But our team works together. Collaboration is key to our work. And collaboration in a virtual setting is not nearly as effective. We also meet with other teams and clients/customers, also key.
Dealing with remote teams as we have to is measurably less effective
This is one of the things I was thinking of when I said just as productive from home if the company is set up correctly for it. Over my last 3 jobs I've worked in one totally virtual, one totally physical (bullpen), and now one which was totally virtual until we got bought by a company that really wants everybody together (but my team is still virtual because we're geographically scattered). And I've worked for many years in combinations of cubes and physical offices (with doors).
In my experience, the totally virtual are the most productive. At the bullpen company, everybody had to wear headsets to drown out the noise in order to concentrate on coding. So, even though you were a few feet away from someone, you still used IM to get their attention. But meetings sucked for the person who was on the road or home sick because the assumption was that everybody would just pile into the conference room, and oh yeah, there was a phone the remote guy could dial into, but he couldn't hear that well, couldn't see, and nobody would give him a chance to talk so he might as well have just watched a recording of the meeting for all he was able to participate. And half the time he wasn't invited to any last minute meetings because people forgot about him. And of course, everybody wasted a couple hours a day driving to work when they could have been writing code.
Your case of 1 day a week in my experience is the worst.. because the majority of the time people are meeting in person, and so they don't make sure to set it up to work well for the remote people. When everybody is remote, nobody gets left out of the conversation. I'll give you an example at the current company. We had a quarterly meeting. Most of the people were physically there, but of course my team was virtual. Hey, they set up a video feed for us! Yay! Oh, the camera was pointed at the audience so we couldn't see anything written on the whiteboard. But we could see a bunch of bored people sitting there... Not very effective. But the key is, the people running the meeting didn't think about that, and didn't notice it, because they're used to just piling into the conference room. It would have been much better if everybody was just in their personal workspace using something like GTM with the speakers sharing their screens while they talked.
My team is very collaborative. I think it's faster to set up a meeting with people (you don't need a conference room) - in less than a minute you can have everybody on a joint video session, sharing screens when necessary. And you never get that guy who doesn't seem to have anything better to do than stop by your cube and distract you when you really would rather get some coding done. People don't do that "avoid work by wandering around" when it's all Slack/Skype/GTM. And when you want it quiet... it's totally, blissfully quiet. It's so much better for a coding environment. I've worked in offices with doors you can close and that's great for the quiet, but nobody knows whether your door is closed because you don't want to be disturbed or you just wanted quiet and you don't want to knock incase he really doesn't want to be disturbed, so the collaboration really suffers.
With our virtual team, since a great deal of discussion is going on (typically slack) you can always look to see what people were discussing an hour ago while you were tied up. It gives you an automatic transcript of a lot of the discussions. You can participate if you want, or you can hide that window when you really just want to concentrate on that key algorithm you're working on.
Anyway, I'll just finish by saying that if you've experienced a team where some people telecommute and some don't, you've probably seen the worst case scenario. It's probably true that all physical or all virtual is better than a mix of the two.
Ah yes. Back in the 90s I was working two jobs - working as a helicopter flight instructor 7 days a week along with my computer job. I wasn't going to be able to drive for a week or two so I told the helicopter school I had to take a two week break. They needed me so they told me to use one of the helicopters to commute.
So, every morning I would preflight from my neighbor's farm, with deer and bunnies all around me, then crank up and fly in 5 minutes what was normally a 25-30 minute drive. Then another 5 minutes to get to the airport, do a few flights, and then 10 minutes to get home (no deer or bunnies when landing the helicopter!).
It was really nice!
I can just imagine the carnage if everybody tried to do it at the same time, though...
I wonder how many will switch from owning cars to the Uber style rental culture, versus the other way 'round - If you are currently an urban or just-barely-outside-of-urban, rather than take mass transit, maybe you'll use the Uber rental if it can be provided cheaply enough. No more standing outside in the rain/snow/cold waiting for the bus/train. I.e. the Uber culture might kill mass transit? Maybe that's what you said, except you were only talking about the car owner - I'm thinking it's the non-car owner that is more likely to change from mass transit to SDC sharing.
I think far fewer people will give up their car when SDC is available. The parking problem goes away if your car will drop you off at your destination and then go find a place to park by itself. That's one of the main problems with a personal car in urban areas (it costs me $20-$25/day to park in Boston if I have to work in the city... I'm sure there will be low cost parking lots outside the city that my SDC can drive itself to).
As for why do I want a personal vehicle, besides just the wanting to own a status symbol? For me, I tend to carry a lot gear around. I have my photography gear. I have my pilot gear. I have my computer gear. I don't know when I'm going to need what, so it's easier for me to carry it around in my car. It's a real problem when I take my motorcycle because I have to carefully plan which stuff I'm likely to need while I'm away from home. Lots of times I end up taking the car because I'm not sure I can make it through the day with just what I can carry on my person. Also, sharing vehicles (like a taxi)... yuck. Most rental cars are okay because they're pretty thoroughly cleaned between customers, but a shared ride? What is that wet spot on the seat that I just sat on? Ewww! Thank you, I'd rather have my own car that's as clean (or dirty) as I want it to be. I'm not saying this is necessarily a sustainable society (we really should all just be riding bicycles) but it's one I'm currently willing to pay somewhat of a premium to not have to share my personal spaces with strangers.
For families with young children, having the car seat, extra diapers, toys, etc. is really nice. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but it's easier.
I'm amazed that more people aren't working from home. There are jobs that certainly require people to travel to an office, but a large percentage of us (technology workers and plain old office workers alike) can be just as productive from home if the company is set up correctly for it. So while SDC will help by allowing us to work while commuting, it still seems stupid to take a worker away from his computer at home, transport him 30 miles to his office, so he/she can sit in front of an almost identical computer, and emit a bunch of carbon/pollution doing it. I figure I save about $75/week by not driving. That's almost $4,000 a year! (and I'm more productive working from home).
