61–70 of 376 posts
If your vehicle is heading relentlessly toward a group of schoolchildren it would be nice to have a way to override it. Either that or no windows so you won't be haunted by it every night of your life.
Reading between the lines here this just makes me think that the regulator has become captured by the industry. This is like removing human control on an autonomous Russian roulette revolver that shoots to the side if it detects a person in front of the barrel, then praying for the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is already a Russian roulette right? If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers as advertised the barrel would just have more capacity.
Define 'safer'. If you have not paid your taxes, get in to your car, and it drives you to the local court-house or police station, this is a new risk, no?
If we think we have class antagonism and rural vs. urban antagonism now, wait until self-driving trucks decimate trucking as an industry. It's one of the largest well-paying employers of "blue collar" people. We are still a ways off but it's definitely coming. We have to do something about inequality or we will have totalitarianism. It will either be in the form of a totalitarian fascist or communist revolution, or a…
One of my favorite youtubers did an hour long video on the trucker convoy from California to DC and it was a peak into another world. The thing I thought about after watching it was wondering what it looks like when that group has mass unemployment in 10 years. Truck driving employs 1% of the US population and if those jobs are lost to automation, there's no chance of them coming back like they did throughout other r…
The right does a good job guiding the anger of the working class toward issues that have nothing to do with inequality like COVID, race, immigrants, trans people, etc. Meanwhile the left offers up a totally out of touch message that doesn't resonate at all, or offers them welfare without understanding that these people consider welfare to be something to be ashamed about. They want productive work.
You know... we have a housing crisis in this country. A lot of these people could find work building adequate housing for the US population, but that would threaten high real estate valuations...
We also have a lot of infrastructure that needs building, but we may have to wait for the generation that was brainwashed to believe that infrastructure (except more roads) is communism to retire.
There are plenty of jobs but we won't create them. We'd better get on it.
This is akin to removing the requirement for unicorns to wear horseshoes on the public road.
As far as the safety, these things can be indemnified and that will pave the way. Don't see any problem insurers can price accidents and injuries from autonomous cars. Also certainly plausible they will be able to be made safer than human driven.
Look, I'm generally on the bull-ish side of autonomous driving, but this is almost akin to the feds passing laws on science fiction. Section 180.99 part alpha: "Minimum size of a Ringworld is mercury orbit around a red dwarf" I guess we can always drive with a USB-plugin gamepad if there's a glitch or a central system outage? This would actually represent progress if they eliminated the requirement for side mirrors,…
This seems way too high to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient says side mirrors contribute 2-7% drag.
Still worth removing them of course, I'm just correcting you to prevent people from picking up wrong numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible and pursued and unicorns not?
>Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible Only if there is a mathematical proof that eventually it will happen, someone might proof the reverse that current type of tech will never be good enough for general purpose driving and will work only in some specific conditions.
Absent souls, human drivers are existence proof that minds made of matter can drive cars.
That doesn’t stop being true even if the current preferred architecture is all wrong, as we can and do change those with ease.
This is akin to removing the requirement for unicorns to wear horseshoes on the public road.
No. Unicorns can't, won't ever exist. The idea of the existence of self-driving cars is definitely on the cards. This is en route.
Reading between the lines here this just makes me think that the regulator has become captured by the industry. This is like removing human control on an autonomous Russian roulette revolver that shoots to the side if it detects a person in front of the barrel, then praying for the best.
Driving is already a Russian roulette right? If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers as advertised the barrel would just have more capacity.
What if the autonomous vehicle is on a curve next to a cliff and loses power? Maybe ejection seats requirement should be an added clause.
Why doesn't Bond get cool cars anymore?