I know the horse has long since left the barn, but the correct term is "head-up display." A heads up is a warning. Any display can give you a warning. A HUD lets you use it with your head up instead of looking down, which not all displays can do. The Air Force has been using HUDs for decades and they cringe every time somebody says "heads-up display."
I know the horse has long since left the barn, but the correct term is "head-up display." A heads up is a warning. Any display can give you a warning. A HUD lets you use it with your head up instead of looking down, which not all displays can do. The Air Force has been using HUDs for decades and they cringe every time somebody says "heads-up display."
I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
Oxford Dictionary of English, Angus Stevenson, Oxford University Press – 2010, page 809 (head-up display (N.Amer. also heads-up display))
Leave it to N. America to dumb down our English lexicon.
I know the horse has long since left the barn, but the correct term is "head-up display." A heads up is a warning. Any display can give you a warning. A HUD lets you use it with your head up instead of looking down, which not all displays can do. The Air Force has been using HUDs for decades and they cringe every time somebody says "heads-up display."
I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
I know the horse has long since left the barn, but the correct term is "head-up display." A heads up is a warning. Any display can give you a warning. A HUD lets you use it with your head up instead of looking down, which not all displays can do. The Air Force has been using HUDs for decades and they cringe every time somebody says "heads-up display."
I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
I know the horse has long since left the barn, but the correct term is "head-up display." A heads up is a warning. Any display can give you a warning. A HUD lets you use it with your head up instead of looking down, which not all displays can do. The Air Force has been using HUDs for decades and they cringe every time somebody says "heads-up display."
I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
ROFTL...
LOLOL I'm glad to see you're running with it, to.
It's humor is probably lost on some folks here even if its obvious to others.
Right, so we can have distractions on our windshields. I can imagine the software bugs now... "Why won't that indicator go away??"
Then the other companies will make their own and they'll have ads...
Windshields? We don’t need no stinkin’ Windshields! Just chill in your mobile pod surrounded by displays. It’s the Apple way.
Seems logical. An isolated mobile pod would ensure liability rests with the manufacturer of the autonomous system. No room for gray areas here, we already question fault with test case accidents that have recently occurred.
This brings a whole new meaning to AppleCare insurance.
MplsP said: Glad you made it without crashing. I’ve been in a few situations like that it they can be quiet harrowing. I dont’ know how much help it would have been, though. In true whiteout situations, many of the sensors used would have had limited efficacy and likely not been very helpful in seeing the road & lane lines, which is what you really need in those situations.
Yea, I've been in the mountains in British Columbia a couple times in both fog and white-out. Really, really no fun. The worst was one time in the fog where I crept along for several hours trying to keep just on the edge of the road, but not drive off a cliff. I would think with the right technology and sensors, it could determine what was roadway, terrain, etc. and maybe be of some assistance. It seems that what they are putting in these vehicles isn't nearly that sophisticated.
MplsP said: This isn’t designed for self-driving cars. What’s the point of a heads up display if the whole point is not to have to look up? They’re designed to help human drivers avoid accidents, etc. Systems like these are really cool, and when they work as designed, everything’s great. The real problem with them is when they are inaccurate and make mistakes. What happens when you are driving in fog and start driving faster than you should because you can ‘see’ with your AR heads up display and it misses or misidentifies something in the road? We’ve already seen 3 really big misses in the self-driving car market; one from Uber (why didn’t infrared sensors see the pedestrian?) and 2 from Tesla. I know the Tesla system is actually driver assist, but for a driver assist system to drive off the road in clear weather or miss a semi turning in front of the car is a pretty big miss. To be truely useful, something like this has to have near perfect accuracy, and very little tech I’ve used can boast that.
And the scary thing... if the same situation came up again, more people would die. A human might miss something, or kill someone, especially if they are impaired. The AI vehicle didn't make a mistake though, it just did what it was programmed to do. There was a bug in the programming... and anyone used software recently? The hype is this whole AI magic bullet baloney that has everyone excited. How many have to die before some rationality settles back in?
