For the first few days people will be extremely cautious letting the autopilot do anything.
For the first few weeks they'll give it more leeway, but be very attuned to any warnings it gives.
After a few months, if they haven't had any real scares, they'll assume the auto-pilot knows what it's doing and generally ignore warnings.
Some people will be more cautious, but as a software developer this is exactly what I expect to happen with a significant portion of people. Everyone knows the right thing to do, we should backup our data rigorously, always use good unique password, follow the proper procedures, etc. But that's not how people work. If it's not part of a routine, and it's not given an immediate payoff, then people won't do it.
Give people a car that can self-drive in some situations and they will inevitably let it self-drive in every situation they can.
Its human nature. Bad driving habits reinforced over time. A certain percentage of people will grow unsafely confident and increase their risk. Just like texting while driving .
There are some human interface issues that remain a challenge for these 'partially autonomous' driving modes. This article mentions some of the challenges with the handoff between autonomous steering and manual (not Tesla specific);.
But while autonomous or semiautonomous driving technology could help reduce collisions in general, questions about how and when to draw the line between manual and autonomous mode have yet to be fully resolved by engineers and researchers. Last year, for example, a study by Stanford University found that drivers often had trouble taking the wheel again after letting a computer drive, even momentarily. Drivers commonly over- or undercorrected with the steering wheel, even when they knew the handoff was coming, the research found. The effects were more pronounced if driving conditions had changed substantially since the last time the drivers were in control, according to a Stanford release.
1) The driver was responsible for the accident because he didn't maintain control
2) Tesla Autopilot was not good enough on its own to prevent the car from driving into the truck.
6 months is not enough to determine deterioration during the 20+ year lifetime of usage in an aircraft.
Many issues do not show up immediately after manufacture and testing for age exposure and usage is sometimes are to compress into shorter timeframes.
If initially thought safe (or at least predictable in failure and deteriation modes and timelines), it would be better to start testing them in cargo planes first before allowing in passenger planes.
Very true. They also need to determine more than just material strength and integrity, but what types of flaws might occur in manufacturing, how to spot signs of degradation or weakening and what inspection programs are required. Then there are the tremendous range of conditions different parts in different sections of an aircraft experience.
Determining the safety of the plasma-deposition technology shouldn't take more than six months of carefully designed testing and comparison between 3-D Printed parts and forged/machines parts.
Maybe, but it might take years to 'carefully design' the testing to make sure it is comprehensive. The key to testing is to determine the limits of each material used, and due to the many possible configurations that's not so easy.
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time.
I don't profess there is a single way it 'should be done'. And I don't even have a problem with some of the suggested (yet unproven) approaches. I'm not going to agree or disagree with an approach just because the Koch brothers said something about it. Concerns that public money often results in an giveaway to a company that winds up in a monopoly situation are certainly valid though, and shouldn't be dismissed because it is by far the most common result.
Short term contracts for 5 or even 10 year holds are appealing, but actually can result in higher consumer costs to account for the risk of displacement. OTOH, the customer investment in user equipment (STBs, etc) gives the holder a unique advantage. I think, if public money will be used for infrastructure, it would be best to have multiple ISPs and TV providers simultaneously supporting the same region.
As for your replies, I've seen no thoughts or insights on anything.
These bastards must hate the environment, as much as they oppose any regulation to protect it. I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to spew idiocy in defense of the Koch Brothers. Now they want to oppose efforts to improve infrastructure in Louisville. At what point do we decide that these people are just evil and seize their assets for the public good?
If you are OK with the cable monopolies that exist in many cities, then you have a point because this is set up basically the same. Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that. I don't know of any cases where a company is such a position has been displaced. Or maybe you saw 'Koch' and decided your position based solely on that?
I hope consumers keep the pressure on, and don't get bought off with a few minor concessions. The time to enshrine the "right to repair" in law is now.
If Apple and similar corporations get breathing room, they'll soon have things so twisted around that even opening one of their damned machines will bring the FBI swooping down on you...because terrorism, kittens, children, etc.
No regulation needed. Just don't buy stuff that doesn't meet your demands. I am certain that if people only buy repairable products, then there will always be manufacturers of those products. And if people are fine with non-repairable items and buy them, then their will be manufacturers of those as well. You can still find flip phones because people are still buying them.
