I have a VM running Windows Server that hosts MS SQL Server and websites under IIS. I use Robocopy and PowerShell to copy daily and weekly file backups, as well as SQL backup scripts for the databases. The backups are then stored on a separate drive, which has a nightly copy to remote storage and deletes files older than 30 days. Occasionally, I manually copy the backups from remote storage to a local computer.
It only takes a minute to restore if needed, but the problem is if the OS goes down (which has happened once in the last 10 years due to a disk failure), it takes several hours to reinstall everything from scratch.
It would be very popular move for every EU politician to fast track Scotland to EU. But yes, it would be complicated to separate from UK and become independent. Becoming EU member would not be that complicated.
Spain and France aren't super keen on encouraging the general idea that regions of a country can easily split off and become independent EU member countries.
Spain I understand. But I dunno about France. It's not the Auld Alliance is still a thing, but surely they'd relish an opportunity to give England a black eye.
Being French I can tell you we really discourage it because we don’t have just one region but several! You have Corsica who wants to be independent, Alsace who wants to be independent or linked to Germany and sometimes Basque linked with the Basque region of Spain.
But all that was at its apex years ago now it’s more stable.
That is the nomenclature in the United Kingdom, but outside we don't consider Scotland England, Wales or Northern Ireland to be countries. They are part of the United Kingdom, which is "the country" for our purposes.
In England we have "the Black Country"[1][2] but it's not a country or a nation (or anything to do with race or skin colour) or even a clearly defined area, but a region of early industrial pollution and coal mining. We also have "the West Country"[3] which has its own sea borders, regional dialect, Cornish language, but isn't a nation or a country.
And we have "God's Own Country"[4] which is a phrase but does have an independence movement[5], and a region (Mercia) which hasn't been a place since 527-897CE but still has an independence movement[6].
A country is a sovereign nation. Scotland is a nation, but it does not have full sovereignty and is not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other sovereign nations (to my knowledge), the same way that Catalan is a nation within the country of Spain.
I thought the problem was that Spain wouldn’t like it because that would set a precedent of rewarding independence movements they oppose like for the Basque region?
The average cost of a Google engineer is at least $500k/year. This includes all direct compensation as well as amortized office costs, perks, meals and so on. I have no official figure on this but the average total comp can be well-established from levels.fyi as well as my own experience (disclaimer: Xoogler).
1000 engineers will give you a burn rate of $500m/year. I guarantee you the head count associated with Fuchsia is higher than this, probably much higher.
Again, I have no official information on the current resource allocation but you can figure these things out by, for example, looking at the leadership structure. At a company like Google, certain positions will indicate head counts. An engineering director probably averages ~100 engineers rolled up through 2-3 layers of managers. A VP means 200-500.
Familiarity with how Google staffs projects, how much Fuchsia was staffed while I was still there and the costs innvolved gets you easily into the billions of dollars over 5+ years.
Their health insurance package is extremely expensive and a huge amount of money goes into supporting campuses with buses for commuters, full meals, laundry service, and so on.
I wouldn't call health insurance "extremely expensive" in the context of Google SWE salaries. On average it probably costs on the order of $5-$10k/head/year at most. My very loose upper bound estimate is $50k/year for all aux benefits and bus/campus costs.
I'd be willing to bet something like Fuchsia is on average L5-6 (or more) given retirement projects at Google attract some very senior engineers that would offset the L3/4s if you amortize them.
They dilute shareholder value, and if you consider that many tech companies are also doing stock buybacks, it seems plausible to consider the net effect of (Handing out "free stock" with one hand) + (Buying back stock with the other hand) to be spending money.
Yeah, I don't understand why Tesla hasn't simply been ordered to stop calling these features Autopilot or FSD, as both are misleading, and explicitly suggest more capability than they have, causing numerous deaths and accidents.
Oh, and anyone who paid extra for these features should be given a refund, as those features were falsely advertised.
Well that is literally where the term comes from and it hasn't really been used in any other context until Tesla's usage, so not really sure where the average person's confusion is coming from.
My point is: I don't think this is true. But if you have a survey which indicates that a broad swath of the population believes Teslas with Autopilot don't need any human intervention or shouldn't have someone in the driver's seat I'd love to see it.
