Unlike Autopilot, cruise control does one thing and does it really well. Even when it fails, it fails gracefully, giving you plenty of time to respond. Autopilot pretends it's doing something, but it will fail catastrophically with no warning.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
The same point as an autopilot in a plane. Just becuase you didn't know what the term meant doesn't mean it has to perform differntly to anything else called autopilot in the world.
First of all, a pilot goes through a lot more training. A private pilot license requires 40 hours of flying with an instructor, passing rigorous practical, knowledge and medical tests and go through a flight review of their skills every two years. If that's the level of training required to use Tesla's Autopilot, then it would certainly be much safer than your average driver, though the safety would mainly come from the additional training and testing rather than Autopilot itself.
Second, an airplane's autopilot does not do anything Tesla's Autopilot does. It does not follow lanes, detect other aircraft, or maintain following distance. What it does do is allow you to focus on other tasks, possibly for 20 minutes at a time and not have to look outside or touch the controls. You don't have to worry about collisions because when operating under IFR, ATC will warn you about other aircraft in your path.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
Kansas. No, really; ever had to drive across that shit??
Well according to Tesla, if you were more relaxed while using Autopilot, then you're using it wrong.
It takes just 0.5 seconds for the car to steer itself into a concrete barrier. What level of alertness do you need to prevent that? Even if I let go of the steering wheel in a normal car, it wouldn't veer out of the lane that quickly!
It's not really like a spell checker. The spell checker will only activate when it detects a misspelled word, so it can only catch your mistakes, and therefore can't make it any worse. The autopilot is more like dictation software. It does the typing for you, while you're sitting there monitoring it's progress.
Having used both, I can say anecdotally, not only does dictation make far more mistakes than my typing, even the combination of dictation and my monitoring still falls short of my typing.
Don't forget suicide, rape, 90% confession rate in criminal trials, xenophobia and economic depression. Not to say there's nothing good about Japan, but every place has its tradeoffs.
I also agree that repealing the 2nd is the only sane way of regulating guns. We shouldn't have something on the books if we are going to actively subvert it.
As for the rest of the amendments, it's been proven time and time again that having bad thoughts and speaking to the wrong kinds of people breeds violence, and that if police had the power to monitor your every move, or even prevent you from going anywhere at all except to work and grocery shopping, it would be impossible to commit crimes.
As long as there's enough people wishing for perfect safety, all of these individual liberties will eventually end up on the altar. And yes, lots of people want perfect safety, as shown by their reaction to mass shootings, which doesn't even make the list of the top 10 causes of death.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Advertisers don't want to advertise on gory content and YouTube's just bending to their will. Maybe they're overreacting, or their algorithms aren't very accurate, or maybe they should've told those advertisers to fuck off, but they're not demonetizing people for shits and giggles.
If people don't want YouTube to be beholden to advertisers, then people will need to pay for it, e.g. through YouTube Red or Patreon.
The US has a LOT of law enforcement agencies, and one of the most powerful central governments. It also has the second highest incarceration rate in the world, one of the largest judicial systems, and among the highest rates of civil suits. Like virtually all other countries, the US is also a radically safer place today than it has been for most of its history.
Is your point that US has a high trust in authority? Because if that's the case, then you are completely wrong. Just consider the fact that every time one party's candidate gets elected president, the other side acts like the antichrist just won. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that a significant number of criminals sitting in jail are innocent, and that if you're rich, you are treated completely differently than if you are poor. As for the police, if black lives matter is any indication, a huge swath of Americans have a fear of cops.
Your assertion that resolution of disputes through peaceful mediation by collective authority leads to totalitarianism just doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.
I only asserted that trust in authority gets you dictators. I have doubts that an average person can separate their trust in the judicial process from trust in authority in general. In order for the judicial process to function, you must first have laws. So if you trust the judicial process, then you must necessarily trust congress to make just laws. Then if the government is to enforce a judgement, the executive must have power to do so, and the people must trust it with said power.
