It's a lot further away than 20 years. It really won't be practical for autonomous trucks to share the roads with passenger vehicles using the existing infrastructure. After a handful or more major accidents with multiple deaths involving autonomous trucks, there will be no public support for them.
And there will be major accidents with multiple deaths, since the average passenger car driver is so unskilled. No software can account for every idiotic move made by the typical car driver, and big trucks take a lot of room and time to stop. A few lawsuits later, all the financial gains will disappear for the trucking companies and drivers are back in the seat.
I could see in 20 years a system where computer assisted driving automates much of the trip, much like commercial aircraft operate now.
Self driving trucks on the highway are already legal in some states. EX: Arizona.
Yeah, city driving is hard. That might be a long ways away. But highway driving? Thats easy. You can even buy a highway driving, consumer self driving vehicle right NOW. Tesla sells them.
Self-driving is not the same as autonomous, though. There is always a human present, and sometimes that's not enough to make up for the fact that a Tesla apparently can't "see" a 75 foot long, 13 1/2 foot high truck in front of it while driving down the highway.
And while highway driving generally has fewer decision points per mile than city driving, the speeds are much higher and so the effects of errors are much greater on the highway. The worst wrecks I've seen have all been on the highway, not in cities.
>I'd imagine the quality of life would be significantly better too since they would work in the same spot with co-workers and could go home every day.
Actually, working in the same spot with coworkers was exactly the reason I started driving a truck. Going back to that would be an enormous downgrade in quality of life for me and a lot of drivers.
Seems like OpenSSL should focus on fixing their code instead of risking the alienation of past contributors. I wonder if this is to satisfy some of the big donors who want to fix OpenSSL but won't until the license is changed. I know I'd be pissed if I had contributed and then got an email saying no response implies agreement.
I think with any larger scale open source project looking to change license they basically have to assert that no response implies agreement because of the amount of people that have contributed over time and things that this leads to, such as the probability that at least one of them might have died or otherwise have become unreachable since when they contributed.
However they might have instead used some of the donor money to hire someone to do a clean-room re-implementation of the functionality for which they couldn't get the original author's blessing to change the license of. This might have been the more respectful thing to do perhaps.
If they don't do it, and just take the code someone else contributed to the project under a different copyright notice and put it under Apache 2.0, does that mean I can fork, say, Firefox or gcc and slap an MIT copyright on the source code if not all of the contributors reply to my email asking them if they agree to it?
If no, then what percentage of contributors need to agree? Or do I need to rewrite all of the code that I get noes for?
Anyone with a potential copyright claim on the source can take legal action if they believe that their rights have been violated. If you object to OpenSSL relicensing and have contributed to it, you can sue them if they go through with it. Likewise, if you violate the license of any other software project, that project can sue you. OpenSSL is betting that the vast majority of contributors will agree, and that the rest will either not care or won't sue, and if someone does sue they're hoping that person's contributions are minimal enough that they can be removed from the codebase.
The problem is that this can happen at anytime. As a user of OpenSSL, I have no guarantee that a contributor won't, at some point in the future, decide to sue over this. Once that happens, I would have to remove their contributions from my copy [0], or risk being sued. Further, if enough time passes, and there are contributions under the new license, I would have to comply with both licences (which are incompatible).
The core problem here is not that they are changing the license. It is that it is now not clear what license is actually in effect; and it could very possibly end up being both.
The upside to this is that no one enforces these licenses anyway.
[0] Which might be a bigger deal in other contexts, for a security library, I should be staying up to date anyway.
I'm past dating age (and anyway I have a relationship that has survived 20 years), but when I was younger, I never considered what the woman would bring to the relationship financially. I'm very traditional, though, so perhaps this attitude is no longer as common as it was when I was younger.
In popular American culture in our time, there is not an emphasis on what the partner brings to the relationship financially. I also did not think much about my wife's earning power (or at least, not explicitly, although we met in college so there is some same-class-ness happening there).
But I think that is not typical of cultures across space and time. Just ask Jane Austen. :-)
The article implies that it's solely the woman's decision to marry, but the reality is more complicated. Many men are choosing not to marry since it is fraught with economic risk to do so. This has been building for a generation.
> “You don’t want to marry a man who is in all likelihood not economically viable, because it’s not a free lunch,” Autor said.
"Not economically viable" is the exact phrase used in the movie "Falling Down" by the man who was denied a loan by a bank and was arrested while the Michael Douglas character looks on sympathetically. His wife ditched him, too.
