My point also applies if a large percentage of these SDCs employ substantially equivalent algorithms. Emergent (unexpected) behavior in such systems can be quite dramatic, and basically "not make sense" to humans observing the situation, but of course makes perfect sense if you understand the algorithms.
"Unexpected" behavior I would expect in an algorithmic distributed control system would include: large sections of roadway operating at low speed due to a perceived safety issue, leading to effective widespread gridlock. Small packets of gridlock requiring human intervention to break. Vehicles that refuse to soldier on due to a trivial sensor issue, occasionally leading to widespread delays in otherwise unaffected vehicles. Natural events like swarming insects or dust storms effectively shutting down the roads. And, more than these, I would expect the "X" factor - unknown unknowns with significant consequence.
The chaos (and resulting lack of safety) in biologically piloted vehicle fleets creates a certain "smoothness of operation" that will take automated systems decades, if not centuries, of development to completely surpass. Unless they start truly programming themselves - which would seem to be a dangerous turn of events for people in the big picture.
We were theoretically getting 100+mph interstate highways, up until the first OPEC thing.
There's nothing inherently more efficient about automated cars travelling at high speeds - in heavy traffic they can draft each other a bit more safely, but after the first 100 car pile-up, I doubt they'll continue to do that.
With the use of Google Maps, my HDC is already embracing congestion avoidance. I have at least 4 viable routes home, before I leave the office I check and take the most attractive one at the time (or stay put if they all suck.)
No congestion ever? Sounds like a communist plot to me. In true capitalism, the roads are only maintained and expanded as needed to address pressing issues - thus, there will always be congestion.
All good points, but the elephant in this particular room is unexpected emergent behavior of a large coordinated system. If SDCs are centrally controlled, there's a single point of failure that will make EVERYONE late for work at unexpected intervals. If they are more distributed in their control systems, interesting (not in a good way) interactions will develop that cause unexpected system failures and disruptions.
Overall, I expect SDCs will improve the current state of automotive transport, but I don't expect them to be the panacea that everyone likes to paint a picture of.
One guy is already ex-Amazon, the MS guy could be: 1) using 79 different service providers for himself, 2) just making BS up as a favor to the people running the business, or, most likely in my opinion, 3) providing perks to visiting business partners.
Only in case 1) would I see him being considered a John, case 2 and especially 3 puts him in the pimp role.
And, in case 3, MS would be seeking business partners who are led by their genitals- which would put MS in a more advantageous position than a "clean" business relationship, so I think the practice might be encouraged by his upper management - not the practice itself, but the results it delivers.
It's a crackdown on the publication of reviews of misdemeanor activity - you know: free speech. Sure, you're free to speak, but if you speak about doing illegal things, that's a problem.
But wait, during the decade or so that ZFS was "almost ready," wasn't there a functional transactional file system option with a less-well-known name?
I'm trying to remember what it was - and also flush out a believer who can tell us: "X" was doing this 5-6 years ago and has been actively improving since then, ZFS is just a better known name, not a better system.
Cynically, the 99% have always scrubbed toilet, built luxury goods, provided military services, and worked to increase the wealth of the 1%.
The robots are basically owned by the 1%, so the 99% will be serving the robots too. Long term: whether that's maintenance and repair, or providing chaotic original thought Matrix style, remains to be seen.
Depends on what kind of work you find necessary. If you just need shelter constructed, water and food delivered to it, and electronically delivered entertainment, that's fast approaching 100% automated, if you don't mind living in a pre-fab house. If you want your toilets scrubbed, windows washed, landscaping manicured, vehicles detailed, clothes tailored and laundered and pressed, you'll need to be paying people to do that for some time to come. So, there's that kind of work out there, still - but with all the jobless on the market, it doesn't pay much.
Better to be in the robot programming end of things.
Goel and his teaching assistants receive more than 10,000 questions a semester from students on the course's online forum. Sometimes the same questions are asked again and again. Last year he began to wonder if he could automate the burden of answering so many repetitive questions.
The first order of business ought to be updating the course material to answer those frequently-asked-questions, so they don't need to be asked in the first place.
