He's right - it's a very tough problem.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/01/maybe-somebody-will-listen-to-atrios.html
Cheers,
Scott.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/01/maybe-somebody-will-listen-to-atrios.html
Cheers,
Scott.
Atrios writes on self driving cars again.
He's right - it's a very tough problem. http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/01/maybe-somebody-will-listen-to-atrios.html Cheers, Scott. |
|
Re: Atrios writes on self driving cars again.
A bunch Weltschmerz-suffering popinjays just like .. a group I know of.. Heh.. Here's one sub-set of the nice.. distinctions to be found there after (first? second?) reload of replies]: •Love. It. {Emphasis added just for fuck's sake} |
|
IMO, the workable, sane solution comes from aviation.
The Air Force just ran a test on autonomous drones. That comes only 103 years after the first autopilot in an aircraft was demonstrated. The workable, sane solution for automobiles is to abandon the notion of complete autonomy and instead work toward developing the technology that is commonplace in aviation today. The "boring" parts of driving (Interstate and highway travel) should be done with the autopilot engaged. Pulling out of a parking space (the equivalent of taxiing) and Parking (the equivalent of taxiing to the ramp) should be done by human hands. If this is about safety (which it isn't) that's the approach we should pursue. For instance, ... The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that, in 2013, nearly 3,000 more fatal car accidents happened on rural roads than on busy urban streets. https://www.esurance.com/info/car/where-car-accidents-happen-most But, like everything else in this country, this has nothing to do with safety. It's about increasing the acceleration of the polarization of wealth. Why share wealth with taxi drivers when we can (1) Get Uber to perform the same duty for a lot less and (2) eliminate the need for humans entirely and funnel the saved dollars to people who contribute nothing to the process - like we do with our health care system. So, we really won't need to solve that 1% of the "problem" of autonomous cars after all. What's a few dead precariats in the face of increasing profit? Edit: The *real* solution, of course, is mass transit. But, there's not enough money in that for the shareholders. bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
And you think mass transit will have drivers?
-- Drew |
|
Do trains? Do buses?
bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
Yeah. Finland is Just like LA.
bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
The Detroit People Mover is automated.
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
hard to rob a robot
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
With human observers.
bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
Not drivers though.
One observer can watch the whole line. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
DLR is fully automatic
The only humans involved are the euphemistically-titled Revenue Protection Officers - they check that you've not jumped the barrier. Tube will be going the same way within 10 years, I predict. Bigger and busier than the LA metro (roughly 10x daily ridership). ETA: DLR ridership, on its own, is on par with the entire LA Metro. |
|
No, not all of Finland is.
But, see the word "Helsinki" in that URL? That's not exactly a six-mile country-road straight with a single T-crossing and Children Of The Corn on each side as far as the eye can see. (Though, yeah: 1) "Test". 2) All of two "buses", "carrying up to 12 public passengers" [each, presumably]. 3) "in Helsinki’s Hernesaari neighborhood", not exactly downtown Tokyo at rush hour. But still, not North by Northwest, either.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.) |
|
"Has nothing to do with safety"
Well, that's what I want it for. YMMV. This isn't a single-issue situation, like most things that get presented in a black or white manner as you just did. I'm pretty sure the people at Google weren't sitting around thinking, "Hey, taxi drivers, right? How can we stick it to those assholes?" The car companies are going to make what people want to buy, for the most part. See all of the current safety systems being added to cars now for example (the 2017 Corolla has automated braking and blind spot avoidance, for crying out loud). Safety is very much a driver (*ahem*) for automation. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
2 problems, 2 solutions
Lifting the luggage isn't a car problem. I'll leave that aside. All the car problems he describes are really cases of the car having to interact with human drivers behaving unpredictably. When *all* the cars are autonomous, they'll work it out amongst themselves. -- Drew |
|
Better solution: Get rid of automobiles.
We use as our primary means of getting around, late 19th century technology in the 21st century. That's idiotic. bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
There's a lot to that.
Cars and parking take up too much space in cities. They require too much investment to manufacture. They require too much hardware, land, etc., for upkeep (fueling, repairs). They are too damaging to the environment (air, water, landfills (tires and all the rest), etc.). Much of what people use cars for is for getting to work in a reasonable amount of time. Rapid transit and dependable wide-ranging bus-service is needed. But that's not enough. My morning commute is about 25 minutes door to door by car. By bus/train it would take at least 2 hours. By bicycle it would take about 75 minutes (would have to stay off the highway). But by 25 MPH scooter/segway/moped it might take 30-45 minutes if there were a legal pathway similar to my driving route. Having everyone take Uber isn't a solution either - it's too expensive and it won't reduce the number of cars on the road during peak hours (which would naturally increase as cities continue to grow). There's nothing about my commute that requires that I take it in a 3500 pound vehicle. It's hard to believe that in 50 years we won't have much more efficient ways to commute. Yeah, semi-autonomous is coming and it's going to help in a vast majority of cases. But Atrios is right that the people selling the future as being completely autonomous are dreaming and it's not really clear why customers would want such a thing anyway. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Why would people want it? They are incredibly lazy.
The younger ones can't even look up from their stupid handhelds to have a decent conversation with a human. bcnu, Mikem Social Media is for Sociopaths. |
|
Goddamn right.
I've got better things to do than spend 2 hours a day avoiding other assholes (I'm included in that number) on the road. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
So, switch to Light Rail in stead?
"Early 19th century technology for the win!" ? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.) |