And, what is even more atrocious, is how it's being sold to the law-makers who are clueless. Money is talking, big-time. Even the police were involved in the Uber incident cover-up. They quickly got a story out to the press that even a human wouldn't have seen the lady, which was total BS. Now the truth is coming out, but the general public, with the attention span of a gnat, won't pay it much attention. They did their damage control. They've hit the pause button for a bit until the dust settles, then the carnage will likely continue.
dysamoria said: So long as the computer industry rhetoric keeps people believing that bugs are an acceptable norm and that software can't possibly be warranted, there's just no way that it'll ever be trustworthy enough... not for me, at least. Surely there are plenty of people who don't grasp the reality of it who's subject themselves to the risks...
The problem is that while we can (for now) choose to drive ourselves and not mess with this AI baloney, our idiot law-makers are being seduced by big-money to put this stuff into place. These things are actually roaming the roads in some areas where we might also be driving, walking, etc.
dysamoria said: The available data (and the behavior of software) isn't remotely consistently reliable enough. With bugs, bad data, and construction, there's too much of an issue right now with just mindlessly following GPS. Every mapping agent I've used has bad locations, missed one-way road markers, and issues with construction. It's just not feasible in reality.
People are obsessing over tech they see in games and sci-fi, but neither of those are real life.
Yea, they've been sold the dream... and most (who actually know how to think anymore) don't stop long enough to ponder it. That Apple employee that was killed recently even reported the problematic behavior that killed him, yet he kept using it anyway.
But, you're spot on with GPS. While I use it quite a bit (especially since we've recently moved to a new city), it isn't to be trusted. Where I previously lived, it often took worse routes, or recommended dangerous turns and intersections I'd tend to avoid out of real experience and knowledge.
Soli said: I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
Oxford Dictionary of English, Angus Stevenson, Oxford University Press – 2010, page 809 (head-up display (N.Amer. also heads-up display))
Leave it to N. America to dumb down our English lexicon.
Well, the dictionary just records how language is used and follows the culture and changes. That doesn't mean it is right or makes sense. It was just today I heard on a podcast some other word they recently changed the definition for which was totally nonsensical... but again, they follow culture.
Soli said: I agree with you, but "heads-up display" is so common that irregardless of anything you say people could care less about accuracy or logic.
Oxford Dictionary of English, Angus Stevenson, Oxford University Press – 2010, page 809 (head-up display (N.Amer. also heads-up display))
Leave it to N. America to dumb down our English lexicon.
Well, the dictionary just records how language is used and follows the culture and changes. That doesn't mean it is right or makes sense. It was just today I heard on a podcast some other word they recently changed the definition for which was totally nonsensical... but again, they follow culture.
They go hand-in-hand. The reason that language changes so quickly is because of how cultures change, not to mention misspelling, misinterpretations, and countless other things that have occurred with English that you use on a daily basis without ever thinking "is this the original word." (hint: 99.99999% chance that it's not.)
Note that the Oxford dictionary doesn't list is as head's to make it a possessive or contraction, but instead just refers to multiple heads. Is it illogical to have a cockpit with a single HUD that will work for two pilots simultaneously as refers to multiple heads? (hint: it's not.)
Do you think that the term chomping at the bit or calling those eye guards on horse blinders is wrong just because it's not the original term? (hint: it's not.) They are perfectly logical terms even if they evolved from champing at the bit and blinkers because how language evolves. It's neither right nor wrong to use either, but it's inarguably wrong to say that you can't say chomping at the bit or to claim some superiority.
Hell, we all use idioms that make absolutely no sense and often whose origins are unknown. (hint: if you think you have an exciting etymology an English term it's most likely fake.)
Soli said: Do you think that the term chomping at the bit or calling those eye guards on horse blinders is wrong just because it's not the original term? (hint: it's not.) They are perfectly logical terms even if they evolved from champing at the bit and blinkers because how language evolves. It's neither right nor wrong to use either, but it's inarguably wrong to say that you can't say chomping at the bit or to claim some superiority.
Hell, we all use idioms that make absolutely no sense and often whose origins are unknown. (hint: if you think you have an exciting etymology an English term it's most likely fake.)