I think MSFT gets its fair share of criticism here. So does Android/Google. Apple was the leader in the closed ecosystem, so they got more attention for that reason. MSFT doesn't appeat to want to be left out and is working hard to get its fair share of that criticism.
I will always give preferences to devices that are somewhat repairable. Easily replaceable screens and batteries (and possibly USB ports) should be a selling feature. I hope people continue to make it clear that is what they want. I understand that devices might be more resilient and weatherproof if they are epoxy filled, but I owned had plenty of devices which were easily repaired yet fully met by 'toughness' needs. Some people might need more rugged stuff than me.
Musk has always been honest about this. He claims Tesla is "cash-flow positive" rather than say that the company is profitable. He also claims they earn money with every Tesla sold. The problem is their vast investments on infrastructure like the Gigafactory or the Freemont expansion for Model 3.
Tesla has not demonstrated that it is 'cash positive' operationally when you include the cost of money used for the in production infrastructure alone. Not counting the other investments.
As for profitability, like I said, we don't know their bottom line numbers so your speculation is as good as anybody's. I assume that because it is private they will have a much shorter leash than Tesla when it comes to ROI.
My employer occasionally hired these management consultants thirty years ago. At that time, they were very adept at interviewing the management, and then telling them a summarized version that confirmed their preconceptions..
That's how a lot of process or business improvement consulting works. In some ways its is crazy how a manager will listen to a consultant telling him/her what changes are needed when employees have been asking for the same things are sometimes ignored. But it often does take an impartial outside view to get to the truth, and often along with the employees knowing what was needed there also comes a ton of employee ideas that are not viable and management sometimes needs help weeding out the noise. A good consultant can sift through the BS and politics that hamper some managers, and describe the scenario in way that aligns with the goals of management.
Do you have enough info to know for certain? Musk has not been afraid to operate at a loss, that is for certain. I don't assume they are or are not on launches. This article doesn't provide enough info and makes assumptions that frankly are not very insightful, so I certainly don't find it useful in determining the reality of SpaceX finances.
It is typical of Musk to not include the cost of money when he claims he is making a profit on operations. The answer is in the books, ones that I don't have access to since it is a private company.
No sheet. I've been adjusting my meals ahead of time as a matter of routine. Don't eat dinner on a US flight to Europe when it is 2 am there. I figured that out after my first trip.
Oh how much you think you know. Anybody who can read English should read the regulations first instead of just assuming. NERC and FERC have long ago mandated isolation of such control systems, and enforcement has been thorough.
Why the fuck are these systems connected to the internet?
What systems are you talking about? In the US, systems that control grid infrastructure are not connected to the internet. Maybe there are a few countries left where that isn't true, but just because malware extsts doesn't mean the target is vulnerable.
You don't lose much power due to winter snow because panels don't produce that much in winter to begin with. Look at Germany, average PV goes down to very low levels Dec - Feb. Many cloudy and snowy days it barely registers.
Clearing snow off panels is just part of it. If it is snowing hard during daylight hours, solar won't produce much even if the panels are cleared.
I see a fair number of solar arrays cluttering the landscape in Vermont and Northern New York. I'm a bit skeptical of their effectiveness in Winter due to ice, snow, short days, abundant clouds, low sun angle, etc, etc, etc. But vandalism doesn't seem to be an issue.
Like a Canadian comedian once pointed out -- drive by shootings aren't all that big a problem in places where rolling down the car window risks frostbite and no one hangs out on street corners anyway. Sort of applies to busting up/spray painting solar panels as well.
No skepticism needed, we know what the facts are. Germany's solar averages about 10% capacity factor annually. So if you have a similar northerly climate with cloudy and snowy days, you'll have a similar result. Germany's panels produce very little energy Dec through February on average.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can't fly at those temperatures, then they must not be soaring temperatures.
For the first few days people will be extremely cautious letting the autopilot do anything.
For the first few weeks they'll give it more leeway, but be very attuned to any warnings it gives.
After a few months, if they haven't had any real scares, they'll assume the auto-pilot knows what it's doing and generally ignore warnings.
