Don't be fucking ridiculous. Drivers in their 60s are safer than drivers in their 20s. That's why their insurance is lower. People do get too old to drive, bit not generally in their 60s.
How the hell are they making a loss at all, let alone $3 billion? They are running an app. That's cheap. All the risk of buying cars and paying drivers is offloaded to the drivers themselves. Uber takes a cut of every ride regardless of whether the driver is up or down on the deal.
He's continuing to drive because he has a $97,000 loan on a limo to pay off. By bankrupt he probably meant that the driving is not paying enough to pay the debt. It's effectively indentured at that stage.
Google did an awful lot of testing on an AI test facility and proved basic competence before they ventured on to the public roads. As have all the other legitimate autonomous driving developers.
Agreed on the stoned part. Limited experiments on this suggest that what you lose in ability, you more than make up for in caution.
However, the part about older drivers is ignorant. Older drivers have lower insurance mostly because they have less accidents than young drivers. Older drivers are objectively better than young ones. Though of course there is an upper limit, where senility sets in.
It was always the common sense option with UK driving tests to take them in a manual gearbox car, so that you'd be qualified for both manual and automatic. But for anyone now who fancies owning an EV, I'd suggest also learning to drive in an EV. Over the next few years EVs are going to take over the entire market. So those skills of clutch control and gear changing and hill starts will probably remain unused.
And quite possibly in 20 years time there will be no point in taking driving lessons at all, because you can just purchase a fully autonomous car with no driver controls, and not need a licence.
Only those people that positively want to drive will need to drive. It'll be a hobby rather than an everyday necessity. And may even be banned on public roads at some stage.
It only works on Honda Civics with "Honda Sensing", which includes Lane Keeping Assist. So they tap into that for the steering.
So basically you buy a car what already has Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist. And you buy this box made by an amateur and run open source software on it that claims to be autonomous driving, but is actually just Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist implemented by an amateur on non-automotive grade hardware.
If there were experiments for LISP in the 70s it'll have very little to say about what an optimising compiler does now. Indeed much of Swift's ARC doesn't involve any actual reference counting at run time, as static analysis has already determined when many objects can be deleted.
Autopilot can be active at any time. It's especially good in heavy traffic. Works well on two lane roads as well as highways.
I said it was only really designed for highways. Not that it can't do other roads.
They compared accidents driving with AP ON vs AP OFF.
You are completely wrong. Consult the report. They compared cars without AP installed vs those with it installed. Using the data for cars with AP installed, regardless of whether it was active or not.
You don't win an argument by claiming the other side is confused. I have actually consulted the original document so I know EXACTLY what they measured.
You claim "the earlier time period where more people were abusing the system". Yet they can't have been abusing a system that they didn't have because it was not installed.
Again, the NHTSA know what they are doing with automobile safety statistics. You, have less information and less ability.
Anyway, given that you're unlikely to admit to being wrong. Let's just say that the NHTSA who created this study know a hell of a lot more about how to do statistics of crash rates than you do. Your approval is irrelevant.
No they didn't. The statistics cover Teslas without autopilot vs Teslas with autopilot. The second group including all miles, whether or not autopilot was actually engaged. This is because:
a) Some of the safety features of autopilot are on all the time even when the full autopilot isn't engaged.
b) If they did what you suggest, they'd be comparing mostly urban travel vs mostly highway travel. As autopilot is only really designed for the highway at this stage.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it does. He has more experience driving so will be less likely to make a fatal mistake whilst driving fast.
Most of what you learn about driving comes after you passed your test.
Well slamming the brakes on would be a pretty dumb implementation. Gently slowing to the speed limit makes more sense.
Your license lasts till 70 in the UK before you have to renew it with assurances that you are still fit to drive.
Drivers in their 60s are safer than drivers in their 20s. That's why their insurance premiums are lower.
Don't be fucking ridiculous. Drivers in their 60s are safer than drivers in their 20s. That's why their insurance is lower. People do get too old to drive, bit not generally in their 60s.
How the hell are they making a loss at all, let alone $3 billion? They are running an app. That's cheap. All the risk of buying cars and paying drivers is offloaded to the drivers themselves. Uber takes a cut of every ride regardless of whether the driver is up or down on the deal.
