|
Nessus posted:What is the mechanism to ensure that these hypothetical autonomous cars are not constantly filled with vomit, poo poo, piss, cum, etc? I mean on a bus there's at least the bus driver and it takes a break at a depot periodically. A way station that inspects cars between clients, combined with penalties (assuming these cars would know the id of the user). People behave much better when they can be banned from a service and are not anonymous.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
gradually rehabilitating and redevolping urban areas to be more amenable to alternate forms of transportation would do just as much to reduce traffic deaths as a swarm of drone cars, and it's a solution that people are actively building right now not as futuristic though as slapping a 2050 solution on a 1950 problem e: i guarantee that this obvious solution is so politically unpopular though that at least a dozen goons are restraining themselves from making angry posts about how it's unrealistic to ban suburbs everywhere forever boner confessor fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
wut about rural areas did you think of that Boot and Rally posted:If this was the case buses would be flush with money and not mobile hobo toilets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
I would certainly feel a great deal more confident about the " innovations" coming from our Silicon Valley overlords if the majority of the things being worked on were more than just me-too copy cat apps trying to get bought out before the VC money runs out. The thing is, this sector doesn't give a poo poo about shipping products that work on a consistent enough basis to be safe for widespread use. I work in aerospace - when the products my company makes happen to crash, it's on the front page of every newspaper in the world. I still remember Amazon wanting the FAA to exclude their drones from the experimental rules process because "they would be changing and modifying parts too often for certification". Having new parts from a manufacturer that is untested is the sort of thing that drives FAA inspections. Oh, but they had a former astronaut on the team so that made it all better. For them, it's all Scott shoving the latest thing out into the public, and we'll fix the bugs later. Maybe. Until these companies actually take safety seriously, they're in for a world of hurt and outside regulation. Oh, and no insurance company is going to come within miles of this poo poo for a very, very long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
hilariously enough, thinking like "ban suburbs and put everyone into cities" is how you get quality housing experiences such as this http://sfist.com/2015/09/04/soma_developer_proposes_two-bedroom.php
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Cities don't usually pay for that infrastructure. Cities don't pay for city streets, water, sewage, fire and police? Ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Cities don't pay for city streets, water, sewage, fire and police? They don't pay for suburban roads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They don't pay for suburban roads. Suburbs would be cities if we weren't subsidizing sprawl. They are still usually incorporated towns. But if you're being pedantic, cities still have to pay for all the road and parking infrastructure for all the suburban commuters who drive there for work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Suburbs would be cities if we weren't subsidizing sprawl. They are still usually incorporated towns. You're being pedantic. If you wanted an out you should've said "oh well there's not a literal cost but a cost on society" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're being pedantic. If you wanted an out you should've said "oh well there's not a literal cost but a cost on society" or something like that. I don't want an out. There are literal costs for diffuse infrastructure. the urban form created by subsidizing excess car use requires diffuse infrastructure. Cities and towns bear this cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:I don't want an out. There are literal costs for diffuse infrastructure. the urban form created by subsidizing excess car use requires diffuse infrastructure. Cities and towns bear this cost. Now it's "Cities and towns", of which the latter is just code for "suburbs".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Now it's "Cities and towns", of which the latter is just code for "suburbs". There are suburbs with 10 of thousands of people. These are absolutely cities. The bay area/ silicon valley is basically one giant suburb. The LA area is a giant suburb. San Diego is a giant suburb. There is no distinction between cities and suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:hilariously enough, thinking like "ban suburbs and put everyone into cities" is how you get quality housing experiences such as this I think that comes from the restrictions on development ( in SF ). If any building could be built anywhere you wouldn't get poo poo like this. I am assuming the building is still safe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:hilariously enough, thinking like "ban suburbs and put everyone into cities" is how you get quality housing experiences such as this Can you point to me which part of the Bay Area banned suburbs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:wut about rural areas B-b-but I might see a poor person on the bus!  I can't sit next to those people!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:hilariously enough, thinking like "ban suburbs and put everyone into cities" is how you get quality housing experiences such as this if anything, the bay area is trying to ban urban development by their continued refusal to rezone low density residential and permit denser development. in this case the developer is trying to collect incentives to go above a 5 story high rise residential cap which is absurdly low for a housing development in the middle of america's most expensive city. this image argues more or less the opposite of what you claim it does also this image is dumb, why not just make the other study a second bedroom? it's the same size as bedroom 1
