Perhaps, but it seems like it'd be a lot cheaper and easier to just use RoboUber or RoboLyft.
This is the future. Car ownership never made economic sense, but the trade off in freedom of movement made it worthwhile. With robotaxi that goes away and car ownership becomes pointless for most people.
Actually, the self-driving car is more likely to avoid an accident in a situation like that because it will react from 700 to 1500 milliseconds faster.
But how does the false positive rate compare?
In the 1 in million chance I need faster reactions than I already possess, the robot wins. In the other 999,999 times, it is worse.
To be successful a self driving car doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to avoid killing 30,000 people a year as well as avoiding about 5.5 million auto accidents that in turn injured 2.5 million people.
Only if you think the voting public are all computers that vote based purely on those metrics alone.
We have robot trains here. Fully automated, better than robot cars could ever be because at least they are confined to a track. Even then we need "Drivers" as a risk contingency
Not all problems are technical in nature.
Also, despite the summary's claim, it seems like it would be pretty easy to trigger summon mode accidentally - a double-press of the shifter button could easily occur
Seems ridiculously easy. In every car I've had, you have to push the button to move the selector. So I'm parking, for whatever reason when I move from Drive to Park I don't quite press the button firmly so as it depresses it double taps (this happens every day to me on a keyboard), put the car in drive, get out and leave.
That's it, a normal operation, but the car is now in some automated mode without my knowledge and it crashes itself.
I like Tesla, but that seems pretty dumb.
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
I agree with your statement, but what I disagree with is that drinking or smoking automatically puts you below whatever the standard is for "ability to drive".
Example, you set a "standard driving test" that measures whether someone is capable of driving on a public street. I'll bet real money that of a class of average drivers, even after 6 beers or a joint that I won't come last. Should those that finish below me in such a test have their licenses revoked?
I understand why the rules are there, I just disagree that alcohol automatically makes everyone useless at driving.
How about the old fashioned way, we punish people for reckless driving and accidents.
The reason we make progress is because we find better ways of doing things, ie the old fashioned way is provably less effective than the new way.
I'm not saying this particular suggestion has merit, but road death rate has been in steady decline for decades, precisely because we invent new ways of doing things.
Many people react differently to alcohol as well. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If we get the drunks and stoners off the road, is it really a big tragedy if a few semi-sober people are removed as well?
Same argument works against old people too? And Asians?
Could also work with Muslims and flying too right?
Who decides who gets to hit who with the discrimination stick?
Half of the CEOs in this country can't even tell you what their company *does* -- and yet they get paid more than the entire labor force of the company combined...
Maybe because they do know what their companies do, but it is you who don't know what they do?
I know it's cool to hate rich people, but at least try and base your hate on something realistic....
The CIA's bogus vaccine incident is well documented
That's great, but the part your missing is the connection between CIA spies in a hostile country, and a Police car with a google sticker on it.
Or do you consider every fancy dress party as the equivalent of international espionage?
Should we ban police uniforms from fancy dress parties and strip show since you now view that as exactly the same as the CIA running covert ops in Pakistan?
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949,
Unless you were black, female, Russian or gay then all bets were off.
Your version of "fairness" only applied to white middle class American males. This is not really fair by any modern definition
In general, people today view anyone with opposing opinions as "the other", someone to dehumanize.
Maybe, maybe not, but people had those views in 1949 too, they just never had as wide a platform to share that opinion.
Intellectual debate still exists, maybe you just need to try harder than Fox News or TMZ.
These are the tactics used during the rise of fascism in the 1920's and 30's.
Still skills, and experience always carries value with skills.
A politician doesn't need to have been one before to have the skills for the job.
Because you say so?
Doesn't need to, like a football player doesn't need to have played football before, but if you picking your team, who are you going to pick first?
Running a large company, managing thousands of employees, etc. all develop the sorts of skills needed to be a leader.
What is needed is leadership, not "inside politics for 30 years".
Public service is a lot different from private, any contractor who works in both will tell you that.
George Washington was a General, a businessman, not a politician...
Yes and in the 18th century the required political skills were a lot different than today. It's why the rise of the professional politician emerged, because experience has value.
I had this electrical problem once. The sparky came over, told me it was a huge job, was going to cost thousands to fix. I found out he'd worked on several neighbor's electricity and messed things up terribly. Maybe the guy on the street, despite his lack of experience, won't do any worse and hopefully better, than that experienced person that has a history of causing problems.