If he's bankrupt why is he continuing to drive?
He's continuing to drive because he has a $97,000 loan on a limo to pay off. By bankrupt he probably meant that the driving is not paying enough to pay the debt. It's effectively indentured at that stage.
Sure. Thre's always the choice of spending a lifetime doing jobs that don't require a college education instead.
Come back when you learn the concept of a Hobson's Choice.
No, both the cars supported use steering for LKAS. That's WHY those are the supported cars.
Google did an awful lot of testing on an AI test facility and proved basic competence before they ventured on to the public roads. As have all the other legitimate autonomous driving developers.
Agreed on the stoned part. Limited experiments on this suggest that what you lose in ability, you more than make up for in caution.
However, the part about older drivers is ignorant. Older drivers have lower insurance mostly because they have less accidents than young drivers. Older drivers are objectively better than young ones. Though of course there is an upper limit, where senility sets in.
It was always the common sense option with UK driving tests to take them in a manual gearbox car, so that you'd be qualified for both manual and automatic. But for anyone now who fancies owning an EV, I'd suggest also learning to drive in an EV. Over the next few years EVs are going to take over the entire market. So those skills of clutch control and gear changing and hill starts will probably remain unused.
And quite possibly in 20 years time there will be no point in taking driving lessons at all, because you can just purchase a fully autonomous car with no driver controls, and not need a licence.
Only those people that positively want to drive will need to drive. It'll be a hobby rather than an everyday necessity. And may even be banned on public roads at some stage.
It only works on Honda Civics with "Honda Sensing", which includes Lane Keeping Assist. So they tap into that for the steering.
So basically you buy a car what already has Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist. And you buy this box made by an amateur and run open source software on it that claims to be autonomous driving, but is actually just Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist implemented by an amateur on non-automotive grade hardware.
Pointless as well as dangerous.
Animation is useful when it leads from one slide to the next. It's only pointless when people pick random transitions without meaning.
It's bullet points that are always a disaster.
Linux is mainly for servers and embedded systems. On the desktop it's for people that enjoy tinkering with computers rather than getting work done.
Experience shows that spammers tend to re-offend.
What you say is true of vox-pops. But then vox-pops are not news, nor are they suitable citations for Wikipedia, no matter what the source.
It's not simply inertia. There's no better OS to move to from Mac OS.
I'm not assuming a damn thing. I read the report. Try it.
No they didn't. They had pretty much no optimisations at all. You have no idea how limited the resources were back then.
If there were experiments for LISP in the 70s it'll have very little to say about what an optimising compiler does now. Indeed much of Swift's ARC doesn't involve any actual reference counting at run time, as static analysis has already determined when many objects can be deleted.
Autopilot can be active at any time. It's especially good in heavy traffic. Works well on two lane roads as well as highways.
I said it was only really designed for highways. Not that it can't do other roads.
They compared accidents driving with AP ON vs AP OFF.
You are completely wrong. Consult the report. They compared cars without AP installed vs those with it installed. Using the data for cars with AP installed, regardless of whether it was active or not.
You don't win an argument by claiming the other side is confused. I have actually consulted the original document so I know EXACTLY what they measured.
You claim "the earlier time period where more people were abusing the system". Yet they can't have been abusing a system that they didn't have because it was not installed.
Again, the NHTSA know what they are doing with automobile safety statistics. You, have less information and less ability.
Your argument makes no sense.
Anyway, given that you're unlikely to admit to being wrong. Let's just say that the NHTSA who created this study know a hell of a lot more about how to do statistics of crash rates than you do. Your approval is irrelevant.
No they didn't. The statistics cover Teslas without autopilot vs Teslas with autopilot. The second group including all miles, whether or not autopilot was actually engaged. This is because:
a) Some of the safety features of autopilot are on all the time even when the full autopilot isn't engaged.
b) If they did what you suggest, they'd be comparing mostly urban travel vs mostly highway travel. As autopilot is only really designed for the highway at this stage.
They count as a crash for that statistic if airbags were deployed.