To me the quitting economy seems to be all about narcissists and bullshitters. The job interview is not about who has the most skill, it is about who can talk themselves up the best.
It's not going to work that way. If I must call the milk, the delivery vehicle is almost certainly going to be somewhere else in my neighborhood; unless you expect me to believe the store will have my own dedicated vehicle ready sitting there waiting to bring me this milk and the delivery will be free, it's much quicker and more efficient for me to drive there with my own vehicle. Often I simply can't wait any longer than that.
But then apparently you expect me to believe there will be an unlimited number of people carrying cars at the end of my street waiting just to serve me as well, so you're fairly delusional. Right now any car sharing service will be out of cars during peak times.
I just can't understand buying a car only to be an errand car. I understand that some people don't go on long trips, but you need to consider all uses for a vehicle, not the minimum use case.
Yes, more for corporations and less for people. That's great. It's going to be awesome to have to call a car and wait for it when you just need to run out to the store for milk.
Sure I can see it would be easier to make automated vehicles better at long distance driving, in which case the automation should only be activated in that situation. Until there is a way for the automation to sense if the driver is impaired and thus would be saver than the driver at that time, it should probably be left disabled at times where the human is in fact the better driver.
Stop going on about how quickly AI can respond without any proof of how much that actually helps you in real life driving situations. To quote the example above, a dog can smell better than a human but does that automatically mean they can do things better than a human in general?
Except the brain damage doesn't start after you sign the contract. It starts just after your dad tells you 'tough kids play football' and you suddenly find yourself on the other side of the scrimmage line from all the freakishly huge kids from the other side of town. Parents are basically volunteering their kids for this in order for their kid to have a change at the big time. That's an awful big risk.
Back in 500 BC no one thought there would be tractors, what the hell does that prove? The only thing to consider is that prior to globalization, local companies needed local labor. Post-globalization companies use the cheapest labor anywhere in the world. Back in the 19th century they were still assured that if there was a local company it would need domestic workers to run with, and it is no longer the case.
There will always be a wealthy 1%, but the problem is that making it to the 1% bestows you with the power to stay in the 1%. What's the point of playing king of the hill if the first person who makes it to the top can never be pushed off? That's capitalism today.
If they are truly as good as an average human, then they could adapt to drive in that traffic if humans can. I suspect the 'as good as an average human' is in fact a lie though, and no company is actually close to that.
Some guy in the 19th century always saw a different place where those people would be needed. Today any business plan that needs more than 3 real humans is laughed out of the room as unprofitable.
Yet it seems to make logical sense that if there is less money floating around for an individual like me floating around, then it is harder to obtain and makes things more difficult to afford. I have retirement savings but not enough for this to make a difference. If we lower taxes on corporations then society is losing any way.
The important point is, they have demonstrated that they are safer than any automated car capable of maintaining legal speed limit anywhere. I don't see why we can't wait for a company to demonstrate that they have taken all the chaos and randomness of the world into account before putting these into the road.
It's likely they handle those situations? Who has proved it through millions of construction zones? it seems every construction zone has a different type of marker. I don't care how likely it is, someone should have to prove it first without sacrificing non-participating individuals.
Yet they may be killing people that may never have gotten in an accident if they were in a manual car. They may also kill people who don't even dive cars.
Doesn't matter. The only thing anyone should care about is whether *they as an individual* are incurring greater risk by being in an automated car. If a person has been in two accidents in the last year then, yes, it is helping them. For people who have never been in an accident, quite likely using an AI car is more risky for you. If an automated car is only as good as the average human, then half the drivers out there are increasing their risk by using an automated vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
He was so happy he got laid he went out and got an MBA? Man that dude must have had some confidence issues!
To me the quitting economy seems to be all about narcissists and bullshitters. The job interview is not about who has the most skill, it is about who can talk themselves up the best.
Don't want responses? Don't post.