It also surprises me how much managers/company officers love having office space. It's really expensive to create office space for all those workers. My company had offices in prime real estate in Boston. They were paying a lot for that space which really was not well set up for technology workers (we had one team member who was required to commute into that office twice a week and the rest of us knew he wouldn't be getting much work done those two days of the week). Why did they do it? I think most of it was so that the founder could feel like he had arrived. Cool office space, lots of people working for him. All visible by just taking a stroll around the office. But it burned a bunch of his investors' money that could have been used to help build the technology.
So, while SDCs will have a huge transformational effect on our society, we could have a huge effect by eliminating the commute for a large percentage of our workforce. That would instantly reduce road congestion, emissions, and real estate costs to companies. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening.
You might have seen some cars that were especially well taken care of that went that long, but it certainly wasn't the norm. I remember as a kid in the 60s/70s that a 60,000 mile car was a pretty high milage car (maybe here in New England with salt on the roads it was worse - I remember my first trip to California in the late 70s and being amazed at all the old cars from when I was a kid still on the road). Wikipedia says the average lifetime for cars from that period was 100,000 miles. That seems high to me, but again probably due to road salt. Corrosion proofing was pretty nonexistent back then.
I also remember the cost of driving as being very low (I remember $0.25/gallon gasoline) but the CPI calculator says that's almost $2.00 in today's money so maybe it wasn't all that much cheaper to drive back then. Certainly with the increase in mileage of 2016 cars it may be cheaper to drive now than it was then.
It seems like the cost of cars has gone up some (you could get new cars for $3,000 which is equivalent to $18,000 today... an equivalent level of luxury is probably more like $25,000 today. On the other hand, there's a lot more features considered standard today - certainly all the safety features like ABS and airbags, but also just stuff like air-conditioning. That was a luxury option back then.
I don't see 100mph SDC. While lots of us would appreciate the extra speed, there are still instances of mechanical failures which, at those speeds, would be catastrophic. Additionally, the amount of aerodynamic drag on the vehicle goes up as the square of the speed, so if we're also trying to solve the carbon emission problem, it's much better to have everybody going 55-60 but pack them together on the roadways like sardines (the slower speed would be more efficient, and car trains would also reduce aerodynamic drag).
From the standpoint of the highway designers / government, I think the focus will be on capacity, not speed. So, the obvious thing is to allow SDC cars to follow the car ahead with much less space, thus the capacity of the road increases. Also, if you remember the Slashdot article a while back about SDC being able to go through intersections without needing red lights (by reserving the couple seconds it needs to get through the intersection), that would also increase capacity of the road system. Think of the amount of time you sit stopped in traffic. Just using SDC technology to keep everything moving could have a huge impact on road capacity.
And yes. Even the French are better than most American airports.. And that saying something.
Ha! I travelled to Paris while the whole Algerian terrorist thing was going on, and my luggage must have looked like some terrorists bag because we got pulled aside for extra scrutiny, and it STILL was a lot better than what we put up with in the USA now. If I didn't live in the USA I would never travel here by air.
Realistically, there are problems trying to travel with private aircraft. The biggest one is weather. Private aircraft simply can't safely tackle the same weather an airliner can. So, they are viable, but your schedule needs to be flexible. And, it's much more expensive unless you have a group of people traveling together. And frankly, much as I hate to say it, private aircraft are much more dangerous than airlines. (but so is driving).
For trips up to about 1,000 miles, driving isn't such a bad alternative, and it's going to get much better as more and more cars get Tesla style autopilot software.
For a recent trip from Boston to Nashville I considered 3 modes of transportation:
Southwest Airlines: Ended up costing about $450 round trip, about 8 hours each way all together Cessna 182: would have cost about $3,200, about 11 hours each way all together Driving: About $250 in fuel round trip, about 18 hours each way. Savings on rental car would have made the trip almost free, but would have cost me an extra day traveling.
I agree with the people who feel the TSA should be dismantled. If you told me 30 years ago that we would have our civil liberties trashed by a bunch of brown shirts that would be viewing our naked bodies, delaying our travel, at huge expense, and with little to no increase in security I would have laughed at you. I agree that the locked cockpit doors and the fact that every flight now has a willing vigilante committee means going back to private security with some minimal checks like metal detectors would give us an acceptable level of security.
It's just never going to happen, for a variety of reasons.
Different EVs use different amounts of regenerative braking. This seems to be more of a human factors thing than an electromechanical limit. There seem to be two schools of thought on how to control regenerative braking. One (that I highly prefer) is to use "one pedal driving" where taking your foot off the accelerator pedal causes regenerative braking to kick in. This actually feels pretty natural for those of us that drive manual transmissions and are used to the deceleration when we lift off the gas.
The other way of doing this is to have the brake pedal cause regenerative braking at first, and then blend in friction braking as you depress the pedal further. On an early Prius I drove I could definitely feel inconsistencies in braking forces as the braking system switched from pure regen to friction braking.
The first method, one pedal braking, means that the car will drive very differently for a person used to an automatic transmission. In fact, if the regen comes on too strong, it might even cause an accident if someone is used to taking their foot entirely off the gas pedal: too much regen could cause a following vehicle to rear end the driver.
Several (most?) manufacturers allow the driver to change a setting as to how much regen will be used. In my Honda Fit EV the transmission selector has "D" (which acts more like an automatic transmission) and "B" (which increases the amount of regen used). Also, the vehicle notices when you are driving downhill and will increase the amount of regen (so that the vehicle won't accelerate downhill, even with your foot off the brake). I've driven down some very steep hills without the vehicle tending to accelerate which makes me think regen is capable of very strong braking forces when desired, but that manufacturers are worried that too strong a system will cause problems for the drivers.
Personally, I just want a little dial so that I can turn it from "almost no regen" to "huge amounts of regen" depending on the driving situation.
Ok, but I've been wondering for a while why Toyota and Honda were pushing Hydrogen so hard, and saying EV wasn't the way to go.
The cynic in me believed this was their way to make it look like they were working on non-polluting vehicles without having to actually produce any (because the production and fueling infrastructure would delay the deployment for several decades).
I've seen some things lately that Honda might be finally be changing their minds about producing EVs (and I really enjoy the Honda Fit EV I lease from them).
Anyone know any other reasons why Toyota and Honda are/were so gung ho for H2 instead of EV?
