Welp, as a wise person once said, you can’t argue with monkeys.

Have a good evening.

If you think so, then you should argue that point instead of trying to short-circuit the argument by being pedantic about a logical inconsistency.

You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision.

You’re absolutely right. The technology isn’t perfect if it needs to be implemented with supervision, but it can be good enough to have a role in everyday society.

Great examples are self checkout lanes, where there’s always an employee watching, and speed cameras, which always have an officer reviewing and signing off on tickets.

An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights.

Traffic lights are meant to direct traffic. Yet you don’t expect them to prevent folks from running red lights. Folks don’t expect them to, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside folks who will enforce traffic laws, and, maybe in fact, traffic controllers. This is arguably an example of an implementation done right.

This technology is meant to flag car damage. If there was a correct implementation, I would be able to say “folks don’t expect them to be perfect, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside employees trained to verify damage exists, who can correct the algorithm if needed”, but the implementation in this case is sadly bad.

At the end of the day, you will never have a “perfect” computer vision algorithm. But you can have many “good enough” ones, depending on how they’re implemented.

There is no human element to this implantation, it is the technology itself malfunctioning. There was no damage but the system thinks there is damage.

Let’s make sure we’re building up from the same foundation. My assumptions are:

1. Algorithms will make mistakes.
2. There’s an acceptable level of error for all algorithms.
3. If an algorithm is making too many mistakes, that can be mitigated with human supervision and overrides.

Let me know if you disagree with any of these assumptions.

In this case, the lack of human override discussed in assumption 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element. As management, you can either go on a snipe hunt trying to find an algorithm that is perfect, or you can make sure that trained employees can verify and correct the algorithm when needed. Instead hertz management chose option 3 - run an imperfect algorithm with absolutely 0 employee oversight. THAT is where they fucked up. THAT is where the human element screwed a potentially useful technology.

I work with machine learning algorithms. You will not, ever, find a practical machine learning algorithm that gets something right 100% of the time and is never wrong. But we don’t say “the technology is malfunctioning” when it gets something wrong, otherwise there’s a ton of invisible technology that we all rely on in our day to day lives that is “malfunctioning”.

Society typically understands “there’s nothing wrong with x” to mean it’s performing within acceptable boundaries, and not to mean that it has achieved perfection.

Do you hold everything to such a standard?

Stop lights are meant to direct traffic. If someone runs a red light, is the technology not working as it should?

The technology here, using computer vision to automatically flag potential damage, needed to be implemented alongside human supervision - an employee should be able to walk by the car, see that the flagged damage doesn’t actually exist, and override the algorithm.

The technology itself isn’t bad, it’s how hertz is using it that is.

I believe the unfortunate miscommunication here is that when @[email protected] said the solution was brilliant, they were referring to the technology as the “solution”, and others are referring to the implementation as a whole as the “solution”

If anyone would like to learn more about the powers that be that resulted in this disaster, here’s an article that goes over how the orgs that manage organ donation, inducing pressure on medical staff and introduce a conflict of interest.

Makes sense!

To be fair though, if you’re hooking up an Ethernet cord you’ve already lost in the “ugly and cumbersome” department.

Cowboys and aliens.

Man pitched this fever dream of an idea in 97, was laughed out of the room.

Folks only agreed with the same guy to make it in 2006 after seeing it was based on a best selling comic book.

That comic book was written by the person who initially pitched the idea in 97. He practically paid comic book stores to carry and give away the comic book so it’d be a “best seller”.

Movie execs got hoodwinked lol

I think I remember the dual thumb, but I just remember being amazed at how responsive it was

Typing on this thing was a dream.

One of the videos in question has a direct call to action to support this bill

Considering he’s their elected representative he ought to do some representing.

Something something single issue Gaza voters claiming the moral high ground

The shoe horn is the bidet of getting dressed.

Active noise cancelling - noise cancelling that doesn’t just rely on making a seal between your ears and the earbuds/headphones.

Sounds like a you problem, I have it on good authority that it’s pretty common:

how many times does the average person use wireless charging? Seriously, I haven’t seen anyone do that yet, or know of someone who uses that.

and yet that’s still a major feature in lots of phones

You’ve shown everyone that you can, in fact, listen to wired headphones and charge at the same time with “major features found in lots of phones”, which solves your original complaint, which itself depends on some very specific scenarios.

Funny you bring up wireless charging.

Does that not solve your proposed problem? You can use a usb-c to audio dongle, which often comes with better sound quality than a phones DAC, and wirelessly charge, even via many powerbanks. These are features found fairly commonly in today’s phones, so problem solved?

If I’ve asked a question twice and you’ve danced around it both times, that tells everyone what your answer is.