By messed up you mean he used blue wires instead of red ones, or installed a plastic switch instead of a brushed metal one. But the lights still actually worked. But fuck it, you're willing to risk burning your house down because you really want red wires.
Sums up the logic nicely.
This implies, there ever was a real need for Big Government in the first place...
There sure were problems, which the government solved, however, (quite) arguably, these solutions introduced worse problems of their own...
Please provide examples
And if you're going to get on the stupid "small government" bandwagon, can you define what the hell that actually means?
I know it's cool to shout "small government" at every opportunity, but I never ever heard anyone define this in any usable form.
Libertarians continue to argue — with show of reason — that government's role ought to be confined to keeping the enemies away without and crime at bay within the borders...
A generation raised on YouTube and Google algorithms and that doesn't seem to value freedom of expression or thought also doesn't understand why humans, process, and procedural protections are necessary.
Has anyone under 40 ever?
I know it's fun to blame young people for everything, but I can't recall a time when any young people were ever particularly wise. This is why we prefer our leaders to be older and experienced.
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse.
Nostalgia goggles.
When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots?
Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.
It is news for nerd, at least me as a nerd, interested into security things like crumple zone , doing finite element analyzis etc... And if Tesla is using a different method with better effect then yeah that's highly interesting.
I think the problem is the way the information is delivered. TFA sounds more like a marketing guff than an informed analysis.
This being a news for nerds site, should have it's summaries tailored to this audience, not junk click bait from TMZ.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but it seems like it'd be a lot cheaper and easier to just use RoboUber or RoboLyft.
This is the future. Car ownership never made economic sense, but the trade off in freedom of movement made it worthwhile. With robotaxi that goes away and car ownership becomes pointless for most people.
"Volvo has announced it will accept "full liability" for accidents when one of its cars is driving autonomously"
Well that will make me feel better when I'm a quadriplegic.
Actually, the self-driving car is more likely to avoid an accident in a situation like that because it will react from 700 to 1500 milliseconds faster.
But how does the false positive rate compare? In the 1 in million chance I need faster reactions than I already possess, the robot wins. In the other 999,999 times, it is worse.
To be successful a self driving car doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to avoid killing 30,000 people a year as well as avoiding about 5.5 million auto accidents that in turn injured 2.5 million people.
Only if you think the voting public are all computers that vote based purely on those metrics alone.
We have robot trains here. Fully automated, better than robot cars could ever be because at least they are confined to a track. Even then we need "Drivers" as a risk contingency
Not all problems are technical in nature.
Also, despite the summary's claim, it seems like it would be pretty easy to trigger summon mode accidentally - a double-press of the shifter button could easily occur
Seems ridiculously easy. In every car I've had, you have to push the button to move the selector. So I'm parking, for whatever reason when I move from Drive to Park I don't quite press the button firmly so as it depresses it double taps (this happens every day to me on a keyboard), put the car in drive, get out and leave.
That's it, a normal operation, but the car is now in some automated mode without my knowledge and it crashes itself.
I like Tesla, but that seems pretty dumb.
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
I agree with your statement, but what I disagree with is that drinking or smoking automatically puts you below whatever the standard is for "ability to drive".
Example, you set a "standard driving test" that measures whether someone is capable of driving on a public street. I'll bet real money that of a class of average drivers, even after 6 beers or a joint that I won't come last. Should those that finish below me in such a test have their licenses revoked?
I understand why the rules are there, I just disagree that alcohol automatically makes everyone useless at driving.
How about the old fashioned way, we punish people for reckless driving and accidents.
The reason we make progress is because we find better ways of doing things, ie the old fashioned way is provably less effective than the new way.
I'm not saying this particular suggestion has merit, but road death rate has been in steady decline for decades, precisely because we invent new ways of doing things.
Many people react differently to alcohol as well. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If we get the drunks and stoners off the road, is it really a big tragedy if a few semi-sober people are removed as well?
Same argument works against old people too? And Asians?
Could also work with Muslims and flying too right?
Who decides who gets to hit who with the discrimination stick?
I've always wanted to start a CEO outsourcing company, where we replace the CEO with a small team of MBAs from India.
You haven't really thought this through have you? It fails on every level, but keep living the dream...
Half of the CEOs in this country can't even tell you what their company *does* -- and yet they get paid more than the entire labor force of the company combined...
Maybe because they do know what their companies do, but it is you who don't know what they do?
I know it's cool to hate rich people, but at least try and base your hate on something realistic....
