharing the same model.
The liability issue is not very useful. We would have to change laws slightly, but the insurance for self driving cars will be far more predictable, and the likes of Geico will probably give the owners of self driving cars better insurance than they would owners of human driven cars, because their safety record would be better.
In fact, I bet if self driven cars come with the ability to also be driven by a human, once they're a little established, the ones that do have this feature will be far more expensive dive to insure than the ones that are purely self driven.
I remember reading an article which explained the pragmatic reasons for the MS purchase of NOKIA.
Namely that MS wanted to bring back some of the billions they have offshore without it getting heavily taxed. Taking this into consideration the acquisition of NOKIA and eventual write down as a loss is not that bad. Especially considering it has kept it windows phone alive, and most likely moved any essential expertise to their other departments