Some people will be more cautious, but as a software developer this is exactly what I expect to happen with a significant portion of people. Everyone knows the right thing to do, we should backup our data rigorously, always use good unique password, follow the proper procedures, etc. But that's not how people work. If it's not part of a routine, and it's not given an immediate payoff, then people won't do it.
Give people a car that can self-drive in some situations and they will inevitably let it self-drive in every situation they can.
Its human nature. Bad driving habits reinforced over time. A certain percentage of people will grow unsafely confident and increase their risk. Just like texting while driving .
The driver was watching a Harry Potter movie when he crashed, according to earlier published reports.
Turns out that was just rumor. The investigation concluded there was no movie being watched.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
But while autonomous or semiautonomous driving technology could help reduce collisions in general, questions about how and when to draw the line between manual and autonomous mode have yet to be fully resolved by engineers and researchers. Last year, for example, a study by Stanford University found that drivers often had trouble taking the wheel again after letting a computer drive, even momentarily. Drivers commonly over- or undercorrected with the steering wheel, even when they knew the handoff was coming, the research found. The effects were more pronounced if driving conditions had changed substantially since the last time the drivers were in control, according to a Stanford release.
What we know from this incident;
1) The driver was responsible for the accident because he didn't maintain control
2) Tesla Autopilot was not good enough on its own to prevent the car from driving into the truck.
6 months is not enough to determine deterioration during the 20+ year lifetime of usage in an aircraft. Many issues do not show up immediately after manufacture and testing for age exposure and usage is sometimes are to compress into shorter timeframes.
If initially thought safe (or at least predictable in failure and deteriation modes and timelines), it would be better to start testing them in cargo planes first before allowing in passenger planes.
Very true. They also need to determine more than just material strength and integrity, but what types of flaws might occur in manufacturing, how to spot signs of degradation or weakening and what inspection programs are required. Then there are the tremendous range of conditions different parts in different sections of an aircraft experience.
Determining the safety of the plasma-deposition technology shouldn't take more than six months of carefully designed testing and comparison between 3-D Printed parts and forged/machines parts.
Maybe, but it might take years to 'carefully design' the testing to make sure it is comprehensive. The key to testing is to determine the limits of each material used, and due to the many possible configurations that's not so easy.
"Care to give us an example"
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time.
I don't profess there is a single way it 'should be done'. And I don't even have a problem with some of the suggested (yet unproven) approaches. I'm not going to agree or disagree with an approach just because the Koch brothers said something about it. Concerns that public money often results in an giveaway to a company that winds up in a monopoly situation are certainly valid though, and shouldn't be dismissed because it is by far the most common result.
Short term contracts for 5 or even 10 year holds are appealing, but actually can result in higher consumer costs to account for the risk of displacement. OTOH, the customer investment in user equipment (STBs, etc) gives the holder a unique advantage. I think, if public money will be used for infrastructure, it would be best to have multiple ISPs and TV providers simultaneously supporting the same region.
As for your replies, I've seen no thoughts or insights on anything.
All the cases when infrastructure has been, and is being, done right.
Care to give us an example, or are you just going to stick with that weak, useless generalization?
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?
These bastards must hate the environment, as much as they oppose any regulation to protect it. I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to spew idiocy in defense of the Koch Brothers. Now they want to oppose efforts to improve infrastructure in Louisville. At what point do we decide that these people are just evil and seize their assets for the public good?
If you are OK with the cable monopolies that exist in many cities, then you have a point because this is set up basically the same. Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that. I don't know of any cases where a company is such a position has been displaced. Or maybe you saw 'Koch' and decided your position based solely on that?
I hope consumers keep the pressure on, and don't get bought off with a few minor concessions. The time to enshrine the "right to repair" in law is now.
If Apple and similar corporations get breathing room, they'll soon have things so twisted around that even opening one of their damned machines will bring the FBI swooping down on you...because terrorism, kittens, children, etc.
No regulation needed. Just don't buy stuff that doesn't meet your demands. I am certain that if people only buy repairable products, then there will always be manufacturers of those products. And if people are fine with non-repairable items and buy them, then their will be manufacturers of those as well. You can still find flip phones because people are still buying them.
