Another example -- will A.I. know to increase following distance (dramatically) if something is about to fall off the vehicle ahead of it? Or if the vehicle ahead is a truck whose tire is starting to smoke and is about to throw chunks.
Lower ROI as well. A thing something someone calling himself Shanghai bill should be aware of is that in poor countries, taxi drivers are cheap as chips.
Yep. I have family in Dominican Republic. In the US, they have an electric gate when you leave parking lots. In DR, I've seen one guy taking payments, the other lifting the gate. By hand.
Gas is more expensive than in the US, but labor makes up for it. Cost of a 2.5 hr taxi ride last time I was there was less than a train ride of the same duration can cost in the US.
When labor is cheap, the urge to automation is much less.
Get in a human-driven taxi. Pay cash. Pay cash for public transportation.
Yes, either might have cameras, but the footage tends to be erased if there's no evidence of a crime (footage tends to take up a lot of space). Take an Uber (self-driving of otherwise) and the trip endpoints are tied to your credit card, email, etc -- basically your identity. Since they're not storing 30 fps video, they can economically retain identity and endpoint records basically forever.
Having a means of non-cash payment in the equation greatly simplifies and increases the reliability of tracking people.
Difference is that you can still leave your mobile phone at home and go from point A to point B, untracked. Drive your own car, pay cash for a taxi or public transportation. In the future which the Uber techbros want, everyone will be using their (or a similar) service, so there will be no escaping their snooping.
Humans are extremely good in dealing with snow -- think about it: A slow CPU with four main sensors is currently doing better at a task than many faster CPUs with a dozen or more sensors.
It wouldn't make a worse decision than a human. But the "driver" will have deeper pockets and more to lose, so there will need to be a legal structure as to what to do in such a case (and others).
In the 60s, we were supposed to be living on the Moon and going to Mars by the 1990s. Self-guiding (maybe flying!) cars were 10 years away in 1965. In the 70s, anyone would be able to buy a ticket on a supersonic jet by 1985. We were supposed to get our (snail) mail by missile...
No shoulder on that road.
Would crossing the centerline (putting other traffic/cyclists/pedestrians at risk) be acceptable if you were an autonomous car?
As a pedestrian, I think I'll carry an inflatable balloon that looks exactly like a block of concrete to the robocar's sensors. Pssssssssssht goes the CO2 cartridge. SCREEEEEEEE, SCREEE, CRUNCH (crosses street).
No, but I've been in the following situation. (1) hit the deer, possibly damaging my car and ending up with a buck through the windshield (2) cross the center line on a hill with poor visibility.
No -- it gets updates as they're updated, not as they happen.
Also, how detailed will the info the cars hold be? Example -- I grew up in a town that flooded. One underpass had a dip in the road that could hold 3 to 4 feet of water, more than enough to stop a car and possibly harm the occupants.
Would an autonomous car stop at any amount of water detected on a road? (Not necessarily correct.) Would it try to drive through? (Not correct either.) Will it know the depth of the bridge and the flooding behavior?
Driving in anything but perfect conditions isn't simple.
Whatever happens, happens, and the courts ascribe liability -- to the driver. The little guy, generally with shallow pockets.
The equation changes when large companies with deep pockets need to make that decision ahead of time, and they (or their insurers) take over liability.
I suspect this isn't being paid for right now -- more of an option to buy at a specific price/quantity over time.
This being said, when the economy goes sour (not if, but when -- we're overdue for a recession), a lot of tech firms will burn through their cash, crash, and burn.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you keep adjusting its orbit? Reaction mass isn't free.
Another example -- will A.I. know to increase following distance (dramatically) if something is about to fall off the vehicle ahead of it? Or if the vehicle ahead is a truck whose tire is starting to smoke and is about to throw chunks.
Lower ROI as well. A thing something someone calling himself Shanghai bill should be aware of is that in poor countries, taxi drivers are cheap as chips.
Yep. I have family in Dominican Republic. In the US, they have an electric gate when you leave parking lots. In DR, I've seen one guy taking payments, the other lifting the gate. By hand.
Gas is more expensive than in the US, but labor makes up for it. Cost of a 2.5 hr taxi ride last time I was there was less than a train ride of the same duration can cost in the US.