My interactions with professors usually went something like this:
"I don't understand how this answer was arrived at." Prof scrutinizes the textbook for a while, then says "ah, you have found an error in the text."
Your interactions were atypical. I taught 5 semesters of digital design, the text was right (though the simulator had its faults.) The questions were 60% answerable by finding the appropriate paragraph in the current textbook, 30% answerable by finding the appropriate paragraph in a pre-requisite course's textbook, and 10% best answered by reminding them of the drop-date deadline.
And, why is it so shocking that humans are editing the news feeds? The shocking thing would be if they weren't involved at all. From Gutenburg through Walter Cronkite, news was 100% human edited.
Actually, no, this is a/. discussion and reading the article would be strictly out of character. Instead, let me make generalized assertions based on past experience, as is the norm in this forum:
Returning to my earlier point: who collected this data? what are their deeper motives? where are the studies published by groups with clearly differing agendas (everyone has an agenda) that back up these points?
Nobody goes out and labels themselves "The conservative union for exclusion of technology from learning institutions" and then publishes studies of this nature. Instead, they have nice sounding consensus based names from large institutions that people are not prone to question - this is especially the case when they are actually a minority cadre with a specific agenda to put forward.
I was educated in a paper and hot air (lecture) based system. I spent thousands of hours in libraries, and in travel to remote libraries that might have better collections of my material. In those years (1970s/80s) the best you could hope from computers was that they might know where a book or periodical with a potentially interesting topic might be. Maybe all this time spent in the pursuit of knowledge made it more dear when it was actually found and neurologically it was "learned better." Certainly, the quality of the material, once found, _seemed_ better than the average material you find today - though that was often an illusion.
When I look at the classrooms I was educated in, and imagine that, instead of 10 year old books and chalk boards with lectures from twenty-something year old graduates from a local college who have never traveled more than 500 miles from home, instead they might be able to pull information from the internet, get actual pictures and videos and educational texts from the current day from around the world, I can't help but think that the depth of information and quality of information _available_ on a given topic is better in a "connected classroom."
Now, if you are assessing the "quality of learning" with testing instruments that were developed for the old paper and hot air teaching system, yes - I am almost certain that those lessons aren't being learned as well when technology is introduced into the learning environment. Is that a bad thing?
I totally kicked ES File Explorer off of all my android systems quite some time ago because of these pop-ups.
However, from the developer's perspective, I wasn't giving them any money, nor likely to in the future, so... I guess they don't really care that I don't use their app anymore.
Too bad that it's difficult to choose what level of software update you want to use - their older program was the best I'd used.
I passed the "close to removing it" point a few months ago when it was pushing mysterious notification to my screen - that's not what I expect out of a file explorer application.
Solid Explorer seems to do what I need without the un-necessary intrusions.
Wave driven erosion can be dramatically accelerated by a small rise in water level. Were these islands on their way out anyway? Maybe not, if sea level were moving in the other direction.
Revealing my identity keys to someone who would use them to impersonate me is the opposite of a transparent action. False impersonation should remain a crime, if transparency is to have any value.
Transparency is better than the alternative. Analyze any case (general case, not a specific example) and transparency benefits more people than secrecy would. Secret military undertaking? Benefits the smaller/weaker side, or a few politicians who would lose political position because of majority opinion. Secret financial transactions? Benefits those who might otherwise be taxed. Secret sexual affair? Generally benefits the involved parties at the expense of larger families or groups.
Secret of Santa? Let's save things like that for childhood. If people would grow up and face reality, they wouldn't need secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
My point also applies if a large percentage of these SDCs employ substantially equivalent algorithms. Emergent (unexpected) behavior in such systems can be quite dramatic, and basically "not make sense" to humans observing the situation, but of course makes perfect sense if you understand the algorithms.
"Unexpected" behavior I would expect in an algorithmic distributed control system would include: large sections of roadway operating at low speed due to a perceived safety issue, leading to effective widespread gridlock. Small packets of gridlock requiring human intervention to break. Vehicles that refuse to soldier on due to a trivial sensor issue, occasionally leading to widespread delays in otherwise unaffected vehicles. Natural events like swarming insects or dust storms effectively shutting down the roads. And, more than these, I would expect the "X" factor - unknown unknowns with significant consequence.
