I’m honestly more scared of that. Professional CDL drivers are WAY better at driving than other people. But their trucks are way more dangerous and harder to handle. So putting driverless tech in that is going to be harder and more dangerous.
I was clearly only talking about cars, not pedestrians. Driverless cars have already shown they are pretty good at avoiding pedestrians and cyclists and scooters and dogs. Even in the case of the pedestrian hit by the Cruise car, that pedestrian was hit by another car first and then thrown into the path of the Cruise. The one case of a dog hit by a car was a dog running out from behind parked cars with no time for a human to stop, let alone the Waymo… and dogs don’t usually wave and signal to drivers on the road.
As far as retrofitted cars, this is about improving the current system not requiring 100% compliance. Do you ban people from driving on the roads if they don’t wave at you on a one-car wide road? No. So you don’t have to ban cars that don’t have this tech. But when more and more cars DO have the tech, then you get improvements over time.
I was asking in good faith because the way you talk is not easily comprehensible. I can barely follow whatever argument you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that we shouldn’t allow them on the road until we have fully decided who is at fault in an accident?
Also, only one death has occurred so far involving driverless cars, which is where a speeding SUV rammed into a stopped driverless car and then the SUV continued on and hit 5 other cars where it killed someone. That’s it. The only death involved a driverless car sitting still, not moving, not doing anything… and it wasn’t even the car that hit the car in which the person died. So I would say it is hypothetical when talking about hypothetical deaths that are the fault of a driverless car.
So the fact that after 50 million miles of driving there have been no pedestrian or cyclist deaths means they are unbelievably unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists? As far as I can tell, the only accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists AT ALL after 50 million miles is when a Waymo struck a plastic crate that careened into another lane where a scooter ran into it. And yet in your mind they are unbelievably unsafe?
Just fine the one time I rode in one. It had a problem with a moving truck blocking the entire street, where it sat trying to wait to see if the moving truck was just stopped and going to move or if it was parked for good. The Waymo executed a 3 point turn and then had two construction trucks pull into the street the other direction, and they refused to back up. So the Waymo was stuck between not going forward and not going back… it just pulled forward toward the trucks and then reversed toward the moving truck. Back and forth. Then I yelled out the window for the fucking trucks to move out of the fucking road, which they couldn’t drive down anyway. After that it was smooth, even getting into the parking lot.
My buddy said at his office the Waymos have an issue with pulling too far forward at the pick up spots, which makes it impossible for cars to go around them, but humans do dumb shit like that, too.
“Waymo reports the statistical data it has, which happens to be pretty good.”
So let me make sure I understand your argument. Because nobody can be held liable for one hypothetical death of a child when an accident happens with a self driving car, we should ban them so that hundreds of real children can be killed instead. Is that what you are saying?
As far as I know of, Waymo has only been involved in one fatality. The Waymo was sitting still at a red light in traffic when a speeding SUV (according to reports going at extreme rate of speed) rammed it from behind into other cars. The SUV then continued into traffic where it struck more cars, eventually killing someone. That’s the only fatal accident Waymo has been involved in after 50 million miles of driving. But instead of making it safer for children, you would prefer more kids die just so you have someone to blame?
They’re not saying general road safety is 20x better. They’re comparing an automated car ONLY on surface streets with lights, intersections, pedestrians, dogs, left turns, etc… to a professional truck driver mostly on highway miles.
That’s when vehicle to vehicle communication will come into play. When we can automate the driving and link the cars’ comm systems together, it becomes a network management problem.
It’s a satellite based nav system. This would be a new development that is presumably ground based.
GPS and Galileo satellites are in MEO, not GEO. GEO is a very specific altitude to keep a satellite directly over the same spot on Earth at all times (synced to the spin of Earth). MEO, on the other hand, is a wide range of altitudes roughly half the altitude of GEO. GPS sits right around 9800 nautical miles, which is 11200 miles. That’s still really far away, so your point stays the same. Galileo is in a similar orbit, I think around 200 miles lower but I can’t remember. GLONASS is there, too. Beidou from China has birds in both MEO and GEO. QZSS from Japan uses one GEO bird and three birds in a highly inclined orbit at GEO altitude.
Your two points are good. I think a third point would be that this is a different RF spectrum, while GPS and Galileo are on roughly the same RF spectrum. Jamming GPS and Galileo at the same time isn’t difficult. Jamming a very different RF spectrum at the same time is much harder.
I freaking loved my Bolt. I was planning to get another before I started construction and needed a truck. Then I was planning to get a Bolt after this truck since I wouldn’t need it anymore, but they killed it.
Simmer down. I never said you said anything about children. I was giving a related law that could be invoked in the case of people with Downs syndrome. You said grown adults doing grown adult things in a conversation about AI generated images of people with Downs syndrome. I was saying there are existing laws SIMILAR to what you are talking about but involving children. Many grown adults with Downs are not able to legally give consent and don’t have the capacity to understand what is being done in certain situations, which is the same reasoning for laws around sexual images of children.
I mentioned all of that in my reply to you. Why you chose to overlook all that and focus only on one sentence is beyond my understanding.
It’s not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.
In the US and Australia, it actually is illegal to create art of children in sexual situations. I’m sure other countries have similar laws. Some people with Downs are able to provide consent, but not all of them. So it is a murky area whether creating art around people who are unable to provide consent (as opposed to creating art about people who did not consent) is in the same boat as children.
The issue is it takes too much effort to play vs normal gaming unless you are able to dedicate a room to it. For people in areas where housing costs are low enough that you can afford a big house, or for people who are single and don’t have other people in the house to cater to, this might be fine. But for most people, a good VR session involves moving shit out of the way, strapping on a helmet, putting wrist straps on and figuring out whether you want to do that blind after putting the helmet on or trying to put the helmet on with things in your hands, then playing in a specific area so you don’t kick your coffee table (and hope your dog doesn’t walk in front of you while you are walking).
Contrast that to picking up a controller while sitting down.
If the awesome games were there to make the extra effort worth it, then fine. But there just aren’t the great games yet. I have a VR system and haven’t put it on in months because I just don’t care enough. It has become a novelty.
Unfortunately, the infrastructure for the standard use case you talk about isn’t pervasive enough. Most apartments don’t have chargers at all, let alone one per apartment. You can drive by a Tesla or DC fast charge station at almost any time of day in a big city and see a line of cars waiting to use the small number of chargers. People are taking naps in their car in a bank parking lot while charging. Kudos to them for embracing the inconvenience of not charging at home to help the environment, but I never would have bought my 2 EVs if I didn’t have charging at home.
Yeah, this doesn’t make sense to me. Starlink needs a dish that has to be outside without trees covering it, so it isn’t like they can place new routers around the building that receive Starlink and have wifi capability. They will still have to run a cable from the dish(es?) to new wireless routers. How is that ANY different from just running new wireless routers from their existing fiber?
I think that only applies to RF antennas, as opposed to animals’ antennae???
Based on my image search engineering, the answer to your question is 2.
Based on my one semester of air breathing propulsion that I took 25 years ago, I’m guessing there is more going on inside the turbine part of the engine that both allows sustainable fuels that current turbofans can’t and also allows compression ratios at lower fan speeds that allows an open fan with fewer blades. Again, I barely passed air breathing propulsion back then and haven’t used ANY of that knowledge since, so I’m mostly talking out of my ass.