The CIA's bogus vaccine incident is well documented
That's great, but the part your missing is the connection between CIA spies in a hostile country, and a Police car with a google sticker on it.
Or do you consider every fancy dress party as the equivalent of international espionage?
Should we ban police uniforms from fancy dress parties and strip show since you now view that as exactly the same as the CIA running covert ops in Pakistan?
The difference is that doing this would put Google maps drivers in danger.
How exactly?
Just like when the CIA sent spies disguised as vaccine workers, and set back the effort to eliminae smallpox worldwide.
er... ok...
Maybe take the tinfoil hat off before posting next time...
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949,
Unless you were black, female, Russian or gay then all bets were off. Your version of "fairness" only applied to white middle class American males. This is not really fair by any modern definition
In general, people today view anyone with opposing opinions as "the other", someone to dehumanize.
Maybe, maybe not, but people had those views in 1949 too, they just never had as wide a platform to share that opinion.
Intellectual debate still exists, maybe you just need to try harder than Fox News or TMZ.
These are the tactics used during the rise of fascism in the 1920's and 30's.
I call Godwin and claim my $5.
Then you are completely and totally brainwashed and you're beyond hope...
You will always be a subject to those in power because you are unable to think for yourself.
Well that went into crazy land real quick.
Pretty much explains the powers of reason of your average Trump voter...
Those are different, they are technical skills.
Still skills, and experience always carries value with skills.
A politician doesn't need to have been one before to have the skills for the job.
Because you say so?
Doesn't need to, like a football player doesn't need to have played football before, but if you picking your team, who are you going to pick first?
Running a large company, managing thousands of employees, etc. all develop the sorts of skills needed to be a leader.
What is needed is leadership, not "inside politics for 30 years".
Public service is a lot different from private, any contractor who works in both will tell you that.
George Washington was a General, a businessman, not a politician...
Yes and in the 18th century the required political skills were a lot different than today. It's why the rise of the professional politician emerged, because experience has value.
Maybe you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh ok, because you said so.
Maybe it's all a dream, Bobby Ewing didn't really die after all...
I had this electrical problem once. The sparky came over, told me it was a huge job, was going to cost thousands to fix. I found out he'd worked on several neighbor's electricity and messed things up terribly. Maybe the guy on the street, despite his lack of experience, won't do any worse and hopefully better, than that experienced person that has a history of causing problems.
By messed up you mean he used blue wires instead of red ones, or installed a plastic switch instead of a brushed metal one. But the lights still actually worked. But fuck it, you're willing to risk burning your house down because you really want red wires.
Sums up the logic nicely.
There's never been a need for "Big Government",
and we all know that technology has outpaced our obese overlords.
Please don't speak on my behalf, especially with such moronic comments...
This implies, there ever was a real need for Big Government in the first place...
There sure were problems, which the government solved, however, (quite) arguably, these solutions introduced worse problems of their own...
Please provide examples
And if you're going to get on the stupid "small government" bandwagon, can you define what the hell that actually means?
I know it's cool to shout "small government" at every opportunity, but I never ever heard anyone define this in any usable form.
Libertarians continue to argue — with show of reason — that government's role ought to be confined to keeping the enemies away without and crime at bay within the borders...
Which is why no-one votes for them.
A generation raised on YouTube and Google algorithms and that doesn't seem to value freedom of expression or thought also doesn't understand why humans, process, and procedural protections are necessary.
Has anyone under 40 ever?
I know it's fun to blame young people for everything, but I can't recall a time when any young people were ever particularly wise. This is why we prefer our leaders to be older and experienced.
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse.
Nostalgia goggles.
When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots?
Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.
And since when has picking horses been a test of intelligence? I'd like to see how the swarm goes at Beal's conjecture.
So instead of what is generally considered A.I. this would be more aptly called C.I. (as in, Collective Intelligence).
I'd call it C.G. (as in Collective Gambling). There is no intelligence with horse racing, no matter how much money you win.
but political experience is not required.
Like you prefer an electrician that has never touched a wire, or a plumber who has never seen a pipe?
This makes no sense.
It is news for nerd, at least me as a nerd, interested into security things like crumple zone , doing finite element analyzis etc... And if Tesla is using a different method with better effect then yeah that's highly interesting.
I think the problem is the way the information is delivered. TFA sounds more like a marketing guff than an informed analysis.
This being a news for nerds site, should have it's summaries tailored to this audience, not junk click bait from TMZ.