The chaos (and resulting lack of safety) in biologically piloted vehicle fleets creates a certain "smoothness of operation" that will take automated systems decades, if not centuries, of development to completely surpass. Unless they start truly programming themselves - which would seem to be a dangerous turn of events for people in the big picture.
We were theoretically getting 100+mph interstate highways, up until the first OPEC thing.
There's nothing inherently more efficient about automated cars travelling at high speeds - in heavy traffic they can draft each other a bit more safely, but after the first 100 car pile-up, I doubt they'll continue to do that.
They were reducing seat pitch, overbooking flights and cheaping out on inflight refreshment starting from the day of deregulation.
Before deregulation, they were guaranteed a good profit on every route they flew and they competed for customers based on service.
Since deregulation, fares have plummeted and service has been a race to the bottom to support ever decreasing fares.
With the use of Google Maps, my HDC is already embracing congestion avoidance. I have at least 4 viable routes home, before I leave the office I check and take the most attractive one at the time (or stay put if they all suck.)
No congestion ever? Sounds like a communist plot to me. In true capitalism, the roads are only maintained and expanded as needed to address pressing issues - thus, there will always be congestion.
If you live in the U.S. (anywhere other than the NE megalopolis) rail transport of people has been obsolete for a long long time already.
All good points, but the elephant in this particular room is unexpected emergent behavior of a large coordinated system. If SDCs are centrally controlled, there's a single point of failure that will make EVERYONE late for work at unexpected intervals. If they are more distributed in their control systems, interesting (not in a good way) interactions will develop that cause unexpected system failures and disruptions.
Overall, I expect SDCs will improve the current state of automotive transport, but I don't expect them to be the panacea that everyone likes to paint a picture of.
Margins are better on illegal activity - capitalist through and through. Higher risk = higher reward.
Pleading guilty to 79 counts of misdemeanor activity with no remorse.
The morality or reality of the situation is irrelevant in court they decide legality.
One guy is already ex-Amazon, the MS guy could be: 1) using 79 different service providers for himself, 2) just making BS up as a favor to the people running the business, or, most likely in my opinion, 3) providing perks to visiting business partners.
Only in case 1) would I see him being considered a John, case 2 and especially 3 puts him in the pimp role.
And, in case 3, MS would be seeking business partners who are led by their genitals- which would put MS in a more advantageous position than a "clean" business relationship, so I think the practice might be encouraged by his upper management - not the practice itself, but the results it delivers.
It's a crackdown on the publication of reviews of misdemeanor activity - you know: free speech. Sure, you're free to speak, but if you speak about doing illegal things, that's a problem.
But wait, during the decade or so that ZFS was "almost ready," wasn't there a functional transactional file system option with a less-well-known name?
I'm trying to remember what it was - and also flush out a believer who can tell us: "X" was doing this 5-6 years ago and has been actively improving since then, ZFS is just a better known name, not a better system.
Anybody remember that one?
Cynically, the 99% have always scrubbed toilet, built luxury goods, provided military services, and worked to increase the wealth of the 1%.
The robots are basically owned by the 1%, so the 99% will be serving the robots too. Long term: whether that's maintenance and repair, or providing chaotic original thought Matrix style, remains to be seen.
Depends on what kind of work you find necessary. If you just need shelter constructed, water and food delivered to it, and electronically delivered entertainment, that's fast approaching 100% automated, if you don't mind living in a pre-fab house. If you want your toilets scrubbed, windows washed, landscaping manicured, vehicles detailed, clothes tailored and laundered and pressed, you'll need to be paying people to do that for some time to come. So, there's that kind of work out there, still - but with all the jobless on the market, it doesn't pay much.
Better to be in the robot programming end of things.
The robots are supposed to do all the work for us... we just have to learn how to build and service them.
From TFA...