The more people trust the government, the more things they'll want the government to do, which in turn means granting it more power. If every generation did that, then pretty soon the government will have too much power.
Stephen Pinker points out that a good correlate of the violent death rate in a country is the willingness of the populace to trust an authority to resolve their conflicts.
Unfortunately, that willingness to trust authority is also what gets you dictators. I suspect if you total the number of people who were killed by dictators, it would be much larger than the number of murders and mass shootings that happened due to private gun ownership. Not to mention all those who died due to poor governance under such regimes. I don't think there's even a way to track that.
I do read SF, but it's science fiction. In real life, the soldiers wouldn't need to be there at all. They'd have drones do that work. Unless you have better tech, you'll be out-droned.
Consider a future where everyone who wants a drone army can have one. Governments, private individuals, terrorists and so on. Governments will have the largest and most capable drones. They will win any head-on fight through more advanced AI and sheer numbers. Private individuals might employ them for self-defense. A handful of them situated around their properties can deter criminals. Finally, terrorists would use them in place of human suicide bombers.
But how is that any worse than today?
Governments already have armies capable of controlling their respective people. If not in America then at least in the rest of world. Private individuals already have guns at home. As for terrorist attacks, it'll actually be much harder to carry them out. Armed guards stationed at every crowded venue is impractical for law enforcement, but a handful of drones is cheap. A terrorist would have to get past the law enforcement just as they have to today, but that law enforcement is going to be much more vigilant and instantly reacting to any threat.
As for a war between nations, the biggest and most dangerous weapons, nuclear ICBMs, have been autonomous since the 1960s and that hasn't changed at all. Neither have countermeasures since they've been invented. Can a relatively large drone carry a nuclear weapon? Yes, but it's going to be much easier to defend against given its slow speed and limited range. Swarms of them flying towards you will be easy pickings for a medium or short range nuclear missiles, while stragglers will be handled by your own drones or anti-air missiles. Any opponent wanting to get an upper hand would still need to counter your nuclear missiles first.
In other words, having drones won't change the landscape of war. They're no better than ICBMs at getting past enemy defenses, much less damaging than nuclear explosions, and definitely not capable of defending against anything moving at Mach 10.
You have a poor understanding of EMP if you think it can take out a 10-foot wide UAV. Commercial jets run into EMP all the time when they get hit by lightning and nothing happens to them.
As for blinding them, yes, it might have an effect on radio or radar, but the current crop of UAVs have visible light cameras. Meanwhile, whoever's fighting them will lose radio too, so it's not really an advantage.
Congrats on finding what you want in life. You're lucky to find a job in a low cost area that you don't hate with a 6-figure salary.
Of course, you could've also been lucky in other ways, like choosing to buy a house in Silicon Valley for $500k back when it wasn't crazy expensive. Then you'd have a $1.5 million house now and can retire whenever you like. Or you can keep working for that 2-4x salary without paying for the living cost.
whining that they actually have to show up regular hours and actually put in work and potentially have to do things that they don't like or doesn't interest them, in order to make a living.
Whining basically that the world doesn't cater to them.
Do you realize that humanity got to where it is now because countless generations of lazy people have figured out how to make the world cater to them?
If everyone's response to cold weather was "man up" and "deal with it", we'd never have invented clothes... or left Africa.
Well said. No one who's been active on the internet is going to know every last one of their accounts. And if you don't know, how is Customs and Border Protection going to know? A rule that can't be enforced in practice might as well not exist at all.
Other manufacturers don't need new factories, they already have them for building ICE and hybrid cars. Or do you think Nissan just magicked their Leaf into existence?
As for the charging network, it's pointless for most people. They can charge at home during the night just fine. It's only real use is for road trips, but even with a 250 mile range, a Tesla still not as good as an ICE car. Besides taking up your valuable vacation time waiting for it to charge, it also takes a lot of planning to make the trip work, so you can't just go on an extra detour when you feel like it. If your goal is to have a fun trip rather than make a statement, it's much easier to rent an ICE car for the trip.