Oh yea, not talking about idioms or figures of speech. There was a definition I heard that changed to reflect the definition common in the culture, but which is internally inconsistent. In other words, the dictionary definition changed to reflect the cultural use, but that use is incorrect. The dictionary is simply reflecting the current culture's incoherence.
Soli said: Do you think that the term chomping at the bit or calling those eye guards on horse blinders is wrong just because it's not the original term? (hint: it's not.) They are perfectly logical terms even if they evolved from champing at the bit and blinkers because how language evolves. It's neither right nor wrong to use either, but it's inarguably wrong to say that you can't say chomping at the bit or to claim some superiority.
Hell, we all use idioms that make absolutely no sense and often whose origins are unknown. (hint: if you think you have an exciting etymology an English term it's most likely fake.)
Oh yea, not talking about idioms or figures of speech. There was a definition I heard that changed to reflect the definition common in the culture, but which is internally inconsistent. In other words, the dictionary definition changed to reflect the cultural use, but that use is incorrect. The dictionary is simply reflecting the current culture's incoherence.
But that's the point! That's how language works. It's not wrong because we don't like it, even if some things do sound a bit cray cray.
Recently I read about the term"glacial ice" have the opposite meaning that well, at least most of us grew up on . Growing up, if you're moving at a glacial pace you're move too slow, and nowadays it can also mean that you're moving dangerously too fast. There's are quite a few words, both in spelling and sound, that have contradictory meanings and usually they come from the same root, not simply a similar sounding word that coincidentally has opposing meaning but from very different origins.
Comments
Leave it to N. America to dumb down our English lexicon.
And the scary thing... if the same situation came up again, more people would die. A human might miss something, or kill someone, especially if they are impaired. The AI vehicle didn't make a mistake though, it just did what it was programmed to do. There was a bug in the programming... and anyone used software recently? The hype is this whole AI magic bullet baloney that has everyone excited. How many have to die before some rationality settles back in?
And, what is even more atrocious, is how it's being sold to the law-makers who are clueless. Money is talking, big-time. Even the police were involved in the Uber incident cover-up. They quickly got a story out to the press that even a human wouldn't have seen the lady, which was total BS. Now the truth is coming out, but the general public, with the attention span of a gnat, won't pay it much attention. They did their damage control. They've hit the pause button for a bit until the dust settles, then the carnage will likely continue.
The problem is that while we can (for now) choose to drive ourselves and not mess with this AI baloney, our idiot law-makers are being seduced by big-money to put this stuff into place. These things are actually roaming the roads in some areas where we might also be driving, walking, etc.
Yea, they've been sold the dream... and most (who actually know how to think anymore) don't stop long enough to ponder it. That Apple employee that was killed recently even reported the problematic behavior that killed him, yet he kept using it anyway.
But, you're spot on with GPS. While I use it quite a bit (especially since we've recently moved to a new city), it isn't to be trusted. Where I previously lived, it often took worse routes, or recommended dangerous turns and intersections I'd tend to avoid out of real experience and knowledge.
Note that the Oxford dictionary doesn't list is as head's to make it a possessive or contraction, but instead just refers to multiple heads. Is it illogical to have a cockpit with a single HUD that will work for two pilots simultaneously as refers to multiple heads? (hint: it's not.)
Do you think that the term chomping at the bit or calling those eye guards on horse blinders is wrong just because it's not the original term? (hint: it's not.) They are perfectly logical terms even if they evolved from champing at the bit and blinkers because how language evolves. It's neither right nor wrong to use either, but it's inarguably wrong to say that you can't say chomping at the bit or to claim some superiority.
Hell, we all use idioms that make absolutely no sense and often whose origins are unknown. (hint: if you think you have an exciting etymology an English term it's most likely fake.)
Recently I read about the term"glacial ice" have the opposite meaning that well, at least most of us grew up on . Growing up, if you're moving at a glacial pace you're move too slow, and nowadays it can also mean that you're moving dangerously too fast. There's are quite a few words, both in spelling and sound, that have contradictory meanings and usually they come from the same root, not simply a similar sounding word that coincidentally has opposing meaning but from very different origins.