Goel and his teaching assistants receive more than 10,000 questions a semester from students on the course's online forum. Sometimes the same questions are asked again and again. Last year he began to wonder if he could automate the burden of answering so many repetitive questions.
The first order of business ought to be updating the course material to answer those frequently-asked-questions, so they don't need to be asked in the first place.
My interactions with professors usually went something like this:
"I don't understand how this answer was arrived at."
Prof scrutinizes the textbook for a while, then says "ah, you have found an error in the text."
Your interactions were atypical. I taught 5 semesters of digital design, the text was right (though the simulator had its faults.) The questions were 60% answerable by finding the appropriate paragraph in the current textbook, 30% answerable by finding the appropriate paragraph in a pre-requisite course's textbook, and 10% best answered by reminding them of the drop-date deadline.
And, why is it so shocking that humans are editing the news feeds? The shocking thing would be if they weren't involved at all. From Gutenburg through Walter Cronkite, news was 100% human edited.
Actually, no, this is a /. discussion and reading the article would be strictly out of character. Instead, let me make generalized assertions based on past experience, as is the norm in this forum:
Returning to my earlier point: who collected this data? what are their deeper motives? where are the studies published by groups with clearly differing agendas (everyone has an agenda) that back up these points?
Nobody goes out and labels themselves "The conservative union for exclusion of technology from learning institutions" and then publishes studies of this nature. Instead, they have nice sounding consensus based names from large institutions that people are not prone to question - this is especially the case when they are actually a minority cadre with a specific agenda to put forward.
I was educated in a paper and hot air (lecture) based system. I spent thousands of hours in libraries, and in travel to remote libraries that might have better collections of my material. In those years (1970s/80s) the best you could hope from computers was that they might know where a book or periodical with a potentially interesting topic might be. Maybe all this time spent in the pursuit of knowledge made it more dear when it was actually found and neurologically it was "learned better." Certainly, the quality of the material, once found, _seemed_ better than the average material you find today - though that was often an illusion.
When I look at the classrooms I was educated in, and imagine that, instead of 10 year old books and chalk boards with lectures from twenty-something year old graduates from a local college who have never traveled more than 500 miles from home, instead they might be able to pull information from the internet, get actual pictures and videos and educational texts from the current day from around the world, I can't help but think that the depth of information and quality of information _available_ on a given topic is better in a "connected classroom."
Now, if you are assessing the "quality of learning" with testing instruments that were developed for the old paper and hot air teaching system, yes - I am almost certain that those lessons aren't being learned as well when technology is introduced into the learning environment. Is that a bad thing?
I totally kicked ES File Explorer off of all my android systems quite some time ago because of these pop-ups.
However, from the developer's perspective, I wasn't giving them any money, nor likely to in the future, so... I guess they don't really care that I don't use their app anymore.
Too bad that it's difficult to choose what level of software update you want to use - their older program was the best I'd used.
I passed the "close to removing it" point a few months ago when it was pushing mysterious notification to my screen - that's not what I expect out of a file explorer application.
Solid Explorer seems to do what I need without the un-necessary intrusions.
Wave driven erosion can be dramatically accelerated by a small rise in water level. Were these islands on their way out anyway? Maybe not, if sea level were moving in the other direction.
Revealing my identity keys to someone who would use them to impersonate me is the opposite of a transparent action. False impersonation should remain a crime, if transparency is to have any value.
When everyone's dirty laundry is readily available, having some stupid court filing on public display won't be as damaging as it is today.
Today, even little things can be used as blackmail. When everyone's human failings are readily apparent, that won't really hold water anymore.
Awesome, need to work a shark into it though.
Transparency is better than the alternative. Analyze any case (general case, not a specific example) and transparency benefits more people than secrecy would. Secret military undertaking? Benefits the smaller/weaker side, or a few politicians who would lose political position because of majority opinion. Secret financial transactions? Benefits those who might otherwise be taxed. Secret sexual affair? Generally benefits the involved parties at the expense of larger families or groups.
Secret of Santa? Let's save things like that for childhood. If people would grow up and face reality, they wouldn't need secrets.