541–550 of 556 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amsterdam and Copenhagen don't get very cold.
The canals freeze . That's sea water, too.
I grew up in Southwestern Ontario and we had days were school was cancelled due to cold, not snow. They were worried about frostbite on any exposed skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High density being expensive and getting those rents shows there is demand: we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. In less dense areas the car shines above anything else. However in those dense areas where people have shown they want to live cars are too big and we need something else.
> we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. That's not really how construction works in the US. All construction generates higher prices than existed before (this is explicit intentional policy, at both the local, state, and federal level). There is no such thing as new housing in the US that lowers property values, therefore there is no such thing as a new building that lowers "…
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325...
> This suggests that new construction reduces demand and loosens the housing market in lowand middle-income areas, even in the short run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the failures have multiple backups, and most scenarios are also accounted for on how to handle them. So maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how autopilots couldn't be programmed to handle most kinds of failures (engine failure etc). Unless the failure is with the autopilot itself of course (which could have backup systems) Most of the accidents with airplanes are caused by humans ( https://www.boeing.com/commerc…
It is impossible to program an autopilot to handle unexpected failure modes; there are essentially an infinite number of possible failures. Experienced human pilots can often figure out how to recover the situation based on applying fundamental principles. Computers won't be able to do that until we have something close to AGI. For a prime example, see US Airways Flight 1549. The pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the fundamental issue Musk has is that his cars can’t drive safer than even a below average driver. Agreed. > Oh wow, it can stay in a lane and match speed! So can every car manufacturer. They’ve got a level 2+ system and cars won’t be safer until level 4. I don't find this to be true at all. ProPilot is terrible compared to AutoPilot and many of the other manufacturers have the same limitations (or worse).
> ProPilot is terrible compared to AutoPilot This is frightening. I strictly limit where I will let AutoPilot operate because it is not at all relaxing unless you're on the open road with light traffic. If this is the state of the art, FSD is decades away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has been a problem, but it is definitely not an intrinsic defect of camera based solutions. The stopped truck example has been examined in depth with rooted Tesla's. The Tesla actually detects the truck, but fails to fully recognize the scenario and attempts to drive under it! See also, greentheonly's work on Twitter on researching this. Ignoring some stopped objects is only a temporary limitation.
I said it was a systematic defect camera based systems share, not that it was intrinsic to camera based systems. Camera based systems have much less information about object positioning than LIDAR based systems. They filter out non-moving objects because the vision processing algorithms are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between the background and obstacles. If they stopped for stationary objects in the road…
And I'm saying that even that is incorrect. Here is a Tesla failing to stop: https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1134987596508143617 - The driver clearly noted that aiming for a less clear spot (dangling wires) triggered a stop.
Here is another example, in which greentheonly has used root to overlay what the car sees: https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1135011184439169024 - It sees the truck but is treating some of the space under it as drivable space.
Another view, with more details on what the car considers drivable vs non-drivable: https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1134490014321131521
Also, a clear case where it did stop: https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1134489977801334784
The Tesla system has limitations around object identification, but absolutely does NOT just filter out non-moving objects.
I remember this vividly because I was house hunting at the time and became truly conflicted what location to buy. Should I choose a smaller more much more expensive house nearer to the city center, or a nicer drastically cheaper house further away? If I’ll be essentially chauffeured to work in a few years, why not go for the bigger cheaper house. I eventually chose the more expensive house nearby.
Since then, the small yet constant worry that Autonomous cars are going to show me what a mistake I’ve made has disappeared, in parallel with any noticeable progress of autonomous vehicles hitting the roads.
Thank god I didn’t choose that house in the boonies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Options for people who don't want/need to have a car" is very different than "maybe no one should have a car". Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. While there's an argument that much of the US was designed in a way that forces this necessity, the reality is that the road system in US exists, the US is gigantic , and mobility within the US is generally considered desirable. It's…
> Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. Yet, there is a significant portion of the US population that can not afford a car, and the next level to afford to maintain a car, or afford to adequately insure a car. And yes, it hurts economic mobility https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience. An extra hour or two doesn't make a lot of difference when you're already booking for a weekend. Of course if you get stuck on a mountain overnight or something then you'd have a penalty charge, but frankly that would be…
Anecdotal experience from NYC here: Owning a cheap car is way less expensive than renting a ZipCar. My car's only cost beyond gas was insurance. And my insurance was cheaper than renting a ZipCar for one weekend. Obviously it depends on the car you own, but ZipCar's here can certainly be more expensive and more inconvenient than owning.
When we visit Brooklyn we usually get free street parking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is it not obvious that FSD most likely requires artificial general intelligence Because it doesn't. The issue is that all the self-driving car companies ignore how people actually drive. People memorize their local driving area--it's why teenagers are so incredibly dangerous and why if you put a new stop sign into an area you cause chaos for several months. A self-driving car needs to do the same--the advantage…
Except that when people travel away from their local area and even rent a car they're not familiar with, they don't go randomly crashing into things. They probably have to pay more conscious attention than on a daily commute. But they don't go around crashing into things.
Collision Damage Waivers and the fact that they are relatively expensive suggests the opposite.
Accidents near an airport are more than 50% of auto accidents I have had totally in my life. All of the airport accidents I was literally not moving when someone drove into me.
We vastly overestimate the competence of the average driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just yesterday while driving to the gym, I witnessed the person behind me at a red light, violently gas it and swerve out into oncoming traffic lanes, drive past all the cars waiting for the light, and blow straight through the red light. He went on to blow another red light before turning off onto a side street. This kind of shit would never happen with a self driving car. The bar for self driving cars is incredibly…
Maybe your bar. A reasonable (minimal) bar is that they have to perform at the 50th percentile of drivers by safety. This guy sounds like the first percentile.