|
Post by machineghost on May 21, 2016 1:23:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 21, 2016 1:29:50 GMT
That TEE looks real nutty to me. I estimate that just the basal and breaking down food expends 2269.036017961 calories a day from sitting on your bum all day with no physical activity. Yet, I've eaten significantly below that for decades. I'm still alive, so how is that possible?
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 21, 2016 14:27:00 GMT
That TEE looks real nutty to me. I estimate that just the basal and breaking down food expends 2269.036017961 calories a day from sitting on your bum all day with no physical activity. Yet, I've eaten significantly below that for decades. I'm still alive, so how is that possible? Are you alive or are you really alive?
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 21, 2016 14:30:20 GMT
Even though I might be called a horse and buggy protector by saying this but what is the point of creating a self driving car industry that would/could put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people worldwide out of work? For what gain?
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 21, 2016 15:55:15 GMT
The usual... lower costs, higher efficiency, higher corporate profits. We're not France. Consumers are king here, not workers. And it would free up these people to work on creativity and imagination outlets instead of menial labor grunt work. So probably they'll all be virtual reality designers or something like that. Just look at all the narcissistic, amateur dreck uploaded on Youtube... small taste of what is to come. Did you hear Facebook bought out the Oculus Rift? 3D VR headset. Oh joy. P.S. Mark Zuckerberg looks like a Reptilian.
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 21, 2016 16:35:38 GMT
A Reptilian yes. A Republican no.
|
|
|
Post by pugchief on May 22, 2016 18:02:45 GMT
Even though I might be called a horse and buggy protector by saying this but what is the point of creating a self driving car industry that would/could put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people worldwide out of work? For what gain? If they perfect the technology, it will lead to less collisions. You would also be able to work while driving, just like people do on commuter trains. In fact, you could probably drink and drive safely!
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 22, 2016 19:54:39 GMT
All very good reasons!However, I don't get into collisions, I don't drink, and I don't work. That's probably why I didn't see the importance.
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 22, 2016 21:26:34 GMT
Another good reason is self-driving cars is the stepping stone to private outer space exploration and mining! Bring it on. Motor vehicle deaths per year:
|
|
|
Post by sophie on May 24, 2016 12:36:34 GMT
I was going to say that self-driving cars are well justified if they (as expected) reduce traffic accidents. They will also prevent a lot of traffic jams, thus getting more usage out of existing roadways.
But MG's traffic fatality chart is very interesting. Something else is reducing traffic deaths. I can understand the drop caused by the 2008-2009 recession (fewer people driving to work, fewer business deliveries, noticeably less traffic on the roads) but what about since then?? Either the economy has completely failed to recover as advertised, or a lot of people are telecommuting or using public transportation, or some new safety feature is working spectacularly.
I can provide some support for option #1 using the Number of Empty Storefronts in my Neighborhood index. In the neighborhood I moved from, the index had increased sharply in 2009, and has improved only marginally since then. In the neighborhood I moved to, there is exactly one empty storefront and a large grocery that managed not to be evicted by a landlord wanting to quadruple the rent, due to a well organized and determined neighborhood protest.
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 24, 2016 13:36:25 GMT
These self driving cars may be mostly hype. How do we know that they'll really be safer? These studies will definitely be skewed. Our whole society is rife with corruption and lying at the top from global warming, to if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, to Benghazi was caused by a video, to the Iranian treaty is okay because their govt has moderated. I don't believe anything that is said by our officials and propagandists at this point.
I do know that this could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs around the world and that most of these people will not easily become space miners in MG's futuristic society. And I can envision hearing about massive traffic tie ups and worse when the cars' software suddenly goes haywire and needs a reboot.
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 24, 2016 20:44:32 GMT
Well, Google's self-driving cars have logged hundreds of thousands of hours on the road coast to coast over several years without a single accident until recently (and it was human error), so that is a higher standard of safety that a human can only dream of. Human's always overestimate their technical abilities, especially when it comes to driving. Currently, driving is a lot like socialism; it forces the safety burden onto the relatively small above average IQ and competent drivers who take on all of the stress and risk from all of the dangerous idiots. Personally, I think getting a driver's license or permit shouldn't be legal until 21 or 25, same as smoking or drinking in enlightened States. Bureaucrats are technically not in favor of self-driving cars because it threatens their power, so I'm confident that the scrutiny will be enormous by all parties, especially the end-consumer. In the end, we may not even need to own cars anymore with Lyft and Uber getting into the business. Cost to travel will decrease and you may just push a button on your smartphone and flag one on demand from a constantly ready pool. There's much more interesting things in life to spend brain energy on than dangerous cars, dangerous driving and the hassle of their upkeep and maintenance. Also, self-driving cars should make congestion pricing more practical if such is still needed beyond fleet pods: Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 24, 2016 21:00:40 GMT
I was going to say that self-driving cars are well justified if they (as expected) reduce traffic accidents. They will also prevent a lot of traffic jams, thus getting more usage out of existing roadways. But MG's traffic fatality chart is very interesting. Something else is reducing traffic deaths. I can understand the drop caused by the 2008-2009 recession (fewer people driving to work, fewer business deliveries, noticeably less traffic on the roads) but what about since then?? Either the economy has completely failed to recover as advertised, or a lot of people are telecommuting or using public transportation, or some new safety feature is working spectacularly. I can provide some support for option #1 using the Number of Empty Storefronts in my Neighborhood index. In the neighborhood I moved from, the index had increased sharply in 2009, and has improved only marginally since then. In the neighborhood I moved to, there is exactly one empty storefront and a large grocery that managed not to be evicted by a landlord wanting to quadruple the rent, due to a well organized and determined neighborhood protest. I believe the reduced traffic fatalities is due to wider adoption of anti-lock and anti-collision systems, etc.. So even those minor technologies is showing that AI will reduce fatalities. Public transportation use hasn't really changed much: As to the economy, there has been a noteable change: Also, this is interesting:
|
|
reub
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by reub on May 24, 2016 21:50:09 GMT
I still don't believe that these cars will be able to function in a busy urban area without dire consequences. There's just too much to process at one time I believe. Plus all of those hundreds of thousands of unemployed drivers!
|
|
|
Post by machineghost on May 25, 2016 1:52:16 GMT
|
|