31–40 of 325 posts
This is carburetor nostalgia, from a time when everything was human scale and adjustable. Look at how chips are stacked and interconnected within packages in modern design[1], that trend will only intensify. Software is also getting more complex, with deep learning the system develops its own if/thens. [1] http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg
This is carburetor nostalgia, from a time when everything was human scale and adjustable. Look at how chips are stacked and interconnected within packages in modern design[1], that trend will only intensify. Software is also getting more complex, with deep learning the system develops its own if/thens. [1] http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg
I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…
Not at all. One programmer is going to make choices that affect ~ a billion vehicles one day, so something that doesn't happen 99.9999% per hour will happen 100 times per hour. And it's going to be more mundane things, like programming the speed limit 1 mph slower results in 500 less deaths per year, or using drm/copyright to stop poor people from getting driving software, thus killing thousands of people.
For me, Apple devices are always what come to mind when thinking about ability to repair and modify. I used to not mind when I couldn't open my iPod Classic to replace the battery, because failures like this rarely occurred and when they did Apple repaired them easily. Today however, when something as trivial as a computer memory upgrade is restricted, and the Genius Bar is overloaded with iPhone screen repairs, I fi…
You can replace your battery, it just takes a bit of time and effort. Ditto the screen. RAM is tough because it's soldered in, but at least they have a good excuse for making the batteries and RAM that way: they want to make their stuff smaller. Right to Repair did show up pretty loudly with Apple devices when the Error 53 controversy happened, where people's phones would refuse to boot after having the home button r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should be expected that once the software/firmware of a self-driving car has been modified by someone not authorized by the car maker, it should be expected that the car maker is not responsible for that car any more. Of course it brings up the problem of whether it is possible to detect such a modification.
And also whether the modification is relevant the the problem. I can imagine court cases where the driver argues that the change they made was irrelevant to the accident that occurred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies are spending billions of dollars in r&d to build self driving cars and you think a hobbiest is going to modify his car with his own "aggressive" self driving system?
If the hobbiest is CAPABLE of doing so, then they will.
I think electronics should be designed for repair and easy recycling as a main design goal. For example a cell phone, you could build it with an aluminum back with small phillips screws instead of glued back. Open the phone up with a standard screw driver and you will be able to replace the battery, main board and screen yourself. What kind of environment do you want to leave for future generations. A big pile of ele…
The problem with upgrading parts of something like a phone is that the components interfaces change frequently. Even desktop cpu/memory sockets change every few years.
Compact form factors are worse as you dont have room for the connector, and for the larger components they are like the engine in a F1 car, a important structural piece.
I do like the concept of Ara, but I don't think it will be practical anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…
> I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. Not at all. One programmer is going to make choices that affect ~ a billion vehicles one day, so something that doesn't happen 99.9999% per hour will happen 100 times per hour. And it's going to be more mundane things, like programming the speed limit 1 mph slower results in 500 less deaths per year, or using drm/copyright to stop poor people from getting driving s…
The real choice is going to be what to do about soft obstacles. Hitting a person or deer can easily kill passengers and hitting trees is actually normally safer thus making the discussion fairly moot.
People are going to want to hack self driving cars so they can speed, which is more inline with this moral discussion. Not because it's safe for passengers, but because it's also dangerous for other people.
I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
A police remote engine kill switch doesn't even require a self-driving car. Limiting engine power upon receipt of a radio signal has been technologically possible for decades.
I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
You bring up very interesting questions, but the self-driving car should be taken as a very special case. A manufacturer can hardly argue that they have a safety reason to keep you from repairing your TV, printer, or cell phone.
I believe this is not the strongest argument to make. There are plenty of products that do have legitimate safety or other regulatory concerns, where there is a good reason to prevent someone who doesn't know what they're doing from meddling.
However, the relevant point is whether they know what they're doing, not whether they have the blessing of the manufacturer. I tend to think that saying devices in regulated fields can only be modified by someone suitably qualified and experienced is reasonable, but that in such a case the owner and the qualified person modifying the owner's device should not be artificially constrained through things like unnecessary regulation or intellectual property laws.
There are also ethical and economic questions around supporting fair competition in markets for replacement parts from alternative sources or examination and modification of source code in the case of software. On the one hand, we do have IP laws to encourage creators to create and to protect them from someone ripping off all their hard work the day after their multi-year, multi-billion R&D exercise finishes. On the other hand, those laws aren't supposed to be there so an inventor can sell an artificially crippled product and then charge extortionate rates for servicing , replacement parts or essential updates to correct defects in the original product. There's a lot of room for progress in this kind of area today, IMHO.