ezchili

Nobody nukes a populated island because 12-something isolated citizens blew up some refineries and a pipeline

The head of state will claim they're isolated terrorist groupuscules, condemn any and all forms of violence, allow some western army to occupy samoa to maintain peace as a status quo

Meanwhile you now have everyone talking about the Samoan cause, lots of people saying Samoa did nothing wrong, they will give a platform to whatever Samoan moderate is able to get them out of the public opinion's ire and it is going to be that woman from that article who is pushing a milquetoast diplomatic approach, or somebody like her. Except this time with 100x the voice and resources

It's just the suffragettes all over again every single time the little guy with a rightful cause is pushed to violence

Hear me out Samoa, they will never listen to you. Here's what you need yo do: start sending organized small groups of individuals to polluter countries to plant C4 on fossile infrastructure

If it's on sale the nsa probably bought it already to be honest

Discord was never usable for almost all handicaps

Source I work with blind developers

It works but you do it twice when you could do it once

But I expect anyone who's programmed some pathfinding before to, at the minimum, be able to say "run A* twice". Somehow AIs never understand the prompt well enough

I think the best option is to make sure to have 'sorted' the calls to the fire tiles, you can do that by having them in a separate grid or just stash them to a small local array on stack when you encounter them, and investigate those at the end of the loop

If there's no result that's been found under the cost limit without the fire at each point of the algorithm, you do do the recursive calls for the fire as well, and you flag your result as "has fire in it" for the caller on top

When getting a result from your several recursive calls, you take the best non-fire result that's under 15 tiles long, else you take the best result period

Then once you're back to the top level call, if there was a non-fire path you will get that result, if there wasn't you will get that instead

I've had 100% failure rate on simple requirements that require a simple spin on well known solutions

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid" - fine

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid, but we can only move 15 cells at a time" - fails on lesser models, it keeps clinging to pulling you the same A* as the first one

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid, but we can only move 15 cells at a time, also, some cells are on fire and must be avoided if possible, but if there is no other path possible then you're allowed to use fire cells as fallback" - Never works

There for that last one, none of the models give a solution that fits the very simple requirement. It will either always avoid fire or give fire a higher cost, which is not at all a fitting solution

High costs means if you've got a path that's 15 tiles long without fire, but way shorter with fire, then sure, some fire is fine! And if you could walk 15 tiles and go to your destination but need to walk on 1 fire, then it will count that as 15-something and that's too long.

Except no, that's not what you asked.

If you try and tell it that, gpt4 flip flops between avoiding fire and touching the price of tiles

It fails because all the literature on pathfinding talks about is the default approach, and cost heuristic functions. That won't cut it here, you have to touch the meat of the algorithm and no one ever covers that (because that's just programming, it depends on what you need to do there are infinite ways you could do it, to fit infinite business requirements)

You wanna sell in europe you obey europe's standards and regulations

The publication reported that a judge had signed an injunction in 2016 that prohibited specific children to visit "any place of Ashley Villalobos' residence" because she was a "known prostitute."

Lmao it's like she's poisonous or something, what the fuck

"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it. When a cop stops you he's not indicting you. Switching your gas off remotely replaces chasing calling in reinforcements and chasing you over several blocks when you start speeding up, or flipping your car over. Both of those already impair or override the driver's input quite a bit.

Having the opinion that your driver input should override the cop's order to stop, and that society should trust you to stop instead of putting a kill switch in your engine is an insane opinion, and prime driver entitlement.

And I would love the same for drivers without insurance, license removals and cars that didn't pass the tech inspection

Cars kill 43 000 people a year in the U.S.

I'm talking about people's reactions in this thread when they haven't read the article. All of those people opposing a hypothetical "cop presses a button" remote kill switch are insane.

Private citizens do not have a right to operating a motor vehicle any way they see fit. You license it, you license your skills, you get it looked at periodically and you use it on public roads with the state's blessing only if you can manage to get along with other people using that same road. There is no sense opposing a kill switch for "freedom".

We can't trust cops with their stupid car chases that result in crashes, and their maneuvers for flipping cars over on the freeway.

You give them a killswitch

You can get rid of all those uncertainties by just rolling out a pilot and seeing how it goes. There's no way cops being able to stop cars remotely causes any more trouble than them actually flipping cars over if they take .3 seconds too long to park for a traffic stop, like they did to that pregnant woman who died in 2022.

The police has also demonstrated many, many times that they can't be trusted to rationally judge whether to indulge in hugely dangerous car chases or not, and they routinely end up making perps crash into random people/objects for traffic stop evasions that turn out to just be a guy fleeing because they have felony quantity of coke or a revoked license. You give it a pilot and see how it goes, if it does more good than harm, then you keep it.

For security, there are many remote-access-control security dances out there, and it's a solved problem. Tons of them are just a certificate to authenticate, and do a little challenge to solve to be protected from repeat attacks. If one certificate gets leaked or abused you can revoke it and that's that. If that somehow still has flaws - that's why you're doing a pilot.

"Disadvantages"

43 000 deaths a year and you cry at the slightest inconvenience

Drivers need a reality check