Resuspension is caused by the wake of a vehicle, which in turn is determined by the size, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle.
At first I didn't understand what they meant by "resuspension". I was confused because they lump this in and still call it an "emission". It doesn't seem to me to be accurate to call this an emission. That makes it seem like that PM is coming from the car in question. Is this important to understand in terms of measuring air quality near a road? Sure. Is it misleading to call it an emission? I think so...
I'm also not sure it's accurate to measure resuspension by weight. While it is true that a larger car will resuspend more particles than a smaller one, it seems to me that aerodynamic drag (and speed) is the important factor to consider here, and EVs tend to be pretty clean aerodynamically (in order to get the range up). So, to assume that a smaller, aerodynamically clean (but heavier) EV will stir up more PM sitting around on the road surface than a vehicle of greater size that weighs the same just seems wrong.
On the highway this will likely be even more true. Electric vehicles take a big hit from drag if they are driven fast. On the shorter range EVs (like my Honda Fit EV) I tend to drive much slower on the highway than when I'm in my ICE vehicle. This almost certainly means I'm stirring up a lot more PM in my ICE car on the highway than my EV. (but, Tesla drivers probably drive faster than I do because their bigger battery gives them the luxury of doing that...)
By using the data from Simons (2013) on the effect of weight on emissions and the average exhaust and non-exhaust emission from the various emission inventories, we can compare the total PM emissions from EVs with those from gasoline and diesel cars. When we do this, we find that EVs emit the same amount of PM10 as modern gasoline and diesel cars. See Table 5 for the comparisons.
See, this just seems misleading to be comparing ICE vs EV emissions and have resuspension as part of that equation. And the resuspension number is really large. When you eliminate that, the EV looks very good compared to the ICE vehicles.
Slowing with regenerative braking is not as efficient as just modulating your speed to avoid having to brake. Some figures I've seen say regen braking is 80% efficient. That's always seemed high to me, but I've seen the figure more than once.
In any case, best is to control your speed (within reason, so you don't impede other vehicles), use regen when you have to slow down, and only use the friction brakes when a sudden stop is required.
BTW, different vehicles have differing amounts of regenerative braking, so just because it's very gentle on one vehicle and you may use the friction brakes a lot, doesn't mean that other vehicles don't have aggressive regen braking. It's pretty seldom that I have to tap the brake pedal on my Honda Fit EV...
Yeah, and the other thing that wasn't mentioned is that most electric & hybrid vehicles use regenerative braking, so electric vehicles should produce much less brake dust than conventional vehicles.
So, maybe just tires and whatever the road is made of. Somehow doesn't seem that much, but maybe we're just used to it.
The article does, at the bottom, point out that reduction in CO2 is still a big advantage of electric vehicles.
Kinda cool - a few years ago I was ferrying a helicopter from California to Boston and flew over this mine... Never knew what it was. Now I do. Thanks Internet!
I have an EV as well as an ICE. I went with the ICE dealership I did because they weren't dicks like every other Subaru dealership I visited. It's a very small dealership and seems to value their customers. That does not seem to be the average dealership situation.
That said, they've made a lot more from maintenance than from the original sale. As parent said, sometimes they sell below cost (I got a Toyota Landcruiser below cost, by hitting the right day of the month). I have over 200,000 miles on that Subaru and it's been a good car, but it has had it's problems and they've made good money on me keeping that ICE going.
So far my EV has been in for 3 services. Each one of those consisted of rotating the tires. Now, it's got 30,000 miles versus 200,000 but still... tire rotations only. Sweet.
On the subject of buying cars through dealerships. One of the cars I've considered is a Ford Focus RS. The problem people are having is that it's a small production run, so if your dealership doesn't have an allocation you probably won't get one. Problems? The dealers lie to you and tell you they have allocations when they don't (one guy put his order in October and found out in March that the dealer lied and he really didn't have a car ordered. There's no way you can check whether the dealer is lying. Also, dealers have been charging up to $10,000 above MSRP because they see it as a rare car and they want to stiff buyers as much as possible. One guy talked about calling 50 different dealerships trying to find an available allocation that would sell at MSRP. Basically, the dealerships don't care about building a relationship with you. They may say they do (and a few probably do) but it seems like a large percentage exist by screwing over their customers. Maybe Ford tries to be good to the customers, but the entire dealership thing they are saddled with is set up to screw everybody but the dealership owner (I think the salespeople are victimized almost as much as the customers).
Contrast that with the ordering process with Tesla? Go onto a single website, configure your Model S or X, done. And, from what I can see of Tesla owners' reports, Tesla seems to bend over backwards to try to make them happy with their purchase. I've read many many stories about the service organization at Tesla going well beyond in order to help the owner. This is the kind of company I want to deal with, not dealerships which are set up to screw me over.
Dealerships seem to be the sociopaths of the automobile industry. Tesla so far has demonstrated the opposite. I'm happy to buy a Model 3 from them.
Don't think it'll be a negligible percentage, given 2019 and 2020 delivery dates. Plenty of other electric options will ship before that.
If you mean BEV, not sure I see who else is getting ready to ship competing product in that timeframe other than GM?
I think you may be right that lots of people will cancel their pre-orders because after all, 3-4 years is a very long time to wait for a car. Situations change and all. On the other hand, I think for every order they lose, they'll gain one or more back as cars start to roll off the production line. The unexpected number of pre-orders shows that lots of people think this is a very desirable car. While some of them will lose patience, or be forced to purchase another vehicle, the very fact that so many people were willing to part with a not insignificant amount of money indicates to me that Tesla basically got the equation correct. Price/Range/Styling is good enough that a lot of people want this car. So, even though some percentage will cancel their order, I think this is a very good indication that the car will sell very very well, and that Tesla will probably have a backlog for quite a while.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Tesla is a cool company, and I don't think it's doomed because it "only" has a 1% marketshare. However, we need to consider it in context of the entire automotive industry, and it most likely won't end up as the one car company to rule the world.
