731–740 of 923 posts
I were a VW engineer, why would I continue working in the autonomous driving division, if my CEO says the team would never succeed in the end game ?
I'd rather work in a company where the leadership is actually leading instead putting on the brakes.
Wow. A CEO without a vision. A CEO should be pushing for boundaries. I were a VW engineer, why would I continue working in the autonomous driving division, if my CEO says the team would never succeed in the end game ? I'd rather work in a company where the leadership is actually leading instead putting on the brakes.
I'd prefer an executive to be level-headed than spouting dreams that will never come true and expecting engineers to just make it happen.
If anything I respect him as a leader more than "visionary" executives.
Wow. A CEO without a vision. A CEO should be pushing for boundaries. I were a VW engineer, why would I continue working in the autonomous driving division, if my CEO says the team would never succeed in the end game ? I'd rather work in a company where the leadership is actually leading instead putting on the brakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smaller trains with bimodal traction. Because steel on steel is terrible at spontaneous braking, hence the significantly bigger gaps between consecutive trains compared to the gap between consecutive cars or trucks. And because steel on steel is terrible at the long tail of events that would cause contingency diversion, be it maintenance, disasters or organizational confusion. And because it would neatly solve the la…
> hence the significantly bigger gaps between consecutive trains compared to the gap between consecutive cars or trucks A lot of this is because railway signalling operates on a brick-wall principal: it is constantly assumed the vehicle in front could come to a dead halt instantaneously, whereas most road situations assume if you can match the braking performance of the vehicle in front with some margin. The railway…
Drivers feel safe to attempt brake matching (they fail often enough) because road code assumes that you never go fast enough to make stopping distance exceed visual range. Even if that rule is routinely broken the brake-match distance stays comfortably within visual range (stoplight waves travel upstream). In rail, everything happening within visual range is basically too late to even bother and this is entirely a consequence of braking performance.
1. First, it begs the question. By saying "X admits Y" we are assuming that Y is true. This is very different than writing "X says Y", or "X believes Y" etc etc
2. Then, they carefully chose Y to include the word "may" so that they can claim it is true regardless of its content. As long as the rest of Y isn't literally a tautology, you're good to go. "A teacup may be orbiting Jupiter" etc etc
3. But step 2 is sneaky. The way that the word "may" makes the overall statement true is different than how it functions in the quoted speaker's sentence. In his sentence, he means like "there is a good chance it will never happen." When they use "may" to make Y true, it is invoked in a much weaker sense.
Basically they are reusing the word "may" in two different sentences to achieve a misleading headline. They obviously have skin in the game and I don't expect this to be a fair article.
Wow. A CEO without a vision. A CEO should be pushing for boundaries. I were a VW engineer, why would I continue working in the autonomous driving division, if my CEO says the team would never succeed in the end game ? I'd rather work in a company where the leadership is actually leading instead putting on the brakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. It would be ideal to have a limited view of…
Self-driving vehicles should be implemented with the same care Apple has given Touch ID and Face ID in regards to protecting sensitive data. Having a central database capable of being scraped and process to determine where any person is at any given time is a non-starter. Care needs to be taken to scrub all extraneous data from the fleet's network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't even bloody keep the yellow markings on the road visible, and "paint" is a technology we've had for thousands of years. Where in dog's name is the money for installing and maintaining all that smart infrastructure going to come from?
I am more fearful of trolls, tricking the technology. I doubt, that the software / hardware will have a common sense, like we humans have. Its this common sense that keeps us alive in unexpected scenarios, like when the paint on the road is missing.