That said, you're free to believe whatever you want, and I give you permission to laugh at all the naysayers (myself included) when you make it big buying Tesla stock.
Having narrowly avoided two separate impending collisions while driving due to insects, one hornet loose in the cab & one bee in the eye through an open window, I have a macabre fascination with the last few seconds in a vehicle before the collision the takes the life of the human witness(es).
These are the times when it pays to know what'll kill you faster. Bee in the eye or the ditch next to the road?
Keepin the hope alive worked out for Amazon shareholders, Tesla stock owners are hoping for the same.
Amazon still makes almost nothing from online retail. Almost all of the profit comes from AWS.
Tesla won't ever make back the billions invested into its factories. At least not by manufacturing electric cars. It has little, if any competitive advantage that couldn't be easily overcome by its competitors. At best the margins will be thin. If you're a shareholder, you might hope they discover their equivalent of AWS soon. But maybe they'll just run out of money and hype first.
The "real questions" are Why did Uber's car fail?", "Why is Uber releasing shitty video that doesn't match what the street looks like at night?"
I'm sure we'll have more insights into these once the NTSB investigation concludes. We're basically in the same phase for self-driving cars as airplanes were in the 1910's. Give it another 80 years and they'll be much safer than planes today.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike Autopilot, cruise control does one thing and does it really well. Even when it fails, it fails gracefully, giving you plenty of time to respond. Autopilot pretends it's doing something, but it will fail catastrophically with no warning.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
The same point as an autopilot in a plane. Just becuase you didn't know what the term meant doesn't mean it has to perform differntly to anything else called autopilot in the world.
First of all, a pilot goes through a lot more training. A private pilot license requires 40 hours of flying with an instructor, passing rigorous practical, knowledge and medical tests and go through a flight review of their skills every two years. If that's the level of training required to use Tesla's Autopilot, then it would certainly be much safer than your average driver, though the safety would mainly come from the additional training and testing rather than Autopilot itself.
Second, an airplane's autopilot does not do anything Tesla's Autopilot does. It does not follow lanes, detect other aircraft, or maintain following distance. What it does do is allow you to focus on other tasks, possibly for 20 minutes at a time and not have to look outside or touch the controls. You don't have to worry about collisions because when operating under IFR, ATC will warn you about other aircraft in your path.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
Kansas. No, really; ever had to drive across that shit??
Well according to Tesla, if you were more relaxed while using Autopilot, then you're using it wrong.
It takes just 0.5 seconds for the car to steer itself into a concrete barrier. What level of alertness do you need to prevent that? Even if I let go of the steering wheel in a normal car, it wouldn't veer out of the lane that quickly!
It's not really like a spell checker. The spell checker will only activate when it detects a misspelled word, so it can only catch your mistakes, and therefore can't make it any worse. The autopilot is more like dictation software. It does the typing for you, while you're sitting there monitoring it's progress.
Having used both, I can say anecdotally, not only does dictation make far more mistakes than my typing, even the combination of dictation and my monitoring still falls short of my typing.
Protip: click on the score at the top of the post to see its moderation history.
Unless you're on mobile, in which case I have no freaking idea.
Skipping the 'I made up a fake view so that I can mock it' entries in your farcical list
Skipping your entire post for dismissing mine. These are just conversations I've had, nothing more.
Bananas are supposed to be bendy, because I get my news from the Daily Mail.
I'm not GP, but really? You had a Brexit conversation where the flexibility or shape of bananas was a reason to leave?
Sounds like the solution is for YouTube not to pay anyone at all and keep all the ad revenue.
Unlike Uber, YouTube had plenty of content on it before they started paying people.
Don't forget suicide, rape, 90% confession rate in criminal trials, xenophobia and economic depression. Not to say there's nothing good about Japan, but every place has its tradeoffs.