I agree with you. What I predict will happen is that Tesla is the company we will all remember as causing the tipping point in the switch from ICE to BEV. Who knows whether they will even survive? But what they did was take a market that nobody else wanted to be in, except maybe as a dodge around CAFE fleet standards, and turn it into a market where people desire to buy these kinds of vehicles... to the point that the other manufacturers finally started treating it as a real market to be exploited.
Even Nissan, with the "most successful BEV" program, ships a tiny percentage of BEVs. If GM doesn't fumble the Bolt I hope to see the next 5 years as that period of time where a large percentage of people get to drive or ride in BEVs and see firsthand how nice they are to drive/operate. And if BMW, Mercedes, Ford, and maybe someday Honda and Toyota follow suite, we could be talking a large percentage of new cars being BEVs in the next 20 years.
The first thing is to make people want to buy BEVs, and I think we can all agree that Tesla has done more than any of the other companies to make that happen.
Since when did cars becomes computers that get cheaper and faster each year?
Is there a law of economics that says EVs will become cheaper than gas cars, but gas cars will just keep getting expensive?
Cars aren't computers, but all technology gets better with time, and EVs are still not what I'd call a mature technology. So you have to admit that there is room to move there.
I agree that EVs will continue to improve over the next decade or two: battery technology has a long way to go, both in capacity/weight and cost to manufacture. The trend is toward lighter cheaper battery packs allowing bigger ranges and lower costs. The Model 3 and Chevy Bolt are both examples of this: We're seeing a doubling of range versus a car like the Leaf from just a handful of years ago, and all the articles I read say we're just on the beginning of the curve of battery improvements. Meanwhile ICE may be making some improvements on emissions and some minor improvements on efficiency, but Carnot/Thermodynamics is setting limits on efficiency improvements that can be achieved. It's pretty hard to take an ICE with a 30% efficiency and compete against a 95% efficient electric motor.
We also know that oil doesn't last forever. I know we've been hearing about peak oil for decades, but the premise is still true. At some point oil production will peak, and when that day comes (even if it takes another 30 years), EVs get a lay down misery.
I don't even worry about peak oil (price); it's peak carbon we need to worry about. If we suddenly found huge oil reserves tomorrow, we still can't afford to continue burning oil. We need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. EV is one way to start decreasing our production of greenhouse gasses. Hydrogen may be another, although I'm personally skeptical. I like EV because it's something we can do today. The grid is able to support a large percentage of BEV vehicles today, while the hydrogen distribution infrastructure simply doesn't exist and will take years to build out.
but there is no assurance they will become cheaper than gas cars.
They don't have to be cheaper because EVs don't have to account for 100% market share. The advantages of EVs are worth paying a small premium for IMO, and If the EV market grows to 50% then it's going to be a win for the likes of Tesla.
I agree that for many people, myself included, they don't have to be cheaper than ICE. A tricked out Model S is frankly out of my price range, but a tricked out Model 3 probably isn't... I'm budgeting $55-60K for a Model 3 with Ludicrous kinds of speed, and a couple hundred miles of range. BEV are in many ways more fun to drive (and some ways less). I still love my Subaru STi, but it's a whole different kind of driving experience, and one that I enjoy greatly. I'm looking forward to a Model 3 and doubt I'll buy another ICE car again, except maybe a toy like a Lotus. I've had many people who are skeptical of BEVs, but once they drive mine they change their minds. They may not be ready to run out and buy one immediately, but they start seriously considering a BEV in their future. The more mainstream BEVs become, the more people will be able to objectively decide whether a BEV can meet their driving needs, as opposed to today where much emotion and fear biases people toward the ICE that they grew up with and think they understand.
3. Even if they do (and I don't think it would be within 10 years), then you have other issues, such as range.
Range isn't really an issue for most people. It is for some, but most people travel less than 300km/day. This is purely an emotional position for a good chunk of the population.
Again, I agree. My Honda Fit EV has similar specs to the Nissan Leaf, and even with 85 miles per charge it meets my needs all but approximately once a month.
I agree with some of what you're saying. My Honda Fit EV is coming up on the end of the 3 year lease and I'll go ahead and extend the lease for another 2 years. I probably won't be able to get a Model 3 until 2018 or 2019 so I'm not sure what I'll do in the meantime. The Chevy Bolt might be a good interim car, I'll be interested to see what people say about it when it starts getting produced in significant numbers. I would consider a Leaf if they do some styling changes... (I just really can't stand how it looks, although my wife thinks it's just fine).
On the subject of the $1,000 deposit... I don't want an early version of the Model 3 anyway - I want to wait until they've got a lot of the early problems ironed out, and I can get a dual motor performance version. Then I'll plop down my $55K or so... Until then, I'm happy to let other people get the very early models (sort of like the 40kWH Model S cars - who wants one of them now?).
But... the people who want to put down $1,000 to get an early car? Bless 'em! I probably would as well if I really wanted an early car, but... I just don't like to buy the first of any new technology device.
be able to get into some of the phones sitting in all of our evidence rooms
At what point if any can a defendant request the government return his property (phone)? If we acknowledge that smartphones are different because they contain a huge amount of personal information, should there be a limit to how long law enforcement can hold onto the device?
It would be like them seizing your entire house of all contents, along with all your safe deposit boxes, and every document from your place of business, and keep them forever while they decide whether or not to make a case against you.
Just curious whether they should have to return the device to you after some reasonably short period of time. What if you say you might need access to the device in order to mount your defense?
I mentioned it elsewhere, but I think the difference is that post Snowden people overseas are increasingly reluctant to use devices they think the US government can hack/access. I think Apple is worried about their brand if everybody believes they might be running FBiOS on their own personal phone.
Which celebrity did I see on YouTube asking people if Apple should unlock the phone and almost everybody said yes. Then they asked, "what if this means they can get at your phone?" and all of a sudden people's opinion changed.
Thats what voting is for. If you change your government by force then you're no better than some banana republic - which , lets be blunt , is all the USA was for a long time after independence.
Uh, that's exactly what the founding fathers did... they changed their government by force. So, if you want to lump us in with them if we change the government by force.. well, okay!:-}
Slashdot Mirror
But our team works together. Collaboration is key to our work. And collaboration in a virtual setting is not nearly as effective. We also meet with other teams and clients /customers, also key.
