Live data from Hacker News

Apple CarPlay

apple.com

371–376 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#371
post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

We already know how to make transportation exponentially safer; simply don't drive. It's the No. 1 thing you can do to lower your risk of near-term mortality.

I'm not joking around here either. I firmly believe we need safer cars, and self-driving cars would be a great step towards that, but the real issue here is how car-dependent our society is. If more trips could be done on foot or via public transportation, the U.S. would be a much safer place.

Our reliance on car driving makes other forms of transportation unsafe too. The risk of riding a bike is not that you'll fall or hit another bicyclist, but rather that a car will hit you (and probably not even be cited). The biggest risk to walking is that a car will hit you in a cross walk or on a sidewalk (will trying to avoid hitting another car), just because. And we're so cavalier about killing people with cars.

We don't need have to wait (or hope) for technology to save us. We can build better places to live today. Places that are safer and healthier. And that largely starts by making towns and cities more walkable.

When I walk and take the train to work, I can send texts, read news stories, listen to podcasts and check Twitter, all without endangering people's lives. And no futuristic technology is needed to accomplish this.

If society we're a game, I'd be putting my resources to building walking neighborhoods and better public transportation. Even if you have self driving cars, cars are still bad for your health from the lack of exercise and the pollution.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#372
post #297
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. Haha. 1) Driving automatic cars is so boring. 2) it makes your body unbalanced constantly since you use a single foot, therefore your back will ache over long periods of driving. 3) You cannot adjust your speed as fast with an automatic car, we are stuck with binary controls while manual cars provide all the flexibility you need in real, and criti…

All but one of the cars I've owned have had a manual transmission, and I bought a 2013 GTS with a stick (even though the PDK-equipped model is faster 0-60, and certainly more fuel efficient). But I reluctantly disagree with you. Almost all serious sports cars -- hardly "boring" -- now come with automatic transmissions: * All Ferraris are now automatic * All McLarens are now automatic * Porsche's top street car, the 9…

It should be noted that there's a difference between the old-tech viscous coupling approach and the cutting edge dual-clutch sequential transmission.

The old-tech viscous coupling was lossy and difficult to control. Even when you can manually tell the trans to shift (as on a 2009 Mazda5), there is a time delay in the shifting, then you wait for the hydraulic system to confer torque and finally drive the wheels/engine brake.

The modern DCT that high-end cars are using is a direct mechanical connection and uses robotic shifting to do so instantaneously. Shifting is faster than a human can shift an H-gate, and the PID controls on gear selection have better programming etc. due to both the high end nature of the cars and the better systems they're being integrated into.

There is a world of difference between what we colloquially term an "automatic" (slushbox torque converter) and the modern DCT.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#373
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All but one of the cars I've owned have had a manual transmission, and I bought a 2013 GTS with a stick (even though the PDK-equipped model is faster 0-60, and certainly more fuel efficient). But I reluctantly disagree with you. Almost all serious sports cars -- hardly "boring" -- now come with automatic transmissions: * All Ferraris are now automatic * All McLarens are now automatic * Porsche's top street car, the 9…

It should be noted that there's a difference between the old-tech viscous coupling approach and the cutting edge dual-clutch sequential transmission. The old-tech viscous coupling was lossy and difficult to control. Even when you can manually tell the trans to shift (as on a 2009 Mazda5), there is a time delay in the shifting, then you wait for the hydraulic system to confer torque and finally drive the wheels/engine…

Well said! And a good explanation. Though I'm not sure if the DCT can properly be termed "cutting edge" anymore; Porsche's PDK started appearing in 911s that went on sale six years ago (2009 model year, on sale in 2008).

Re: Apple CarPlay

#374
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand the Microsoft contract is cancelled, the new company stepping in has a real time OS, and they are testing once again to enable single CPU configurations.

Interesting, thanks. Pretty sure I know the two companies, my take would be one has a lot more riding on this and to take that with a grain of salt.

Actually re-spoke to my friend. The Apple and QNX actually use the same board (as QNX is core OS for appleIOS). Apple's been in development of this for over a year.

Which Ford shifting to a QNX platform (public knowledge), means we'll likely see this sooner then I predicted.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#375
post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

How is this the top comment? 'greedy old white men' should justify dead on its own, but it also completely misses the point.

Because it is the only comment.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Evolution is just a phenomenon, but its successful products, such as brains, have purposes. Eyes are there for seeing. They came about, in a sense, by coincidence, but they don't work by coincidence. There's no conceptual error in saying "a brain evolved to do X".

Products do not have purposes. Eyes can be for seeing, but can also be for eating or throwing at things. Atoms don't have tiny XML tags describing the purpose of an object they're part of. It's the user who attributes purpose to a tool. You can't say "brain evolved to do X", you can at best say "brain is well suited to do X".

You are trying to make it harder to communicate for no benefit. The distinction you're advocating is not useful, to anyone. But the idea "the purpose of eyes is seeing" is quite productive, and faultlessly grounded in reality.
Post reply on HN