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if anything, the bay area is trying to ban urban development by their continued refusal to rezone low density residential and permit denser development. in this case the developer is trying to collect incentives to go above a 5 story high rise residential cap which is absurdly low for a housing development in the middle of america's most expensive city. this image argues more or less the opposite of what you claim it does equal bedroom sizes would be communism, this way one renter can dominate the other
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if anything, the bay area is trying to ban urban development by their continued refusal to rezone low density residential and permit denser development. in this case the developer is trying to collect incentives to go above a 5 story high rise residential cap which is absurdly low for a housing development in the middle of america's most expensive city. this image argues more or less the opposite of what you claim it does
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
g0del posted:Bedrooms need to have an emergency exit (usually a window). The study doesn't have one. And the city's trying to encourage some larger apartments so that families can live there, as opposed to a bunch of single tech workers who will have to move out of the city as soon as they get married and have a child. single tech workers need places to live too, and i dunno how many families are going to move into a 600 sq/ft 2 bedroom in the middle of a downtown industrial/nightclub district. the plan is inflexible, preferences the wealthy, and creates goofy results, which is just a microcosm of why san francisco ends up being more expensive than manhattan
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if anything, the bay area is trying to ban urban development by their continued refusal to rezone low density residential and permit denser development. in this case the developer is trying to collect incentives to go above a 5 story high rise residential cap which is absurdly low for a housing development in the middle of america's most expensive city. this image argues more or less the opposite of what you claim it does Watching Mountain View prevent Google (Maybe Facebook?) from building massive apartments so that employees could walk to work rather than drive from SF is really the epitome of this sort of bullshit. NIMBYs are the real problem here, and they're doing the same thing in Seattle as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is the mechanism to ensure that these hypothetical autonomous cars are not constantly filled with vomit, poo poo, piss, cum, etc? I mean on a bus there's at least the bus driver and it takes a break at a depot periodically. uncurable mlady posted:hilariously enough, thinking like "ban suburbs and put everyone into cities" is how you get quality housing experiences such as this
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:"we'll just fix it by equipping everyone with a sensor" is possibly the dumbest solution i have ever loving heard and i work for a startup Except that sensors on traffic signaling devices make a whole load of sense? Cars that communicate with signaling devices is literally a thing that's being developed now, for human driven cars. No one is talking about equipping everyone with a sensor or whatever, the issue was specifically the ability of traffic cops to signal automated traffic. It's a perfect application because there's no need for automated cars to specifically recognize hand signals outside of that one weird edge case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:The thing about governments in general is that sometimes they can be slow to get their rear end moving but you absolutely do not want to be in their way when they do. Yeah, well, I'm waiting. 1099 abuse has been happening for decades, something tells me this won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes the entire temp industry obsolete. And no, there won't be any reform if we get a GOP president who will simply instruct the DOL to change their rules or defund them entirely, falling back to the (much, much looser) statutory definition of a contractor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, well, I'm waiting. 1099 abuse has been happening for decades, something tells me this won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes the entire temp industry obsolete. No one said it would be??? However, it is going to break Uber's back, and once that happens, all the "Uber but for ________" companies are going to have a much harder time attracting investment, because the risk of a comparable lawsuit against them will become a whole lot harder to dismiss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
I'd place a $100 bet in escrow right now that there won't be meaningful 1099 reform in the next 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'd place a $100 bet in escrow right now that there won't be meaningful 1099 reform in the next 10 years. kind of a worthless bet don't you think? 1099 reform is not happening or even being talked about, merely enforcement of existing laws