Dealing with remote teams as we have to is measurably less effective
This is one of the things I was thinking of when I said just as productive from home if the company is set up correctly for it. Over my last 3 jobs I've worked in one totally virtual, one totally physical (bullpen), and now one which was totally virtual until we got bought by a company that really wants everybody together (but my team is still virtual because we're geographically scattered). And I've worked for many years in combinations of cubes and physical offices (with doors).
In my experience, the totally virtual are the most productive. At the bullpen company, everybody had to wear headsets to drown out the noise in order to concentrate on coding. So, even though you were a few feet away from someone, you still used IM to get their attention. But meetings sucked for the person who was on the road or home sick because the assumption was that everybody would just pile into the conference room, and oh yeah, there was a phone the remote guy could dial into, but he couldn't hear that well, couldn't see, and nobody would give him a chance to talk so he might as well have just watched a recording of the meeting for all he was able to participate. And half the time he wasn't invited to any last minute meetings because people forgot about him. And of course, everybody wasted a couple hours a day driving to work when they could have been writing code.
Your case of 1 day a week in my experience is the worst.. because the majority of the time people are meeting in person, and so they don't make sure to set it up to work well for the remote people. When everybody is remote, nobody gets left out of the conversation. I'll give you an example at the current company. We had a quarterly meeting. Most of the people were physically there, but of course my team was virtual. Hey, they set up a video feed for us! Yay! Oh, the camera was pointed at the audience so we couldn't see anything written on the whiteboard. But we could see a bunch of bored people sitting there... Not very effective. But the key is, the people running the meeting didn't think about that, and didn't notice it, because they're used to just piling into the conference room. It would have been much better if everybody was just in their personal workspace using something like GTM with the speakers sharing their screens while they talked.
My team is very collaborative. I think it's faster to set up a meeting with people (you don't need a conference room) - in less than a minute you can have everybody on a joint video session, sharing screens when necessary. And you never get that guy who doesn't seem to have anything better to do than stop by your cube and distract you when you really would rather get some coding done. People don't do that "avoid work by wandering around" when it's all Slack/Skype/GTM. And when you want it quiet... it's totally, blissfully quiet. It's so much better for a coding environment. I've worked in offices with doors you can close and that's great for the quiet, but nobody knows whether your door is closed because you don't want to be disturbed or you just wanted quiet and you don't want to knock incase he really doesn't want to be disturbed, so the collaboration really suffers.
With our virtual team, since a great deal of discussion is going on (typically slack) you can always look to see what people were discussing an hour ago while you were tied up. It gives you an automatic transcript of a lot of the discussions. You can participate if you want, or you can hide that window when you really just want to concentrate on that key algorithm you're working on.
Anyway, I'll just finish by saying that if you've experienced a team where some people telecommute and some don't, you've probably seen the worst case scenario. It's probably true that all physical or all virtual is better than a mix of the two.
And if that doesn't work - Flying Cars!!!
Ah yes. Back in the 90s I was working two jobs - working as a helicopter flight instructor 7 days a week along with my computer job. I wasn't going to be able to drive for a week or two so I told the helicopter school I had to take a two week break. They needed me so they told me to use one of the helicopters to commute.
So, every morning I would preflight from my neighbor's farm, with deer and bunnies all around me, then crank up and fly in 5 minutes what was normally a 25-30 minute drive. Then another 5 minutes to get to the airport, do a few flights, and then 10 minutes to get home (no deer or bunnies when landing the helicopter!).
It was really nice!
I can just imagine the carnage if everybody tried to do it at the same time, though...
What do you mean? People do all these things today without SDCs! ;-)
I wonder how many will switch from owning cars to the Uber style rental culture, versus the other way 'round - If you are currently an urban or just-barely-outside-of-urban, rather than take mass transit, maybe you'll use the Uber rental if it can be provided cheaply enough. No more standing outside in the rain/snow/cold waiting for the bus/train. I.e. the Uber culture might kill mass transit? Maybe that's what you said, except you were only talking about the car owner - I'm thinking it's the non-car owner that is more likely to change from mass transit to SDC sharing.
I think far fewer people will give up their car when SDC is available. The parking problem goes away if your car will drop you off at your destination and then go find a place to park by itself. That's one of the main problems with a personal car in urban areas (it costs me $20-$25/day to park in Boston if I have to work in the city... I'm sure there will be low cost parking lots outside the city that my SDC can drive itself to).
As for why do I want a personal vehicle, besides just the wanting to own a status symbol? For me, I tend to carry a lot gear around. I have my photography gear. I have my pilot gear. I have my computer gear. I don't know when I'm going to need what, so it's easier for me to carry it around in my car. It's a real problem when I take my motorcycle because I have to carefully plan which stuff I'm likely to need while I'm away from home. Lots of times I end up taking the car because I'm not sure I can make it through the day with just what I can carry on my person. Also, sharing vehicles (like a taxi)... yuck. Most rental cars are okay because they're pretty thoroughly cleaned between customers, but a shared ride? What is that wet spot on the seat that I just sat on? Ewww! Thank you, I'd rather have my own car that's as clean (or dirty) as I want it to be. I'm not saying this is necessarily a sustainable society (we really should all just be riding bicycles) but it's one I'm currently willing to pay somewhat of a premium to not have to share my personal spaces with strangers.
For families with young children, having the car seat, extra diapers, toys, etc. is really nice. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but it's easier.
I'm amazed that more people aren't working from home. There are jobs that certainly require people to travel to an office, but a large percentage of us (technology workers and plain old office workers alike) can be just as productive from home if the company is set up correctly for it. So while SDC will help by allowing us to work while commuting, it still seems stupid to take a worker away from his computer at home, transport him 30 miles to his office, so he/she can sit in front of an almost identical computer, and emit a bunch of carbon/pollution doing it. I figure I save about $75/week by not driving. That's almost $4,000 a year! (and I'm more productive working from home).