It's not going to work that way. If I must call the milk, the delivery vehicle is almost certainly going to be somewhere else in my neighborhood; unless you expect me to believe the store will have my own dedicated vehicle ready sitting there waiting to bring me this milk and the delivery will be free, it's much quicker and more efficient for me to drive there with my own vehicle. Often I simply can't wait any longer than that.
But then apparently you expect me to believe there will be an unlimited number of people carrying cars at the end of my street waiting just to serve me as well, so you're fairly delusional. Right now any car sharing service will be out of cars during peak times.
I just really want to know where people get all this damn time. I'd be willing to buy a lot of it if the price is right.
Yes I hear zipcar is wonderful when you want to drive out to the beach on the long weekend and they're all taken.
I just can't understand buying a car only to be an errand car. I understand that some people don't go on long trips, but you need to consider all uses for a vehicle, not the minimum use case.
Yes, more for corporations and less for people. That's great. It's going to be awesome to have to call a car and wait for it when you just need to run out to the store for milk.
Sure I can see it would be easier to make automated vehicles better at long distance driving, in which case the automation should only be activated in that situation. Until there is a way for the automation to sense if the driver is impaired and thus would be saver than the driver at that time, it should probably be left disabled at times where the human is in fact the better driver.
Stop going on about how quickly AI can respond without any proof of how much that actually helps you in real life driving situations. To quote the example above, a dog can smell better than a human but does that automatically mean they can do things better than a human in general?
Except the brain damage doesn't start after you sign the contract. It starts just after your dad tells you 'tough kids play football' and you suddenly find yourself on the other side of the scrimmage line from all the freakishly huge kids from the other side of town. Parents are basically volunteering their kids for this in order for their kid to have a change at the big time. That's an awful big risk.
Oh my lord, I think you just nailed all that is wrong with America in that one statement.
Back in 500 BC no one thought there would be tractors, what the hell does that prove? The only thing to consider is that prior to globalization, local companies needed local labor. Post-globalization companies use the cheapest labor anywhere in the world. Back in the 19th century they were still assured that if there was a local company it would need domestic workers to run with, and it is no longer the case.
There will always be a wealthy 1%, but the problem is that making it to the 1% bestows you with the power to stay in the 1%. What's the point of playing king of the hill if the first person who makes it to the top can never be pushed off? That's capitalism today.
If they are truly as good as an average human, then they could adapt to drive in that traffic if humans can. I suspect the 'as good as an average human' is in fact a lie though, and no company is actually close to that.
Some guy in the 19th century always saw a different place where those people would be needed. Today any business plan that needs more than 3 real humans is laughed out of the room as unprofitable.
Well you just said a bunch of stuff that these cars do that there has been no proof of yet.
I'm pretty sure as a common IT worker, this hurts me more than it helps me.
Yet it seems to make logical sense that if there is less money floating around for an individual like me floating around, then it is harder to obtain and makes things more difficult to afford. I have retirement savings but not enough for this to make a difference. If we lower taxes on corporations then society is losing any way.
The important point is, they have demonstrated that they are safer than any automated car capable of maintaining legal speed limit anywhere. I don't see why we can't wait for a company to demonstrate that they have taken all the chaos and randomness of the world into account before putting these into the road.
It's likely they handle those situations? Who has proved it through millions of construction zones? it seems every construction zone has a different type of marker. I don't care how likely it is, someone should have to prove it first without sacrificing non-participating individuals.
Ok so stop saying it's about saving lives then, if they don't care about making it almost perfect before putting it on city streets.
Everyone talks about how far ahead Google is, but they still have humans intervening frequently. No rational thought on this topic.
Yet they may be killing people that may never have gotten in an accident if they were in a manual car. They may also kill people who don't even dive cars.
Doesn't matter. The only thing anyone should care about is whether *they as an individual* are incurring greater risk by being in an automated car. If a person has been in two accidents in the last year then, yes, it is helping them. For people who have never been in an accident, quite likely using an AI car is more risky for you. If an automated car is only as good as the average human, then half the drivers out there are increasing their risk by using an automated vehicle.