Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 293 posts

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#191

Post by mym1990 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #156
throwawayboise wrote: post #131

FTA but not the main point of this thread: we’re now able to bring Live View to some of the trickiest-to-navigate places indoors: airports, transit stations and malls. Seems to me that these are the easiest places to navigate indoors, because of the plentiful signage. Malls probably the hardest of the three, but still pretty easy IMO. I've never had any issue finding a gate or baggage claim at an airport, since there…

Underground transit stations can be a huge pain in the ass to find the right exit for, when you want to come out going a particular direction, because you have no sense of cardinal directions while underground.

For this reason I've more or less given up on finding the right exit in big subway station, I just find the fastest way to ground level and go from there!

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#192

Post by uoaei »

dataflow wrote: post #58
prewett wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of why I figured Google Maps for navigation. I don't use Maps to express my environmental values, I use it to get from A to B the fastest way. If they default to something else, they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product. I have no interest in activist software.

Do you believe humans are causing climate change? If so, how do you envision it should be addressed that doesn't involve us changing our habits?

Not pinning the onus on individuals, but instead addressing the leverage points such as the corporate emissions regulations and enforcement mechanisms that exist today.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#193

Post by uoaei »

datavirtue wrote: post #72
oh_sigh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quoted paragraph clearly states that the lower-emissions route will only be given by default when there are multiple routes with a similar ETA. So it will never tell you to take a route that takes longer just to reduce your emissions, without also telling you about the shorter route with higher emissions. Since you have seemingly already abandoned google maps due to their activism before reading this story, what…

How is the fastest route not the least carbon footprint?

Idling downhill costs less gas but may lead you in the wrong direction for a short while, vs going over a hilly route where you must accelerate uphill more often.

As a simple, unimaginative example. I'm sure you can think of others if you put in the time.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#194

Post by renewiltord »

arsome wrote: post #120
lovemenot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I don't use Maps to express my environmental values Actually, you do. Your environmental values happen to be efficiency (Km/hour) trumps efficiency (Km/gram of CO2). You wish the software to continue to express only your environmental values. It is an activist stance nonetheless.

What percentage of the limited time in your life is worth what level of impact on climate change? Do something much more likely to be useful: implement a reasonable, even revenue-neutral carbon tax and stop with this non-sense.

Google doesn't implement taxes, so these aren't substitutes.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#196

Post by ehershey »

aaron695 wrote: post #153

> Google Maps will soon default to the route with the lowest carbon footprint This is not the title of the blog. And that matters because this doesn't make sense. The fastest route should be the lowest carbon footprint, which it should currently default too. "road incline and traffic congestion" I find it unlikely road incline makes 'any' significant percentage difference. I'd want to see the mathematics on this. Add…

The whole thing reads like PR BS to me. Touting AI as a cure-all to make up for getting bashed about it lately.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#197

Post by lovemenot »

eru wrote: post #185
lovemenot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot respond to throwawayboise directly because of thread limitations. On its face, this argument is clearly wrong. "Absolutely nothing", is not equivalent to extremely little. Especially when, as in the case of Google Maps, there is a large multiplier. Elections are a different beast. Assuming first-past-the-post system where impact is only at the margin (50.0001%). Whereas direct action on CO2 production is inc…

> On its face, this argument is clearly wrong. "Absolutely nothing", is not equivalent to extremely little. Especially when, as in the case of Google Maps, there is a large multiplier. It makes sense to look at these things normalised per-capita. So for Google, making a small change has a big impact per-Googler, but it's still a small change per-capita. Making a small per-capita change is still a small change overall…

Though we might agree on the first premise below, there is an error in subsequent logical consequences:

"small changes alone are not enough" -> "only big changes can work" -> "small change X ought not to be undertaken"

To me parts of this looks like the fallacy of the excluded middle. To claim that X has some merit is not to claim that X on its own has sufficient merit. I apologise if you are not making such an argument, but throwawayboise and arsome certainly seem to have been. And such arguments are far from uncommon.

I do see your point about scale and multipliers but I believe efforts like these are important not only for their admittedly small yet not negligible impact, but also to help establish a foundation for the next steps that should be taken.

In the eighties, the cost-effectiveness of wind-power was way off the charts. However, you'd quantify it. Per turbine, per $, per power consumer. Turbines were just small and inefficient with few deployments. Now, many incremental improvements later, the same technology is in the right ballpark. It's a good thing those pioneers like Vestas didn't just give up when the absolute impact seemed far too small.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#198

Post by uoaei »

ehershey wrote: post #196
aaron695 wrote: post #153

> Google Maps will soon default to the route with the lowest carbon footprint This is not the title of the blog. And that matters because this doesn't make sense. The fastest route should be the lowest carbon footprint, which it should currently default too. "road incline and traffic congestion" I find it unlikely road incline makes 'any' significant percentage difference. I'd want to see the mathematics on this. Add…

The whole thing reads like PR BS to me. Touting AI as a cure-all to make up for getting bashed about it lately.

What about this is AI? This is all perfectly doable with "classical" algorithms.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#199

Post by uoaei »

SXX wrote: post #51
scarmig wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancelling Google Reader is a sure sign that Google is out to exploit people by encouraging them to take lower-carbon routes.

Imagine Google cancelling you. Like by permanently banning your every account for no reason without chance to appeal. Or better cancelling your whole company by banning Ads, Google Play or GCP account. Everything is gone in one second, poof and no one can help you unless you somehow get to HN or reddit frontpage.

Imagine having this much anxiety about accessing the tools provided by a private organization.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#200

Post by uoaei »

sudosysgen wrote: post #95
uoaei wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent, innovative, bravo! Unfortunately the vast majority of e-bikes are not DIY'd and so require new batteries for operation.

Indeed. Though, there are suppliers that will sell you thousands and thousands and batteries recycled from former low-stress applications at fair prices, so it would probably be feasible to set up commercially?

If you ever set up a business around this, let me know! I am woefully ignorant of these suppliers you reference.
Post reply on HN