It also surprises me how much managers/company officers love having office space. It's really expensive to create office space for all those workers. My company had offices in prime real estate in Boston. They were paying a lot for that space which really was not well set up for technology workers (we had one team member who was required to commute into that office twice a week and the rest of us knew he wouldn't be getting much work done those two days of the week). Why did they do it? I think most of it was so that the founder could feel like he had arrived. Cool office space, lots of people working for him. All visible by just taking a stroll around the office. But it burned a bunch of his investors' money that could have been used to help build the technology.
So, while SDCs will have a huge transformational effect on our society, we could have a huge effect by eliminating the commute for a large percentage of our workforce. That would instantly reduce road congestion, emissions, and real estate costs to companies. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening.
You might have seen some cars that were especially well taken care of that went that long, but it certainly wasn't the norm. I remember as a kid in the 60s/70s that a 60,000 mile car was a pretty high milage car (maybe here in New England with salt on the roads it was worse - I remember my first trip to California in the late 70s and being amazed at all the old cars from when I was a kid still on the road). Wikipedia says the average lifetime for cars from that period was 100,000 miles. That seems high to me, but again probably due to road salt. Corrosion proofing was pretty nonexistent back then.
I also remember the cost of driving as being very low (I remember $0.25/gallon gasoline) but the CPI calculator says that's almost $2.00 in today's money so maybe it wasn't all that much cheaper to drive back then. Certainly with the increase in mileage of 2016 cars it may be cheaper to drive now than it was then.
It seems like the cost of cars has gone up some (you could get new cars for $3,000 which is equivalent to $18,000 today... an equivalent level of luxury is probably more like $25,000 today. On the other hand, there's a lot more features considered standard today - certainly all the safety features like ABS and airbags, but also just stuff like air-conditioning. That was a luxury option back then.
I don't see 100mph SDC. While lots of us would appreciate the extra speed, there are still instances of mechanical failures which, at those speeds, would be catastrophic. Additionally, the amount of aerodynamic drag on the vehicle goes up as the square of the speed, so if we're also trying to solve the carbon emission problem, it's much better to have everybody going 55-60 but pack them together on the roadways like sardines (the slower speed would be more efficient, and car trains would also reduce aerodynamic drag).
From the standpoint of the highway designers / government, I think the focus will be on capacity, not speed. So, the obvious thing is to allow SDC cars to follow the car ahead with much less space, thus the capacity of the road increases. Also, if you remember the Slashdot article a while back about SDC being able to go through intersections without needing red lights (by reserving the couple seconds it needs to get through the intersection), that would also increase capacity of the road system. Think of the amount of time you sit stopped in traffic. Just using SDC technology to keep everything moving could have a huge impact on road capacity.
And yes. Even the French are better than most American airports.. And that saying something.
Ha! I travelled to Paris while the whole Algerian terrorist thing was going on, and my luggage must have looked like some terrorists bag because we got pulled aside for extra scrutiny, and it STILL was a lot better than what we put up with in the USA now. If I didn't live in the USA I would never travel here by air.
Don't buy, rent: http://eastcoastaeroclub.com/a...
Realistically, there are problems trying to travel with private aircraft. The biggest one is weather. Private aircraft simply can't safely tackle the same weather an airliner can. So, they are viable, but your schedule needs to be flexible. And, it's much more expensive unless you have a group of people traveling together. And frankly, much as I hate to say it, private aircraft are much more dangerous than airlines. (but so is driving).
For trips up to about 1,000 miles, driving isn't such a bad alternative, and it's going to get much better as more and more cars get Tesla style autopilot software.
For a recent trip from Boston to Nashville I considered 3 modes of transportation:
Southwest Airlines: Ended up costing about $450 round trip, about 8 hours each way all together
Cessna 182: would have cost about $3,200, about 11 hours each way all together
Driving: About $250 in fuel round trip, about 18 hours each way. Savings on rental car would have made the trip almost free, but would have cost me an extra day traveling.
I agree with the people who feel the TSA should be dismantled. If you told me 30 years ago that we would have our civil liberties trashed by a bunch of brown shirts that would be viewing our naked bodies, delaying our travel, at huge expense, and with little to no increase in security I would have laughed at you. I agree that the locked cockpit doors and the fact that every flight now has a willing vigilante committee means going back to private security with some minimal checks like metal detectors would give us an acceptable level of security.
It's just never going to happen, for a variety of reasons.
Different EVs use different amounts of regenerative braking. This seems to be more of a human factors thing than an electromechanical limit. There seem to be two schools of thought on how to control regenerative braking. One (that I highly prefer) is to use "one pedal driving" where taking your foot off the accelerator pedal causes regenerative braking to kick in. This actually feels pretty natural for those of us that drive manual transmissions and are used to the deceleration when we lift off the gas.
The other way of doing this is to have the brake pedal cause regenerative braking at first, and then blend in friction braking as you depress the pedal further. On an early Prius I drove I could definitely feel inconsistencies in braking forces as the braking system switched from pure regen to friction braking.
The first method, one pedal braking, means that the car will drive very differently for a person used to an automatic transmission. In fact, if the regen comes on too strong, it might even cause an accident if someone is used to taking their foot entirely off the gas pedal: too much regen could cause a following vehicle to rear end the driver.
Several (most?) manufacturers allow the driver to change a setting as to how much regen will be used. In my Honda Fit EV the transmission selector has "D" (which acts more like an automatic transmission) and "B" (which increases the amount of regen used). Also, the vehicle notices when you are driving downhill and will increase the amount of regen (so that the vehicle won't accelerate downhill, even with your foot off the brake). I've driven down some very steep hills without the vehicle tending to accelerate which makes me think regen is capable of very strong braking forces when desired, but that manufacturers are worried that too strong a system will cause problems for the drivers.
Personally, I just want a little dial so that I can turn it from "almost no regen" to "huge amounts of regen" depending on the driving situation.
Ok, but I've been wondering for a while why Toyota and Honda were pushing Hydrogen so hard, and saying EV wasn't the way to go.
The cynic in me believed this was their way to make it look like they were working on non-polluting vehicles without having to actually produce any (because the production and fueling infrastructure would delay the deployment for several decades).
I've seen some things lately that Honda might be finally be changing their minds about producing EVs (and I really enjoy the Honda Fit EV I lease from them).
