The number of people that commit such crimes are small, so even with psychoanalysis, it might not tell you much about the effect of media, games.It's a particular problem with mot rare events.
My point is that it is a systems problem, which may have a globally optimal solution, and local ones at any given point in time, but that you'd need to model the system to understand the behaviour. All too often there is an assumption that simple maxims hold in all circumstances, but reality is likely to be more nuanced and complex.
It's not unreasonable to assume competition might drive innovation, but that doesn't necessarily obviously translate into a larger market. The counterpoint would be that there might also be duplication of effort compared to fewer market participants, or cooperation, and thus inefficiency. I don't think you can presuppose either solution offers more at any given instant, or that the solution is binary.
Without compatibility the market may be fragmented, which can damage markets, or just lead to one main version, plus also rans, recreating Windows. Standards are good, but can bring its own complexities.
Not really. Most of the cost is not fuel, but depreciation of the vehicle. That is partly connected to distance driven, but also depends on the age of the vehicle. A vehicle is depreciating even if it is just sitting in the garage. The $/mile comes from averaging that aging cost over typical miles driven, but if you drive more the cost doesn't go up linearly. Also both aging and milage based depreciation are front-loaded, so the value drops quickly for the first few years, and the first 10k-20k miles. After than, the real depreciation per mile driven is much less.
It is likely that Uber drivers aren't as dumb as you think they are.
In the UK, the mileage (after the first year), seems to be more important than age, up to about 10 years. At ten years the features of the car may seem outdated. It does depend on car type - some still accrue significant rust after a decade.
- - - - - If you don't have other assets, and few other sources of income, and you have bills you must pay, it can be perfectly good math. - - - - -
For a few months I could see that working. Over the last 20 years there has been at least a 2 order of magnitude improvement in the reliability of automobiles. I suspect the vast majority of Uber drivers are not doing the math or even driving out of desperation but are simply burning up that reliability in search of cash with no understanding of what the true total cost of operating a taxicab is and why.
If your options are drive, or lose your home, then a few months may be what you need, and it could be a very good bargain.
When to Uber to the station, your own car is still parked at home, rather than being in traffic.
The Uber car is in traffic. In fact it has to get to where you want to be picked up first, then take you to the station, so the amount of traffic is greater.
two people in one car, instead of two people in two cars.
One of those people is only in the car to transport the other, so your point is absurd
But best of all, an increasing number of big-city drivers will decide they no longer need a car at all.
This could be a positive factor.
In fact, this encourages more people to ride transit if a train would save money and/or time on your regular route.
Again, this could be positive
In fact, I predict that rideshare apps will make arrangements with transit operators to include a transit option in ride route displays so riders have the opportunity to save by taking the train over part of their route, rather than Uber the whole way. People will be apt to do this for their regular commute.
You are behind the times. Google maps allows you to hail taxis when journeying.
The Uber car does not magically come into existence when a transit rider uses it. It already exists.
The edge case: A transit rider takes an Uber instead of taking a train he normally walks to. Because an Uber costs more on the average than a transit ride, people will do this only if they have a toothache or an urgent appointment. Net change in traffic, zero cars, because he is taking an Uber instead of his own ride.
The common case: A transit rider normally drives to the train station, but takes an Uber instead. Zero net change in traffic that day, but a parking place at the station is saved. People living in East Coast cities with on-street parking in the snow where you have to get up at 2 am to move your car because it better not be found in the morning in the same spot where you parked it last night are going to ditch the car and always Uber to the station. Net change: minus one car and plus one parking place at the station.
Again, not true. Standard economic theory contends that this demand for Uber cars will create supply. Initially this may be via drivers using existing cars, but if the money is good enough then it will encourage those who do not have cars to purchase cars to use to pick up passengers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because I've studied history, and know for a fact that in the end the regulations will NOT help anyone, they will hurt.
I've studied history too, and do not draw that conclusion.
Removing net neutrality makes it harder for newcomers to compete, as they would potentially need additional funds for additional access fees.
EA is used in AI. This doesn't mean it is AI. I've worked in AI, and used EAs in AI and also in areas not related to AI.
Eggs killed Princess Di and caused house prices to fall!
The number of people that commit such crimes are small, so even with psychoanalysis, it might not tell you much about the effect of media, games.It's a particular problem with mot rare events.
There are attempts to model tings like this via agent-based modelling, validating against other cities. The error bars can be pretty big, though.
It often requires money too, for time to do courses, or the courses.
