I'm pretty soft on this subject but one thing that's always bugged me when I see bivectors represented as a parallelograms is that different coplanar parallelograms of the same area are the same bivector algebraically but visually very different. It just feels confusing when you're trying to learn what it "is".

Isn't that just inherent in binary operations? I feel like you are saying the same thing as: What is 0 sometimes people write 1-1 or 3-3 or -10+10.

by the linearity of ^, B = a^b = 1 * a^b = x*(x^-1) a^b = xa ^ (x^-1)b

So the bivector is the "hyperbola" of all touching parallelograms just like 0 is the set of all oppositely directed arrows of equal magnitude.

But the parallelograms only become a bivector after you wedge them. not before.

Aren't we talking about Waymo? It's not perfect everywhere but it's definitely already better than most people driving around SF. That's pretty full to me.

I guess they haven't been allowed on freeways yet?

I mirror the previous posters experience: the Waymos drive better than a good amount of people I know and to the the best of my knowledge haven't had any issues with pedestrians except being attacked by them once or twice.

So I'm not sure what you're referring to? Did I miss a story?

> Did I miss a story?

Just wondering the same myself. Found this: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/12/30/waymo-p...> but the videos don't seem as persuasive to me as the text:

* the ones on the left and right show a Waymo passing by a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk next to the crosswalk while filming. As a human, I wouldn't have stopped, as there was no indication the pedestrian intends to enter the crosswalk.

* the one in the middle shows a human-driven car passing right by a pedestrian filming from a narrow median. I think the human driver probably should have stopped, as that narrow median is a stranger and more dangerous place for the pedestrian to hang out than the sidewalk. The Waymo in the middle lane, given that the human-driven car didn't stop? Don't see why they would, how would the pedestrian have reached them safely? I suppose there's an argument they should because one driver stopped at a crosswalk legally obligates other drivers to as well, but the human I mentioned was ahead of them...

As I understand it, the law is that the car (regardless of driver) needs to yield to a pedestrian who is crossing the street. But the pedestrian is responsible for that first step into the street. And think about it...how often do you see someone standing near the roadway, even near a crosswalk? I think often enough that traffic just wouldn't move if cars were expected to assume pedestrians were going to jump in front of them.

The text "I tried sticking one foot out, crossing in both heavy and light traffic, waving at the car and even pushing a baby stroller (without my baby!)." is more worrying, but...pics or it didn't happen? (In particular their suggesting it misbehaved in these videos makes me doubt the accuracy of their reported text...)

The article also says: "No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk — at least so far. (It did strike a cyclist earlier this year.)"

Because the parent-most post from quertox was:

> That's great news! I thought the project had died and that this meant that V8 was the only serious JavaScript engine for the future.

The person you're responding to was basically clarifying what you want to too.

The free non-logged in chatGPT didn't produce an answer for either for me.

Stripping out Maps/Lists with boxed keys and values is the first easy thing to do when perf tuning a piece of code. It's so frequently impactful that it's worth doing immediately without any measurement.

You just swap them out with fastutils or trove and call it a day.

Unfortunate typo. I assume you meant ethnically not ethically.

Thanks, fixed.

It's legible both ways.

The poster is basically proposing something like always doing:

  def all(lis: List[T], mapf: Callable [[T], bool]) -> bool:
    for e in (mapf(l) for l in lis):
       if e is False: return False
    return True

At least that's my take on avoiding Truthy and Falsy via a mapping closure (or function?). But I don't see it solving OPs issue here when lis is empty... So maybe I'm missing something too.

I'm totally with you for processes should probably use glibc/platform API calls, but procfs is nothing short of brilliant and a great validation of the power of the "everything is a file".

Except that any process that has obtained root (through a security flaw or otherwise) can extremely easily hide itself, as shown here.

I will admit that it's likely that the same thing could be done with loadable kernel modules, that said.

I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think people are responding to the "redneck in a pick-up" stereotypes as much as that "pavement princess" owner trying to "cosplay" truck culture stereotypes.

Sidenote - I'm finding my vocabulary pretty lacking now that so much stereotyping is done in images and memes.