IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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.
New 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]:

Avatar
Modemocrat • 16 hours ago
Silicon Valley people, while not engaged in figuring out how to avoid paying taxes, spend their time writing code (and imagining/developing tech) that eliminates humans from work.
Self-driving cars, drones, robots, algorithms - all designed to eliminate the need for pesky, demanding and "unreliable" flesh&blood workers.

Why?

Because business dreams of not having to deal with people who complain, want breaks and protest if they have to go 12 hours without overtime.
It's an easy sell if you are looking for [Ed:** ]investors.

[Ed:**] [Yeah.. Investors / Entre-fuckiing-preneurs / BANKERS: all at the bottom of the Marianas Trench; now THERE's yer bloody Self-driving Nirvana, I wot.] [/Ed**]

Avatar
Tlazolteotl, Special Interest Modemocrat • 16 hours ago
Why? Because they are misanthropic, antisocial assholes at heart?

Avatar
stoat Modemocrat • 16 hours ago
Every job is a lost profit opportunity. "Job creators" the fuck indeed.

Avatar
tacitus voltaire Modemocrat • 16 hours ago
you have to seperate the people who order the code to be written from us code slingers

Avatar
Greystoke Modemocrat • 16 hours ago
Silicon Valley engineers are by and large social misanthropes who dream of sipping Diet Dr. Pepper undisturbed while they code some interesting little program or app. They don't want to interact with people unless it's via a device with a screen, and so they're trying to build cars that will help them realize their utopia.

All caveats aside, I find it's helpful to consider all new tech "initiatives" using the lens of a stereotypical software developer, and consider why it might be appealing to remove any and all vestiges of human interaction.

Avatar
Tlazolteotl, Special Interest Greystoke • 15 hours ago
Because that one slut said no to us that one time and therefore all women are evil and we're better than they are anyway and they should go make us a sammich.
Love. It. {Emphasis added just for fuck's sake}
New 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.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 13, 2017, 08:38:26 AM EST
New And you think mass transit will have drivers?
--

Drew
New Do trains? Do buses?
bcnu,
Mikem

Social Media is for Sociopaths.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 13, 2017, 08:42:12 AM EST
New Yeah. Finland is Just like LA.
bcnu,
Mikem

Social Media is for Sociopaths.
New The Detroit People Mover is automated.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New hard to rob a robot
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New With human observers.
bcnu,
Mikem

Social Media is for Sociopaths.
New Not drivers though.
One observer can watch the whole line.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New 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.
Expand Edited by pwhysall Jan. 17, 2017, 04:06:08 PM EST
New 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.)
New "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.
New 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
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.)
     Atrios writes on self driving cars again. - (Another Scott) - (19)
         Re: Atrios writes on self driving cars again. - (Ashton)
         IMO, the workable, sane solution comes from aviation. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
             And you think mass transit will have drivers? -NT - (drook) - (9)
                 Do trains? Do buses? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                     No and no - (drook) - (7)
                         Yeah. Finland is Just like LA. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                             The Detroit People Mover is automated. -NT - (malraux) - (3)
                                 hard to rob a robot -NT - (boxley)
                                 With human observers. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Not drivers though. - (malraux)
                             DLR is fully automatic - (pwhysall)
                             No, not all of Finland is. - (CRConrad)
             "Has nothing to do with safety" - (malraux)
         2 problems, 2 solutions - (drook) - (5)
             Better solution: Get rid of automobiles. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                 There's a lot to that. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     Why would people want it? They are incredibly lazy. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         Goddamn right. - (malraux)
                 So, switch to Light Rail in stead? - (CRConrad)

Damn them, and their hatstand minions!
253 ms