Anyone know any other reasons why Toyota and Honda are/were so gung ho for H2 instead of EV?
Resuspension is caused by the wake of a vehicle, which in turn is determined by the size, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle.
At first I didn't understand what they meant by "resuspension". I was confused because they lump this in and still call it an "emission". It doesn't seem to me to be accurate to call this an emission. That makes it seem like that PM is coming from the car in question. Is this important to understand in terms of measuring air quality near a road? Sure. Is it misleading to call it an emission? I think so...
I'm also not sure it's accurate to measure resuspension by weight. While it is true that a larger car will resuspend more particles than a smaller one, it seems to me that aerodynamic drag (and speed) is the important factor to consider here, and EVs tend to be pretty clean aerodynamically (in order to get the range up). So, to assume that a smaller, aerodynamically clean (but heavier) EV will stir up more PM sitting around on the road surface than a vehicle of greater size that weighs the same just seems wrong.
On the highway this will likely be even more true. Electric vehicles take a big hit from drag if they are driven fast. On the shorter range EVs (like my Honda Fit EV) I tend to drive much slower on the highway than when I'm in my ICE vehicle. This almost certainly means I'm stirring up a lot more PM in my ICE car on the highway than my EV. (but, Tesla drivers probably drive faster than I do because their bigger battery gives them the luxury of doing that...)
By using the data from Simons (2013) on the effect of weight on emissions and the average exhaust and non-exhaust emission from the various emission inventories, we can compare the total PM emissions from EVs with those from gasoline and diesel cars. When we do this, we find that EVs emit the same amount of PM10 as modern gasoline and diesel cars. See Table 5 for the comparisons.
See, this just seems misleading to be comparing ICE vs EV emissions and have resuspension as part of that equation. And the resuspension number is really large. When you eliminate that, the EV looks very good compared to the ICE vehicles.
Slowing with regenerative braking is not as efficient as just modulating your speed to avoid having to brake. Some figures I've seen say regen braking is 80% efficient. That's always seemed high to me, but I've seen the figure more than once.
In any case, best is to control your speed (within reason, so you don't impede other vehicles), use regen when you have to slow down, and only use the friction brakes when a sudden stop is required.
BTW, different vehicles have differing amounts of regenerative braking, so just because it's very gentle on one vehicle and you may use the friction brakes a lot, doesn't mean that other vehicles don't have aggressive regen braking. It's pretty seldom that I have to tap the brake pedal on my Honda Fit EV...
Yeah, and the other thing that wasn't mentioned is that most electric & hybrid vehicles use regenerative braking, so electric vehicles should produce much less brake dust than conventional vehicles.
So, maybe just tires and whatever the road is made of. Somehow doesn't seem that much, but maybe we're just used to it.
The article does, at the bottom, point out that reduction in CO2 is still a big advantage of electric vehicles.
Kinda cool - a few years ago I was ferrying a helicopter from California to Boston and flew over this mine... Never knew what it was. Now I do. Thanks Internet!
^^^^ this.
I have an EV as well as an ICE. I went with the ICE dealership I did because they weren't dicks like every other Subaru dealership I visited. It's a very small dealership and seems to value their customers. That does not seem to be the average dealership situation.
That said, they've made a lot more from maintenance than from the original sale. As parent said, sometimes they sell below cost (I got a Toyota Landcruiser below cost, by hitting the right day of the month). I have over 200,000 miles on that Subaru and it's been a good car, but it has had it's problems and they've made good money on me keeping that ICE going.
So far my EV has been in for 3 services. Each one of those consisted of rotating the tires. Now, it's got 30,000 miles versus 200,000 but still... tire rotations only. Sweet.
On the subject of buying cars through dealerships. One of the cars I've considered is a Ford Focus RS. The problem people are having is that it's a small production run, so if your dealership doesn't have an allocation you probably won't get one. Problems? The dealers lie to you and tell you they have allocations when they don't (one guy put his order in October and found out in March that the dealer lied and he really didn't have a car ordered. There's no way you can check whether the dealer is lying. Also, dealers have been charging up to $10,000 above MSRP because they see it as a rare car and they want to stiff buyers as much as possible. One guy talked about calling 50 different dealerships trying to find an available allocation that would sell at MSRP. Basically, the dealerships don't care about building a relationship with you. They may say they do (and a few probably do) but it seems like a large percentage exist by screwing over their customers. Maybe Ford tries to be good to the customers, but the entire dealership thing they are saddled with is set up to screw everybody but the dealership owner (I think the salespeople are victimized almost as much as the customers).
Contrast that with the ordering process with Tesla? Go onto a single website, configure your Model S or X, done. And, from what I can see of Tesla owners' reports, Tesla seems to bend over backwards to try to make them happy with their purchase. I've read many many stories about the service organization at Tesla going well beyond in order to help the owner. This is the kind of company I want to deal with, not dealerships which are set up to screw me over.
Dealerships seem to be the sociopaths of the automobile industry. Tesla so far has demonstrated the opposite. I'm happy to buy a Model 3 from them.
Yup, I like that much more than the current Model 3 nose. Of course, aerodynamics may have something to say about how the nose should look ;-)
Don't think it'll be a negligible percentage, given 2019 and 2020 delivery dates. Plenty of other electric options will ship before that.
If you mean BEV, not sure I see who else is getting ready to ship competing product in that timeframe other than GM?
I think you may be right that lots of people will cancel their pre-orders because after all, 3-4 years is a very long time to wait for a car. Situations change and all. On the other hand, I think for every order they lose, they'll gain one or more back as cars start to roll off the production line. The unexpected number of pre-orders shows that lots of people think this is a very desirable car. While some of them will lose patience, or be forced to purchase another vehicle, the very fact that so many people were willing to part with a not insignificant amount of money indicates to me that Tesla basically got the equation correct. Price/Range/Styling is good enough that a lot of people want this car. So, even though some percentage will cancel their order, I think this is a very good indication that the car will sell very very well, and that Tesla will probably have a backlog for quite a while.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Tesla is a cool company, and I don't think it's doomed because it "only" has a 1% marketshare. However, we need to consider it in context of the entire automotive industry, and it most likely won't end up as the one car company to rule the world.