Mental health support for humans is already being automated.
One of the stumbling blocks to robot car repairs is probably previously botched and lashed up repairs. But robots might do repairs in a standard way.
I do not get up in the morning and dread going into work, that is horrible. Last time that happened I found a different Job.
Not everyone has the opportunity to this, though.
It is possible for more than half to be above average if some are really terrible.
An evolutionary algorithm isn't a form of AI.
We are honoured to have Jeremy Clarkson on here! Although I suspect James May is having to make the computer work for Mr. C.
As long as you don't start to see other cars as Tetris pieces, and try to make all the blue ones touch each other.
WW2 was a good thing?
Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.
In many areas of the world the driver would need to be paid for the entire duration, awake or asleep.
My point is that it is a systems problem, which may have a globally optimal solution, and local ones at any given point in time, but that you'd need to model the system to understand the behaviour. All too often there is an assumption that simple maxims hold in all circumstances, but reality is likely to be more nuanced and complex.
It's not unreasonable to assume competition might drive innovation, but that doesn't necessarily obviously translate into a larger market. The counterpoint would be that there might also be duplication of effort compared to fewer market participants, or cooperation, and thus inefficiency. I don't think you can presuppose either solution offers more at any given instant, or that the solution is binary.
Without compatibility the market may be fragmented, which can damage markets, or just lead to one main version, plus also rans, recreating Windows. Standards are good, but can bring its own complexities.
By definition an Uber ride, which uses a car, is a car driven (carrying one person wanting to go to somewhere).
A Prius will cost about $0.30/km to operate
Not really. Most of the cost is not fuel, but depreciation of the vehicle. That is partly connected to distance driven, but also depends on the age of the vehicle. A vehicle is depreciating even if it is just sitting in the garage. The $/mile comes from averaging that aging cost over typical miles driven, but if you drive more the cost doesn't go up linearly. Also both aging and milage based depreciation are front-loaded, so the value drops quickly for the first few years, and the first 10k-20k miles. After than, the real depreciation per mile driven is much less.
It is likely that Uber drivers aren't as dumb as you think they are.
In the UK, the mileage (after the first year), seems to be more important than age, up to about 10 years. At ten years the features of the car may seem outdated. It does depend on car type - some still accrue significant rust after a decade.
For a few months I could see that working. Over the last 20 years there has been at least a 2 order of magnitude improvement in the reliability of automobiles. I suspect the vast majority of Uber drivers are not doing the math or even driving out of desperation but are simply burning up that reliability in search of cash with no understanding of what the true total cost of operating a taxicab is and why.
If your options are drive, or lose your home, then a few months may be what you need, and it could be a very good bargain.
Underestimating costs if common, sometimes even by businesses.
When calculating the costs of home ownership relative to rent, I've known people forget to take into account maintenance, taxes, etc.
When to Uber to the station, your own car is still parked at home, rather than being in traffic.
The Uber car is in traffic. In fact it has to get to where you want to be picked up first, then take you to the station, so the amount of traffic is greater.
two people in one car, instead of two people in two cars.
One of those people is only in the car to transport the other, so your point is absurd
But best of all, an increasing number of big-city drivers will decide they no longer need a car at all.
This could be a positive factor.
In fact, this encourages more people to ride transit if a train would save money and/or time on your regular route.
Again, this could be positive
In fact, I predict that rideshare apps will make arrangements with transit operators to include a transit option in ride route displays so riders have the opportunity to save by taking the train over part of their route, rather than Uber the whole way. People will be apt to do this for their regular commute.
You are behind the times. Google maps allows you to hail taxis when journeying.
The Uber car does not magically come into existence when a transit rider uses it. It already exists.
The edge case: A transit rider takes an Uber instead of taking a train he normally walks to. Because an Uber costs more on the average than a transit ride, people will do this only if they have a toothache or an urgent appointment. Net change in traffic, zero cars, because he is taking an Uber instead of his own ride.
The common case: A transit rider normally drives to the train station, but takes an Uber instead. Zero net change in traffic that day, but a parking place at the station is saved. People living in East Coast cities with on-street parking in the snow where you have to get up at 2 am to move your car because it better not be found in the morning in the same spot where you parked it last night are going to ditch the car and always Uber to the station. Net change: minus one car and plus one parking place at the station.
Again, not true. Standard economic theory contends that this demand for Uber cars will create supply. Initially this may be via drivers using existing cars, but if the money is good enough then it will encourage those who do not have cars to purchase cars to use to pick up passengers.