I think MSFT gets its fair share of criticism here. So does Android/Google. Apple was the leader in the closed ecosystem, so they got more attention for that reason. MSFT doesn't appeat to want to be left out and is working hard to get its fair share of that criticism.
I will always give preferences to devices that are somewhat repairable. Easily replaceable screens and batteries (and possibly USB ports) should be a selling feature. I hope people continue to make it clear that is what they want. I understand that devices might be more resilient and weatherproof if they are epoxy filled, but I owned had plenty of devices which were easily repaired yet fully met by 'toughness' needs. Some people might need more rugged stuff than me.
Musk has always been honest about this. He claims Tesla is "cash-flow positive" rather than say that the company is profitable. He also claims they earn money with every Tesla sold. The problem is their vast investments on infrastructure like the Gigafactory or the Freemont expansion for Model 3.
Tesla has not demonstrated that it is 'cash positive' operationally when you include the cost of money used for the in production infrastructure alone. Not counting the other investments.
As for profitability, like I said, we don't know their bottom line numbers so your speculation is as good as anybody's. I assume that because it is private they will have a much shorter leash than Tesla when it comes to ROI.
My employer occasionally hired these management consultants thirty years ago. At that time, they were very adept at interviewing the management, and then telling them a summarized version that confirmed their preconceptions. .
That's how a lot of process or business improvement consulting works. In some ways its is crazy how a manager will listen to a consultant telling him/her what changes are needed when employees have been asking for the same things are sometimes ignored. But it often does take an impartial outside view to get to the truth, and often along with the employees knowing what was needed there also comes a ton of employee ideas that are not viable and management sometimes needs help weeding out the noise. A good consultant can sift through the BS and politics that hamper some managers, and describe the scenario in way that aligns with the goals of management.
you do realize that when you launch a 2 billion dollar satellite you are looking for success rate, not price...right?
Actually, you are looking at both. . Its called a cost benefit analysis.
SpaceX launches are not at a loss..
Do you have enough info to know for certain? Musk has not been afraid to operate at a loss, that is for certain. I don't assume they are or are not on launches. This article doesn't provide enough info and makes assumptions that frankly are not very insightful, so I certainly don't find it useful in determining the reality of SpaceX finances.
It is typical of Musk to not include the cost of money when he claims he is making a profit on operations. The answer is in the books, ones that I don't have access to since it is a private company.
Water is wet...
News at 11
No sheet. I've been adjusting my meals ahead of time as a matter of routine. Don't eat dinner on a US flight to Europe when it is 2 am there. I figured that out after my first trip.
Oh how much you think you know. Anybody who can read English should read the regulations first instead of just assuming. NERC and FERC have long ago mandated isolation of such control systems, and enforcement has been thorough.
So, how much do you really know?
Why the fuck are these systems connected to the internet?
What systems are you talking about? In the US, systems that control grid infrastructure are not connected to the internet. Maybe there are a few countries left where that isn't true, but just because malware extsts doesn't mean the target is vulnerable.
Solar is only 5% annually, and barely produces in winter
The point is that they get so much less sun in winter that a small efficiency improvement is completely irrelevant.
You don't lose much power due to winter snow because panels don't produce that much in winter to begin with. Look at Germany, average PV goes down to very low levels Dec - Feb. Many cloudy and snowy days it barely registers.
Clearing snow off panels is just part of it. If it is snowing hard during daylight hours, solar won't produce much even if the panels are cleared.
I see a fair number of solar arrays cluttering the landscape in Vermont and Northern New York. I'm a bit skeptical of their effectiveness in Winter due to ice, snow, short days, abundant clouds, low sun angle, etc, etc, etc. But vandalism doesn't seem to be an issue.
Like a Canadian comedian once pointed out -- drive by shootings aren't all that big a problem in places where rolling down the car window risks frostbite and no one hangs out on street corners anyway. Sort of applies to busting up/spray painting solar panels as well.
No skepticism needed, we know what the facts are. Germany's solar averages about 10% capacity factor annually. So if you have a similar northerly climate with cloudy and snowy days, you'll have a similar result. Germany's panels produce very little energy Dec through February on average.
I don't like Garmins either. But I wouldn't shoot at them.