I agree with you. What I predict will happen is that Tesla is the company we will all remember as causing the tipping point in the switch from ICE to BEV. Who knows whether they will even survive? But what they did was take a market that nobody else wanted to be in, except maybe as a dodge around CAFE fleet standards, and turn it into a market where people desire to buy these kinds of vehicles... to the point that the other manufacturers finally started treating it as a real market to be exploited.
Even Nissan, with the "most successful BEV" program, ships a tiny percentage of BEVs. If GM doesn't fumble the Bolt I hope to see the next 5 years as that period of time where a large percentage of people get to drive or ride in BEVs and see firsthand how nice they are to drive/operate. And if BMW, Mercedes, Ford, and maybe someday Honda and Toyota follow suite, we could be talking a large percentage of new cars being BEVs in the next 20 years.
The first thing is to make people want to buy BEVs, and I think we can all agree that Tesla has done more than any of the other companies to make that happen.
We do?
Since when did cars becomes computers that get cheaper and faster each year?
Is there a law of economics that says EVs will become cheaper than gas cars, but gas cars will just keep getting expensive?
Cars aren't computers, but all technology gets better with time, and EVs are still not what I'd call a mature technology. So you have to admit that there is room to move there.
I agree that EVs will continue to improve over the next decade or two: battery technology has a long way to go, both in capacity/weight and cost to manufacture. The trend is toward lighter cheaper battery packs allowing bigger ranges and lower costs. The Model 3 and Chevy Bolt are both examples of this: We're seeing a doubling of range versus a car like the Leaf from just a handful of years ago, and all the articles I read say we're just on the beginning of the curve of battery improvements. Meanwhile ICE may be making some improvements on emissions and some minor improvements on efficiency, but Carnot/Thermodynamics is setting limits on efficiency improvements that can be achieved. It's pretty hard to take an ICE with a 30% efficiency and compete against a 95% efficient electric motor.
We also know that oil doesn't last forever. I know we've been hearing about peak oil for decades, but the premise is still true. At some point oil production will peak, and when that day comes (even if it takes another 30 years), EVs get a lay down misery.
I don't even worry about peak oil (price); it's peak carbon we need to worry about. If we suddenly found huge oil reserves tomorrow, we still can't afford to continue burning oil. We need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. EV is one way to start decreasing our production of greenhouse gasses. Hydrogen may be another, although I'm personally skeptical. I like EV because it's something we can do today. The grid is able to support a large percentage of BEV vehicles today, while the hydrogen distribution infrastructure simply doesn't exist and will take years to build out.
but there is no assurance they will become cheaper than gas cars.
They don't have to be cheaper because EVs don't have to account for 100% market share. The advantages of EVs are worth paying a small premium for IMO, and If the EV market grows to 50% then it's going to be a win for the likes of Tesla.
I agree that for many people, myself included, they don't have to be cheaper than ICE. A tricked out Model S is frankly out of my price range, but a tricked out Model 3 probably isn't... I'm budgeting $55-60K for a Model 3 with Ludicrous kinds of speed, and a couple hundred miles of range. BEV are in many ways more fun to drive (and some ways less). I still love my Subaru STi, but it's a whole different kind of driving experience, and one that I enjoy greatly. I'm looking forward to a Model 3 and doubt I'll buy another ICE car again, except maybe a toy like a Lotus. I've had many people who are skeptical of BEVs, but once they drive mine they change their minds. They may not be ready to run out and buy one immediately, but they start seriously considering a BEV in their future. The more mainstream BEVs become, the more people will be able to objectively decide whether a BEV can meet their driving needs, as opposed to today where much emotion and fear biases people toward the ICE that they grew up with and think they understand.
3. Even if they do (and I don't think it would be within 10 years), then you have other issues, such as range.
Range isn't really an issue for most people. It is for some, but most people travel less than 300km/day. This is purely an emotional position for a good chunk of the population.
Again, I agree. My Honda Fit EV has similar specs to the Nissan Leaf, and even with 85 miles per charge it meets my needs all but approximately once a month.
I agree with some of what you're saying. My Honda Fit EV is coming up on the end of the 3 year lease and I'll go ahead and extend the lease for another 2 years. I probably won't be able to get a Model 3 until 2018 or 2019 so I'm not sure what I'll do in the meantime. The Chevy Bolt might be a good interim car, I'll be interested to see what people say about it when it starts getting produced in significant numbers. I would consider a Leaf if they do some styling changes... (I just really can't stand how it looks, although my wife thinks it's just fine).
On the subject of the $1,000 deposit... I don't want an early version of the Model 3 anyway - I want to wait until they've got a lot of the early problems ironed out, and I can get a dual motor performance version. Then I'll plop down my $55K or so... Until then, I'm happy to let other people get the very early models (sort of like the 40kWH Model S cars - who wants one of them now?).
But... the people who want to put down $1,000 to get an early car? Bless 'em! I probably would as well if I really wanted an early car, but... I just don't like to buy the first of any new technology device.
be able to get into some of the phones sitting in all of our evidence rooms
At what point if any can a defendant request the government return his property (phone)? If we acknowledge that smartphones are different because they contain a huge amount of personal information, should there be a limit to how long law enforcement can hold onto the device?
It would be like them seizing your entire house of all contents, along with all your safe deposit boxes, and every document from your place of business, and keep them forever while they decide whether or not to make a case against you.
Just curious whether they should have to return the device to you after some reasonably short period of time. What if you say you might need access to the device in order to mount your defense?
Actually, this is the video I was talking about: here
Which celebrity did I see on YouTube asking people if Apple should unlock the phone and almost everybody said yes. Then they asked, "what if this means they can get at your phone?" and all of a sudden people's opinion changed.
" our Founding Fathers,"
Thats what voting is for. If you change your government by force then you're no better than some banana republic - which , lets be blunt , is all the USA was for a long time after independence.
Uh, that's exactly what the founding fathers did... they changed their government by force. So, if you want to lump us in with them if we change the government by force.. well, okay! :-}