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'd place a $100 bet in escrow right now that there won't be meaningful 1099 reform in the next 10 years. What reform? It's already illegal. It's just the "get sued in court and have to pay back wages after a few years of court proceedings" kind of illegal, just like wage theft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Setting Uber aside, what some goons had to say about the automated car makes me wonder if perhaps there's an undercurrent of neo-luddism involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Setting Uber aside, what some goons had to say about the automated car makes me wonder if perhaps there's an undercurrent of neo-luddism involved. being realistic about technology and how tech firms tell stories to convince rich people to give them money is not neo luddism http://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What reform? It's already illegal. It's just the "get sued in court and have to pay back wages after a few years of court proceedings" kind of illegal, just like wage theft. What's the point of making it illegal if the people most likely to be abused are the least likely to have the ability to afford enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Setting Uber aside, what some goons had to say about the automated car makes me wonder if perhaps there's an undercurrent of neo-luddism involved. i work with computers for a living cause i'm a neo-luddite, how did you know?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Setting Uber aside, what some goons had to say about the automated car makes me wonder if perhaps there's an undercurrent of neo-luddism involved. The strongest critics are typically from computer-science backgrounds and work directly in the industry. Go fish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Setting Uber aside, what some goons had to say about the automated car makes me wonder if perhaps there's an undercurrent of neo-luddism involved. When you are running Office, and it crashes once a year, no one cares. When you program a self-driving car, you can't ever have the program crash. And the the more complex the program gets(to account for all the stuff you encounter with the average drive) the more crash prone it becomes. The more complicated and the more people work on an application, the more likely it is to fail. I would love driverless cars. But to get to where they are possible in the real world takes a leap in technology that doesn't exist for the foreseeable future. Now, if we are able to invent a true AI, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Except that sensors on traffic signaling devices make a whole load of sense? Cars that communicate with signaling devices is literally a thing that's being developed now, for human driven cars. No one is talking about equipping everyone with a sensor or whatever, the issue was specifically the ability of traffic cops to signal automated traffic. It's a perfect application because there's no need for automated cars to specifically recognize hand signals outside of that one weird edge case. child runs into road, terrified father runs after waving at arms to stop traffic edge case
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the point of making it illegal if the people most likely to be abused are the least likely to have the ability to afford enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:The strongest critics are typically from computer-science backgrounds and work directly in the industry. Go fish. The economic implications of certain advanced technologies, such as automated cars, are very drastic. There are some 3.6 million transportation jobs in the US that could be phased out by this technology with no obvious job creation aspect, especially for the low-income workers it will displace. People in the tech industry tend to lean libertarian. For some of them, it has probably crossed their minds that some of the technologies they are creating will not really be job positive. Being pessimistic about new technologies could be seen as a convenient excuse to delay the inevitable crisis of conscience between the ideal of the self made man and the machines they are replacing them with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:There are some 3.6 million transportation jobs in the US that could be phased out by this technology with no obvious job creation aspect, especially for the low-income workers it will displace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is pretty much always true though, isn't it? I mean, as farming employment numbers went from "almost everybody" to "almost nobody" due to technological progress, there wasn't a direct link from, say, improvements in mechanized tractors to new jobs. The answer to "where did those people go for jobs" was just "everywhere else", as more efficient farming meant lower prices meant more consumer spending for other parts of the economy. The drudgery of the farm was supplanted with the drudgery of paperwork or assembly lines in the city. But more and more 'repetitive' tasks can be automated. Eventually the only low-skill jobs will be sex-work. In a communist utopia everyone would be a philosopher/engineer/scientist/artist. In capitalist utopia money gets you anything you desire. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is pretty much always true though, isn't it? I mean, as farming employment numbers went from "almost everybody" to "almost nobody" due to technological progress, there wasn't a direct link from, say, improvements in mechanized tractors to new jobs. The answer to "where did those people go for jobs" was just "everywhere else", as more efficient farming meant lower prices meant more consumer spending for other parts of the economy. There's this study about technology and employment that describes what's been happening and what's likely to happen. Before the 90's, technology broke down skilled labor so that low skilled workers could jump up into a middle class. After the 90's, technological gains have been hollowing out the middle class. Within the next 20 years, the lower class will be next. Without a massive change to social safety nets, a lot of people are going to be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:People in the tech industry tend to lean libertarian. For some of them, it has probably crossed their minds that some of the technologies they are creating will not really be job positive. c'mon, since when have libertarians ever had any qualms about dicking over others? if their inventions cause some low-skill workers to lose their jobs, the libertarian answer is for the low-skill workers to get skills or get bent i mean seriously. would you like to paint us naysayers as anything else? how about fascists or know-nothings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 02:15
|
|