I also agree that repealing the 2nd is the only sane way of regulating guns. We shouldn't have something on the books if we are going to actively subvert it.
As for the rest of the amendments, it's been proven time and time again that having bad thoughts and speaking to the wrong kinds of people breeds violence, and that if police had the power to monitor your every move, or even prevent you from going anywhere at all except to work and grocery shopping, it would be impossible to commit crimes.
As long as there's enough people wishing for perfect safety, all of these individual liberties will eventually end up on the altar. And yes, lots of people want perfect safety, as shown by their reaction to mass shootings, which doesn't even make the list of the top 10 causes of death.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Advertisers don't want to advertise on gory content and YouTube's just bending to their will. Maybe they're overreacting, or their algorithms aren't very accurate, or maybe they should've told those advertisers to fuck off, but they're not demonetizing people for shits and giggles.
If people don't want YouTube to be beholden to advertisers, then people will need to pay for it, e.g. through YouTube Red or Patreon.
The US has a LOT of law enforcement agencies, and one of the most powerful central governments. It also has the second highest incarceration rate in the world, one of the largest judicial systems, and among the highest rates of civil suits. Like virtually all other countries, the US is also a radically safer place today than it has been for most of its history.
Is your point that US has a high trust in authority? Because if that's the case, then you are completely wrong. Just consider the fact that every time one party's candidate gets elected president, the other side acts like the antichrist just won. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that a significant number of criminals sitting in jail are innocent, and that if you're rich, you are treated completely differently than if you are poor. As for the police, if black lives matter is any indication, a huge swath of Americans have a fear of cops.
Your assertion that resolution of disputes through peaceful mediation by collective authority leads to totalitarianism just doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.
I only asserted that trust in authority gets you dictators. I have doubts that an average person can separate their trust in the judicial process from trust in authority in general. In order for the judicial process to function, you must first have laws. So if you trust the judicial process, then you must necessarily trust congress to make just laws. Then if the government is to enforce a judgement, the executive must have power to do so, and the people must trust it with said power.
The more people trust the government, the more things they'll want the government to do, which in turn means granting it more power. If every generation did that, then pretty soon the government will have too much power.
Stephen Pinker points out that a good correlate of the violent death rate in a country is the willingness of the populace to trust an authority to resolve their conflicts.
Unfortunately, that willingness to trust authority is also what gets you dictators. I suspect if you total the number of people who were killed by dictators, it would be much larger than the number of murders and mass shootings that happened due to private gun ownership. Not to mention all those who died due to poor governance under such regimes. I don't think there's even a way to track that.
You have not read much SF, I guess?
I do read SF, but it's science fiction. In real life, the soldiers wouldn't need to be there at all. They'd have drones do that work. Unless you have better tech, you'll be out-droned.
Consider a future where everyone who wants a drone army can have one. Governments, private individuals, terrorists and so on. Governments will have the largest and most capable drones. They will win any head-on fight through more advanced AI and sheer numbers. Private individuals might employ them for self-defense. A handful of them situated around their properties can deter criminals. Finally, terrorists would use them in place of human suicide bombers.
But how is that any worse than today?
Governments already have armies capable of controlling their respective people. If not in America then at least in the rest of world. Private individuals already have guns at home. As for terrorist attacks, it'll actually be much harder to carry them out. Armed guards stationed at every crowded venue is impractical for law enforcement, but a handful of drones is cheap. A terrorist would have to get past the law enforcement just as they have to today, but that law enforcement is going to be much more vigilant and instantly reacting to any threat.
As for a war between nations, the biggest and most dangerous weapons, nuclear ICBMs, have been autonomous since the 1960s and that hasn't changed at all. Neither have countermeasures since they've been invented. Can a relatively large drone carry a nuclear weapon? Yes, but it's going to be much easier to defend against given its slow speed and limited range. Swarms of them flying towards you will be easy pickings for a medium or short range nuclear missiles, while stragglers will be handled by your own drones or anti-air missiles. Any opponent wanting to get an upper hand would still need to counter your nuclear missiles first.