When labor is cheap, the urge to automation is much less.
Get in a human-driven taxi. Pay cash.
Pay cash for public transportation.
Yes, either might have cameras, but the footage tends to be erased if there's no evidence of a crime (footage tends to take up a lot of space). Take an Uber (self-driving of otherwise) and the trip endpoints are tied to your credit card, email, etc -- basically your identity. Since they're not storing 30 fps video, they can economically retain identity and endpoint records basically forever.
Having a means of non-cash payment in the equation greatly simplifies and increases the reliability of tracking people.
Was anyone talking about legality as opposed to technical ability? :)
Difference is that you can still leave your mobile phone at home and go from point A to point B, untracked. Drive your own car, pay cash for a taxi or public transportation. In the future which the Uber techbros want, everyone will be using their (or a similar) service, so there will be no escaping their snooping.
Yep. More sprawl, more energy use! On the plus side, older cities might become affordable again for those who want to live closer to other humans.
"Most of the world" is actually closer to NYC than L.A. in pedestrian/car/cyclist dynamics. See traffic in most of Asia, India, or Latin America.
Normal? As if anything about NYC traffic is normal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sorry, jump to about 1:05 in the video for the "mess" I describe -- autonomous cars flowing continuously around each other without lights or stops.
See the video of NYC traffic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Humans are extremely good in dealing with snow -- think about it: A slow CPU with four main sensors is currently doing better at a task than many faster CPUs with a dozen or more sensors.
One of the problems...
Do we really want to create "efficient" traffic that's easy for computers to navigate, at the expense of usability for pedestrians and cyclists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Try crossing the street or cycling in this mess? Will we all be bound to our cars just to walk across the street?
This -- milk it while you can.
It wouldn't make a worse decision than a human. But the "driver" will have deeper pockets and more to lose, so there will need to be a legal structure as to what to do in such a case (and others).
Predictions generally outpace reality, though.
In the 60s, we were supposed to be living on the Moon and going to Mars by the 1990s. Self-guiding (maybe flying!) cars were 10 years away in 1965. In the 70s, anyone would be able to buy a ticket on a supersonic jet by 1985. We were supposed to get our (snail) mail by missile...
No shoulder on that road. Would crossing the centerline (putting other traffic/cyclists/pedestrians at risk) be acceptable if you were an autonomous car?
As a pedestrian, I think I'll carry an inflatable balloon that looks exactly like a block of concrete to the robocar's sensors. Pssssssssssht goes the CO2 cartridge. SCREEEEEEEE, SCREEE, CRUNCH (crosses street).
No, but I've been in the following situation.
(1) hit the deer, possibly damaging my car and ending up with a buck through the windshield
(2) cross the center line on a hill with poor visibility.
No -- it gets updates as they're updated, not as they happen.
Also, how detailed will the info the cars hold be? Example -- I grew up in a town that flooded. One underpass had a dip in the road that could hold 3 to 4 feet of water, more than enough to stop a car and possibly harm the occupants.
Would an autonomous car stop at any amount of water detected on a road? (Not necessarily correct.) Would it try to drive through? (Not correct either.) Will it know the depth of the bridge and the flooding behavior?
Driving in anything but perfect conditions isn't simple.
Whatever happens, happens, and the courts ascribe liability -- to the driver. The little guy, generally with shallow pockets.
The equation changes when large companies with deep pockets need to make that decision ahead of time, and they (or their insurers) take over liability.
Staid, conservative types. :)
If only Volvos were still dirt-simple, solidly reliable, and child's play to fix, as well as capable of running to 300,000 miles.
Any Volvo made after the mid-2000s is just an iDevice with wheels and an engine. Ugh.
Powerful PC running Linux. Run Windows 10 in a nice, safe little VirtualBox padded cell for anything that Linux can't do -- or dual-boot.
I suspect this isn't being paid for right now -- more of an option to buy at a specific price/quantity over time.
This being said, when the economy goes sour (not if, but when -- we're overdue for a recession), a lot of tech firms will burn through their cash, crash, and burn.
Negotiation between human drivers, cyclists, other drivers, and pedestrians is complex and non-verbal.