341–350 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure those incidents actually happened? The first was debunked: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/viral-video-reckless-... Driverless cars seem statistically safer than human drivers already.
Robots are held to a higher standard than us dumb humans
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re fine when it’s not packed rush hour and you’re sweating your ass off (Tube), or getting shaken down by grifters (Metro) anyway. Which can be much of the time, but isn’t always for sure. NYC subway is also nice when the buskers aren’t blaring music at 140db right next to you and daring anyone to confront them. Still usually better than driving, depending on where you’re going. Sometimes even faster? Women and…
>Women and children Dunno about the Tube but women and children routinely take the Paris Metro. >grifters This just means you look like a tourist.
Most women I knew in those cities preferred riding with friends or a boyfriend, some even took taxis to avoid the metros at night if they couldn’t. But that was also a crapshoot, because some taxi drivers are even worse and then you definitely won’t have anyone else around.
Most moved out of the cities entirely when they got kids for ‘safety issues’, among other things. Like the logistical nightmare that is navigating the systems with kids and all their stuff. A few stayed and got cars.
Very few systems the public seems to consider generally safe enough to send kids unattended - Zurich, Tokyo, Singapore are the only ones that occur to me.
Tokyo has a serious subway groping issue though, fwiw.
Grifters - truly, such a comforting thing to say that ensures everyone will feel the apparent warm fuzzies you seem to have?
Notably, they left me alone after some eye contact, but seemed to have no issue harassing female parisians indefinitely while the cops ignored them. None of the women seemed surprised. None of them seemed happy about it either. I didn’t see any unsolicited touching though, so that’s good!
C’est la vie?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was his point; it doesn't, and instead implies that the writer is hypocritical ("I'm going to swear, but I won't actually swear").
It does, just not on the internet. There's no stakes here (the internet) for it to matter if you swear or not. Your attitude on the internet won't result in any meaningful feedback, by default. Someone has to be watching from a more strict environment for it to matter what you say on the internet. It needs to affect your job, or your wife needs to read your posts, or a moderator needs to clamp down on you. The commun…
Now, about the number of asterisks: I really didn't think that much about this, I kind of think I counted the right number of letters, but then there is no caret overwrite mode in the bleeping browser, which is yet another story...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents We can’t get great transportation even in the New York City area. We have 0 miles of high-speed rail, while China built 25,000 it’s great that you want to start building some mass transit, but it’ll take a century if we start now. Let’s start by having trains take you to the…
There are over 30 US cities with trains to the airport. Another half dozen on the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airport_rail_link_syst... US also has almost 350 miles of high speed rail, not 0. The Northeast is where it’s all concentrated with Acela being the fastest. If you live in a major city in the States it’s often way easier and faster to take rail. In Seattle for instance you can beat a driver to…
Sea-Tac is 22 minutes from my house by car, during the worst traffic it is usually around 35 mins (I don't have to drive through downtown), and 1 hour 18 minutes by bus and lightrail. I live about 4 miles as the crow flies from the SODO light rail station.
> Mass transit is the solution.
This is only a solution for a large, dense urban environment, and really only a partial solution at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then imagine cars halve in size and drive bumper to bumper and twice the speed. And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Beyond this, how will there ever be 100% adoption to support that dream? There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road. It's really hard to see how that 2x2x2 dream could ever happen.
> And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Or imagine the first time a self-driving car encounters a road-obstacle it flags it so that it can be repaired and all other cars avoid it automatically. > There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road Very true. People also own horses and burn candles, but these are not our primary means for transportation or lighting.
Doesn't help if you already have a multi-car pile up collision. OP said bumper to bumper at high speeds. Anything goes wrong and physics take over.
> Very true. People also own horses and burn candles, but these are not our primary means for transportation or lighting.
Horses very much still appear on roadways today. The idea that 100% of cars will be AI in the next 50 years I don't think is based in reality. Let's say we somehow get to a point where all cars have a switch to go from AI to not; so for example when on a highway where AI would shine, drivers could switch. What happens when a driver does not switch on the AI system? This is all to say the idea of that bumper-to-bumper driving at 100 mph with very small cars is snake-oil.
> but these are not our primary means for transportation or lighting
Not our primary means, but still a means and used. Again, this goes to the point, if you want that massive efficiency of AI cars, you need 100% adoption, not a single car in a convoy can be human operated. Alternatively, if the AI cars are smart enough to realize that another vehicle is human operated - do the AI cars slow down the entire convoy and then create adequate following distance? At that point, is that _any_ different from driving today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then imagine cars halve in size and drive bumper to bumper and twice the speed. And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Beyond this, how will there ever be 100% adoption to support that dream? There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road. It's really hard to see how that 2x2x2 dream could ever happen.
> And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Or imagine the first time a self-driving car encounters a road-obstacle it flags it so that it can be repaired and all other cars avoid it automatically. > There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road Very true. People also own horses and burn candles, but these are not our primary means for transportation or lighting.
> Or imagine the first time a self-driving car encounters a road-obstacle it flags
Perhaps the most common road obstacle is falling rocks. They shift around, there are many of them. They are 'repaired' by the bulldozer coming out and moving them all to the side, there is no guarantee that a human won't come out when it is quiet and move the obstacle. So, what is the use to even flag them?
How does an AI car know the difference between a small pothole and a larger one, and one that is even larger that needs to be avoided right now?
Back to the convoy example, let's say a tire blows; the whole convoy then crashes. It's just too easy to picture so many scenarios where a convoy of bumper-to-bumper cars turns into one part junkyard, one part graveyard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then imagine cars halve in size and drive bumper to bumper and twice the speed. And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Beyond this, how will there ever be 100% adoption to support that dream? There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road. It's really hard to see how that 2x2x2 dream could ever happen.
We will get to a point where it becomes unethical to let humans drive cars (outside hobbyist places). A Sam Harris says, "the ape behind the wheel" just causes issues.
I'm reminded of the promises from those 1950s propaganda videos for building more highways. That reality turned into the gridlock of LA freeways. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnrqUHF5bH8 - "1950s INTERSTATE HIGHWAY PROMO FILM BY AMERICAN ROAD BUILDINGS ASSOCIATION 78014 MD"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents We can’t get great transportation even in the New York City area. We have 0 miles of high-speed rail, while China built 25,000 it’s great that you want to start building some mass transit, but it’ll take a century if we start now. Let’s start by having trains take you to the…
> “What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” > 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents If reducing traffic death would be a priority, we could reduce the speed limit (would also help with resource consumption and climate change). We could also have smart phones go into sleep when in motion. That's a trivial technical problem. A much bigger challenge would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dismantled and densified Contradiction error. Does not parse.
Did you think people wanted to bulldoze suburbs and not replace them with anything? What did you think was meant by dismantle? I always assumed it meant dismantling the rules that prevent the very natural market-driven densification process. Suburbs as they exist in the US do not exist because they are the best X for any X that exists; but because of top-down central planning. Remove those rules, and the apartments a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Women and children Dunno about the Tube but women and children routinely take the Paris Metro. >grifters This just means you look like a tourist.
They take it, but are they comfortable doing so? Or just have no better alternatives? Most women I knew in those cities preferred riding with friends or a boyfriend, some even took taxis to avoid the metros at night if they couldn’t. But that was also a crapshoot, because some taxi drivers are even worse and then you definitely won’t have anyone else around. Most moved out of the cities entirely when they got kids fo…