In other words, having drones won't change the landscape of war. They're no better than ICBMs at getting past enemy defenses, much less damaging than nuclear explosions, and definitely not capable of defending against anything moving at Mach 10.
You have a poor understanding of EMP if you think it can take out a 10-foot wide UAV. Commercial jets run into EMP all the time when they get hit by lightning and nothing happens to them.
As for blinding them, yes, it might have an effect on radio or radar, but the current crop of UAVs have visible light cameras. Meanwhile, whoever's fighting them will lose radio too, so it's not really an advantage.
Congrats on finding what you want in life. You're lucky to find a job in a low cost area that you don't hate with a 6-figure salary.
Of course, you could've also been lucky in other ways, like choosing to buy a house in Silicon Valley for $500k back when it wasn't crazy expensive. Then you'd have a $1.5 million house now and can retire whenever you like. Or you can keep working for that 2-4x salary without paying for the living cost.
It will never have the tech market as in the Bay Area, but it is on part with other metropolitan areas like San Jose, Atlanta or Tampa.
Did you just redefine the Bay Area to exclude San Jose?
whining that they actually have to show up regular hours and actually put in work and potentially have to do things that they don't like or doesn't interest them, in order to make a living.
Whining basically that the world doesn't cater to them.
Do you realize that humanity got to where it is now because countless generations of lazy people have figured out how to make the world cater to them?
If everyone's response to cold weather was "man up" and "deal with it", we'd never have invented clothes... or left Africa.
Well said. No one who's been active on the internet is going to know every last one of their accounts. And if you don't know, how is Customs and Border Protection going to know? A rule that can't be enforced in practice might as well not exist at all.
Other manufacturers don't need new factories, they already have them for building ICE and hybrid cars. Or do you think Nissan just magicked their Leaf into existence?
As for the charging network, it's pointless for most people. They can charge at home during the night just fine. It's only real use is for road trips, but even with a 250 mile range, a Tesla still not as good as an ICE car. Besides taking up your valuable vacation time waiting for it to charge, it also takes a lot of planning to make the trip work, so you can't just go on an extra detour when you feel like it. If your goal is to have a fun trip rather than make a statement, it's much easier to rent an ICE car for the trip.
That said, you're free to believe whatever you want, and I give you permission to laugh at all the naysayers (myself included) when you make it big buying Tesla stock.
Having narrowly avoided two separate impending collisions while driving due to insects, one hornet loose in the cab & one bee in the eye through an open window, I have a macabre fascination with the last few seconds in a vehicle before the collision the takes the life of the human witness(es).
These are the times when it pays to know what'll kill you faster. Bee in the eye or the ditch next to the road?
if you come to a complete stop at ANY time other than the wee-hours of the morning, and maybe even then, you WILL cause a crash.
How many of those are fender-benders rather than fatal?
Keepin the hope alive worked out for Amazon shareholders, Tesla stock owners are hoping for the same.
Amazon still makes almost nothing from online retail. Almost all of the profit comes from AWS.
Tesla won't ever make back the billions invested into its factories. At least not by manufacturing electric cars. It has little, if any competitive advantage that couldn't be easily overcome by its competitors. At best the margins will be thin. If you're a shareholder, you might hope they discover their equivalent of AWS soon. But maybe they'll just run out of money and hype first.
>That's not really a fair comparison, because you can't actually get a $35k Model 3 today
A friend of mine is getting his model 3 today. He's picking it up from the Tesla shop at 10.00am.
And how much did he pay for it?
The "real questions" are Why did Uber's car fail?", "Why is Uber releasing shitty video that doesn't match what the street looks like at night?"
I'm sure we'll have more insights into these once the NTSB investigation concludes. We're basically in the same phase for self-driving cars as airplanes were in the 1910's. Give it another 80 years and they'll be much safer than planes today.