Anyone who's looked closely at the issues with the hyperloop has to come to the sobering conclusion that it's a really cool idea in theory, but one that will never come to fruition.
Airplanes don't fly through solid steel tubes that have to be able to withstand massive amounts of pressure from a vacuum
Correct, but hyperloop pods don't suck birds into their engines. My point was not to claim that planes and hyperloop pods are identical, just that planes are also very limited in the way they can recover from accidents mid-flight, yet that hasn't stopped people from using them.
Imagine one of the managers of the train company wants to have a per-day overview of delays. If you ignore DST in the definition of "day", then the statistics will be off by one hour in the summer. If you don't ignore DST, you'll have a 23 hour day and a 25 hour day.
You make it sound like that money, once spent, disappears from the economy. It doesn't.
Spend 172 bucks on imported oil. Burn the oil to keep warm. You have nothing. Somebody else, in a different country, now has your 172 bucks. The only way to make it come around is to create 172 bucks worth of goods.
once robots get so cheap that anyone can make/own one, there's not much (except human greediness) to stop communities from setting up their own robots
Except they won't. An current industrial robot can be very profitable for a big company, but it's way out of reach of ordinary consumers. And what are you going to do with a single robot ? You need a whole bunch of infrastructure and logistics around it to make it work efficiently.
Different days of the month, but not different weekdays. Nice try. Wanna play again?
Sure, I'll play again.
Switching over to daylight saving time, and losing one hour of sleep, raised the risk of having a heart attack the following Monday by 25 percent, compared to other Mondays during the year, according to a new U.S. study released on Saturday.
Your argument is valid, but only when circumstances don't change. When they do change, such as by introduction of a robot tax, the optimum price point will change as well.
A correlation was cited, but causation was not proven.
DST happens on different dates every year, so if there's a clear correlation, it's as good as a proof for causation, because there's nothing else that happens on those days.
I'll spell it out for you: if we didn't tax the steam machines, but we taxed the increased profits, then using the same logic we shouldn't have to tax the robot workers, but just tax the increased profits.
I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault.
It's the most practical thing to do. Because they get the benefit of riding a car without having to drive themselves. And they'll be paying less insurance premiums too, so I expect them to be happier than when they have to drive themselves, get involved in more accidents, and pay higher premiums.
if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect?
Same as it is now. When a car has manufacturing defects, or there is a case of gross negligence by the manufacturer, the insurance company will sue them.
The owner is the primary person enjoying the benefits of the car, so it makes sense they pay the policy for possible accidents, either directly by taking out a policy themselves or indirectly in the cost of the car, or a monthly fee. This also allows them to choose their own coverage options.
If you don't accept, then don't buy a self driving car, and pay a bit more.
it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.
The insurance for riding a train is included in the fare, of course. For a self driving car, there's no reason why the owner couldn't be required to get an insurance policy. Alternatively, the manufacturer of the car could get a policy for you, and charge you a monthly (or per mile) cost for riding.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who's looked closely at the issues with the hyperloop has to come to the sobering conclusion that it's a really cool idea in theory, but one that will never come to fruition.
Anyone...except the guys building it.
Airplanes don't fly through solid steel tubes that have to be able to withstand massive amounts of pressure from a vacuum
Correct, but hyperloop pods don't suck birds into their engines. My point was not to claim that planes and hyperloop pods are identical, just that planes are also very limited in the way they can recover from accidents mid-flight, yet that hasn't stopped people from using them.
Imagine one of the managers of the train company wants to have a per-day overview of delays. If you ignore DST in the definition of "day", then the statistics will be off by one hour in the summer. If you don't ignore DST, you'll have a 23 hour day and a 25 hour day.
How do you get out of an airplane when something goes wrong ?
So, how do you stop the wealthy from exerting this unfair advantage over others?
The traditional solution is a revolution.
You make it sound like that money, once spent, disappears from the economy. It doesn't.
Spend 172 bucks on imported oil. Burn the oil to keep warm. You have nothing. Somebody else, in a different country, now has your 172 bucks. The only way to make it come around is to create 172 bucks worth of goods.
once robots get so cheap that anyone can make/own one, there's not much (except human greediness) to stop communities from setting up their own robots
Except they won't. An current industrial robot can be very profitable for a big company, but it's way out of reach of ordinary consumers. And what are you going to do with a single robot ? You need a whole bunch of infrastructure and logistics around it to make it work efficiently.
Different days of the month, but not different weekdays. Nice try. Wanna play again?
Sure, I'll play again.
Switching over to daylight saving time, and losing one hour of sleep, raised the risk of having a heart attack the following Monday by 25 percent, compared to other Mondays during the year, according to a new U.S. study released on Saturday.
DST is useful if you give a fuck about the sun. Guess what. I don't.
In a recent review of the Sun, it only got one star.
Your argument is valid, but only when circumstances don't change. When they do change, such as by introduction of a robot tax, the optimum price point will change as well.
Someone who wants to accurately analyze time-based data and insists on local time is an idiot
So, when my travel app says I need to take the 1:30 am train, I'm an idiot for not using GMT or Unix timestamps ?
A correlation was cited, but causation was not proven.
DST happens on different dates every year, so if there's a clear correlation, it's as good as a proof for causation, because there's nothing else that happens on those days.
There is no need to have gaps or duplicate time points in your data. Hint: timezones and DST are only an illusion.
You must have missed the part where OP says "most people want to view data in local time"
If one hour change caused this much havoc then driving/flying between time zones should have the same effect yet oddly, it doesn't.
It doesn't ? Where's your data ?
I'll spell it out for you: if we didn't tax the steam machines, but we taxed the increased profits, then using the same logic we shouldn't have to tax the robot workers, but just tax the increased profits.
Yes? Presumably the increased profits were taxed
That's not the same as taxing the machines.
If you don't lower manufacturing cost, you'll be less efficient, and other, more efficient countries, will buy your goods away from you.
True, but with basically zero progress in the last half century I'm not expecting any miracles.
So with WebAssembly, they can spend even more CPU power on collecting bids.
I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault.
It's the most practical thing to do. Because they get the benefit of riding a car without having to drive themselves. And they'll be paying less insurance premiums too, so I expect them to be happier than when they have to drive themselves, get involved in more accidents, and pay higher premiums.
if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect?
Same as it is now. When a car has manufacturing defects, or there is a case of gross negligence by the manufacturer, the insurance company will sue them.
The difference is that airplanes have a much bigger engineering margin than rockets.
Once it has all the information, it would be easy to add up fuel cost and parking fees for all available spots, and pick the cheapest.
The owner is the primary person enjoying the benefits of the car, so it makes sense they pay the policy for possible accidents, either directly by taking out a policy themselves or indirectly in the cost of the car, or a monthly fee. This also allows them to choose their own coverage options.
If you don't accept, then don't buy a self driving car, and pay a bit more.
it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.
The insurance for riding a train is included in the fare, of course. For a self driving car, there's no reason why the owner couldn't be required to get an insurance policy. Alternatively, the manufacturer of the car could get a policy for you, and charge you a monthly (or per mile) cost for riding.
Try doing tilt-up with round walls.