571–580 of 672 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems silly to write such a comment. Place your vote, collapse the thread and move on. Btw the comment was a result of the article in the OP, not pre written.
Or you could stop spamming HN with irrelevant comments. I’m not the only one hurt by you doing that, the entire site gets worse. Do you think the mods should just collapse toxic comments instead of flagging/killing them and warning the user?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the killer feature I expect to see in the future when we have FSD is that cities will take direct control of traffic in a central way. If cars can be distributed evenly over all roads with each driver getting an average distance/time-to-arrival the overall speed would significant increase, with car owners loosing the control to pick the shortest route in order to be allowed to use the roads in the city. Centra…
> with car owners loosing the control to pick the shortest route in order to be allowed to use the roads in the city Positively dystopian to me.
In concept it is no different from getting into a bus or taxi. You specify your destination and choose when to drive, but the passenger do not decide the exact route. A FSD is in concept no different from having your own personal taxi chauffeur.
City engineers often uses one way roads to spread traffic out on multiple roads. By preventing people from using the shortest route they can force traffic to spread out and thus reduce congestion. An other common trick is to prevent left or right turns, so that the shortest route become artificially longer and thus force some part of the traffic to use alternative routes which is less congested. When there is some really nasty recurring congestion there is also other more extreme tools that get deployed to really discourage drivers from all choosing the same road, like excessive road tolls or speed bumps. Cities has a long history of using hostile design to shape traffic in order to address congestion.
Naturally giving cities more direct control to shape traffic is something that will create new problems, among the biggest being privacy. The car has also very long been the symbol of freedom, so reduced congestion will likely take a while if people choose to do that trade. It is a steep price but the rewards are less congestion and replacing hostile design (which often also cost money to construct) with software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Specially because we don't drive with eyes only, we use at least our ears too for hearing unusual noises and the balance sense for detecting vibrations, changes on road surface, and to get feedback about orientation changes.
No idea what resolution those cameras are, can they be as good as our auto-adapting eyes together with our brains? They are pretty neat features after all, trained right. And will we loose our abilities if we don't keep working on them, building our feature set?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less parking, sure. But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. The problem isn't the number of cars in existence, but rather how many cars are actually driving around at any given point. This number will surely go up with self driving, or at best stay the same.
> But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. I think self-driving cars could (and probably will) net worsen the traffic problem, but the above is not necessarily correct. If we ever get them working properly, self-driving cars can collaborate in ways that humans can't. E.g., imagine a busy freeway. In theory, cars going similar ways could form a sort of peoloton, communicating with one another about int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is a fairly common sentiment, it’s a bit wild to me that SpaceX uses touch screens to control almost everything in their Dragon capsule.
It's a different environment. Astronauts are passengers, not drivers, and they rarely need to make sudden actions while multi-tasking the way car drivers do. If they made all-glass cockpits for fighter jets I would agree with you, but they don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should go back Patterson’s book. The benefits of Moore’s law ended and then what happened? I think what you are trying to suggest flies in the face of all conventional wisdom of computer hardware.
Moore's law ended? Because Nvidias CEO said so to have an excuse for their dud of a generation? ASM, TSMC, Intel, Apple and AMD are saying it's still going strong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that every vehicle participating in that network would have to be owned and operated by a trusted entity. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to modify the software or tamper with the hardware in ways that cause information to be misreported and cause a mess.
And then the person who owns that car gets charged with murder when it crashes on the highway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Humans drive with our eyes and we’re pretty bad at driving. We should want systems with redundancy and using multiple modalities so that a car crash isn’t an accident, it’s a choice.
> we’re pretty bad at driving Are we? I know it is a fashionable thing to say, but I am personally fascinated by the relatively low number of accidents given how omnipresent cars are. For germany it's ~5 dead / 100000 motorized vehicles, and ~4 dead / 100000 inhabitants. [1] More anecdotal: Growing up I lived near a pretty busy street and never personally witnessed an accident there. Makes me think that we are actual…
My high school English teacher father used to ironically remark about how students who failed his class repeatedly (often for all four years) somehow always managed to pass the drivers license test. Funny that.
Your calculation also neglects the cost of auto accidents in terms of wasted life. There will be an accident on I-5 between San Diego and Los Angeles every single day--generally multiple. When that happens, an enormous number of people wind up sitting in their cars for an extended period of time. That accident may not have actively killed someone, but it caused many thousands of people to waste an hour+ of their life. If a thousand people waste an hour every day, that's one "dead" year of human life every 9 days. And that multiplies across the entire city and then across every city. The cost of automotive fender benders and the time they waste exceeds the "death toll" of driving by quite a lot.
Humans suck at driving. It's a boring, repetitive task with sudden moments of sheer terror. As long as everything goes "normally", it's okay. When something unusual happens when driving, most outcomes are random. The lack of deaths and injuries due to driving is more due to automotive, traffic and safety engineering than it is due to active crisis decision making by human drivers.
Should have happened sooner. I love my Model Y. It's the most fun car I've ever owned. It's also the most comfortable on long road trips and I can sleep in it in climate-controlled comfort without generating a gas that could kill me. I leave the house every morning with a full tank and never have to stop at a gas station. And my cost per mile is 1/4 what it was with an ICE car. I just wish Tesla would focus on this s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding more taxis increases traffic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/uber-and-... https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/cities-tra... https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congest...
Adding more human-driven taxis has increased traffic. I don't think that necessarily means adding more self-driven taxis would increase traffic. Perhaps, but I don't think it's a given.