Literally dozens of people in this thread are saying "this is what the average person believes" when none of them believe it themselves. Where are ya'll getting this insight into the average person's thought processes?
I mean, it's worth noting that in most aviation and marine scenarios, collision is relatively unlikely. Leaving a plane on autopilot to go in a straight line for a while is unlikely to be dangerous, but it would be very dangerous in a car.
If that is the general perception, how it got that way doesn't change what people think the word means, or what they'll hear when Tesla names a feature Autopilot.
I'm questioning this oft-cited version of reality. I don't know a single person that thinks autopilot means pilots don't need to be in airplanes, and consequently that autopilot means you don't need drivers in the driver's seat.
Of course people recognize that they can get around Tesla's precautions and have nobody in the driver's seat, just like pilots could all leave the cockpit while the 737 is in flight and go get wasted at the minibar or whatever. But they don't and neither should drivers, and Tesla isn't suggesting that driver's should – in fact they've put technological precautions in place that airplanes with autopilot don't even use to ensure someone is at the stick.
You can also run over pedestrians with [insert car here], but nobody is suggesting you do it. People doing it anyway is not [insert car manufacturer here]'s fault.
It may be misleading, but my argument is that it is not misleading to the point that they deprive the people doing these things of agency, which to me is what matters. Everyone who is disregarding the warnings, weighting their steering wheel, weighting the driver's seat, etc. knows that what they are doing is not how the vehicle is intended to be operated at this time. They are knowingly pushing the limits.
If tomorrow Boeing came out and said "hey, Autopilot on the 787 Dreamliner is sophisticated to the point where the plane can totally fly itself, from takeoff to landing", would it be reasonable for all 787 Dreamliner pilots to just leave the cockpit and get wasted with the flight attendants in the back? I don't think so. So I don't understand why people are holding Tesla to a ridiculous standard that they're not holding any other company to. Teslas can drive themselves from A to B in many situations at this point. It's not false advertising to say that. What would not be OK is if Tesla was saying if you buy this car you don't need to be in the driver's seat right now (not in the future, which is how they're currently selling it).
>I don't understand why Tesla hasn't simply been ordered to stop calling these features Autopilot or FSD
They walked back, or qualified a lot of the initial claims and added mitigations to prevent their 'self-driving' systems from being used as such.
>Oh, and anyone who paid extra for these features should be given a refund, as those features were falsely advertised.
There may be some validity to this. Musk/Tesla certainly made explicit claims that existing cars have the hardware to achieve full autonomous driving via a future software patch.
> They walked back, or qualified a lot of the initial claims
The product names are fraudulent, there's no walking back when they're still called Autopilot (a term which in all other uses essentially does not require operator attention) and Full Self-Driving (which is definitely not what the feature is).
It's fraud, plain and simple. Until the features are renamed, Tesla continues to commit fraud.
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems)
Autopilots don't stop crashes, or change lanes. So Tesla's Navigate on Autopilot already does more than a standard Autopilot
The issue with this comparison is that in scenarios pilots or ship captains use autopilot, collision is extremely improbable compared to that of a car.
Most laypeople who encounter autopilot do so on small sailboats near the coastline where a collision is extremely likely if you just turn on the autopilot and go chill in the cabin.
>It's fraud, plain and simple. Until the features are renamed, Tesla continues to commit fraud.
That's for courts to decide, but I don't think so, at least not to the level of hostility that you seem to hold.
This kind of reasoning is typical online where deductive logic based on strong assumptions made by the posters, is then used to reach equally strong conclusion (in this case, that a marketing term implies outright fraud). The reality is that regulatory, judicial and cultural boundaries have much more slack than you give them credit for. And that's a good thing.
It's not just the names that are the problem, it's also the fact that they are trying to do a little more than other driver assist systems despite being very unreliable.
IMO there are some features that shouldn't exist until full L4 so that people aren't tempted to let the car do the driving when it can't
I am reasonably okay with a driver assist system attempting to do more. But I'd agree they need to be better about both knowing what they can't do well yet, and that they need to be much better about detecting driver presence and attention, so that the car can't be used in manners they don't intend.
It only takes a minute to restore if needed, but the problem is if the OS goes down (which has happened once in the last 10 years due to a disk failure), it takes several hours to reinstall everything from scratch.