|
Hughlander posted:That's why google has been testing on Kirkland streets for the past year... Testing doesn't mean that the problem has been solved. Why do tech bros feel like this is such a trivial exercise?
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:we should just redesign all cities to be walking friendly, move everyone out of the suburbs and rural areas and abolish the personal vehicle because its probably the worst thing in the history of earth Cities should be buses, bikes, and pedestrians only. Suburbs can have park-and-rides. Everyone else can live in condos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Semi-autonomous cars will be the next step. You drive it from your home onto an interstate, it can follow the interstate and handle traffic there, then alert you when your exit is coming up. Then you can at least play Candy Crush instead of focusing on the road 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
If I don't have to sit there paying attention and inching forward, I will care about 90% less about being stuck in traffic on the freeway, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:The shortage is because they don't compensate enough for the difficulty of the job. Truck driving is a pretty poo poo life in many ways. The pay fluctuates a lot for the independent longhaul guys too. Turn over for companies guys is like 300%. Industry wants this particular tech kit bad. They also want drayage automated. That one is harder for all the reasons those on the pessimistic side lay out against automation in general. But I think it's a conceptual mistake to conflate the drayage portion of the trip with the highway portion. They are separate problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
The self-driving car discussion seems to be missing the entire issue of the fact that fossil fuels aren't going to get any cheaper or easier. Sure, there are several types of technology that can lessen usage, but that is still a problem. The time frame that seems to be realistic for self-driving cars, which people agree seems to be 10-20 years until they are widely adopted, seems to assume that gas will be as cheap as it is now. Of course, along with self-driving cars, we could also have non-fossil fuel cars, but the assumption seems to be that we can invent two technologies that will solve these problems in the time it takes to build commuter rail. And I think the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Truck driving is a pretty poo poo life in many ways. The pay fluctuates a lot for the independent longhaul guys too. Turn over for companies guys is like 300%. Industry wants this particular tech kit bad. They also want drayage automated. That one is harder for all the reasons those on the pessimistic side lay out against automation in general. But I think it's a conceptual mistake to conflate the drayage portion of the trip with the highway portion. They are separate problems. Wouldn't a better solution for the long haul portion be rails? A handful of guys can crew a train that handles a hundred trucks worth of freight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, they actually won't, because the skill set is exactly the same: make sure this machine doesn't barrel out of control and kill people on the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Testing doesn't mean that the problem has been solved. No but it does mean it does somewhat work and they're working on proving it. Why do people always assume that things that haven't been done before are impossible? Various companies have clear plans from A to Z and are working through them solving challenges as they go. Armchair warriors declare it doesn't work and is decades away. Also not even sure how this derail came up. I don't think anyone is saying autonomous personally owned vehicles are a mass transit solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Did everyone here miss the part where I said it doesn't work in the rain? Our Tesla is mostly ok in the rain. It's definitely actively improving with every update. We did about 200mi of driving yesterday, mostly with autopilot on wet roads. (It did really try hard to cross an orange line and go off a cliff where i405/i5 carpool lates split out south of seattle) silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Wouldn't a better solution for the long haul portion be rails? A handful of guys can crew a train that handles a hundred trucks worth of freight. Trucks have the advantage of being door to door. Intermodal rail becomes cheaper at distances of 300-500 miles. But some businesses strongly prefer door to door. Intermodal requires transloading. The regulations also differ between modes which can cause issues for things like haz. Intermodal has and will continue to grow, but rail capacity tend to expand slower than it should. It's also can take a bit longer. It's also more complicated. Which is to say yes, it's a better solution. But it's not the only solution. And some shippers strongly prefer single mode trucking . And for particular segments of the trucking industry it (intermodal) is not a solution at all. How it plays out will matter up here too, because of the ocean container terminals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:where i405/i5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:will find a way to not pay those truckers if all they're doing is just sitting around in the cab. Gate delays in particular already gently caress over drayage drivers for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:And if there ever comes a time when there are self-driving trucks, but they need to have a human occupant just in case, you can guarantee that the shipping company will find a way to not pay those truckers if all they're doing is just sitting around in the cab. They're not just doing that though, they're providing a backup service. Like in reality you're not going to be able to just read a paper while the car drives itself, you'll still have to make sure it doesn't overlook a compact and flatten it. The likelihood of this goes up 100x in bad weather.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Also not even sure how this derail came up. I don't think anyone is saying autonomous personally owned vehicles are a mass transit solution. Getting trucks off the road is though. And since rail came up, an inland rail terminal where containers could be in gated to the ocean terminals is something that would make a difference to the traffic here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
GA and SC do that (in land terminals)really well, and it should shame WA that the deep south does anything government related better than WA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Every time I see this I think someone is referring to CA. No, that would be THE 405/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:we should just redesign all cities to be walking friendly, move everyone out of the suburbs and rural areas and abolish the personal vehicle because its probably the worst thing in the history of earth If this also means mandatory franchises in every city, sure. I'm not walking the 20 miles to and from buca di penis. Solkanar512 posted:Did everyone here miss the part where I said it doesn't work in the rain? I'm not going to trudge through the various threads where automated car chat keeps popping up, but there is at least one study showing an automated test vehicle doing better in bad weather than actual drivers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Cities should be buses, bikes, and pedestrians only. Suburbs can have park-and-rides. Everyone else can live in condos. Freakazoid_ posted:I'm not going to trudge through the various threads where automated car chat keeps popping up, but there is at least one study showing an automated test vehicle doing better in bad weather than actual drivers. Bell_ fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:No but it does mean it does somewhat work and they're working on proving it. Why do people always assume that things that haven't been done before are impossible? Various companies have clear plans from A to Z and are working through them solving challenges as they go. Armchair warriors declare it doesn't work and is decades away. Also not even sure how this derail came up. I don't think anyone is saying autonomous personally owned vehicles are a mass transit solution. Yeah, but how can he rage against automated cars if nobody is making the argument he wants to argue against? computer parts posted:They're not just doing that though, they're providing a backup service. Does it go up 100x? I feel like you're just making up numbers... Bell_ posted:Not really an achievement to compare the sophistication of automated driving to the best drivers in King County that can be pulled out of a five-car pileup. Seems pretty significant to me, if automated cars perform better than the worst drivers that means less dead people... but hey, if it's not perfect why even try?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:No but it does mean it does somewhat work and they're working on proving it. Why do people always assume that things that haven't been done before are impossible? Various companies have clear plans from A to Z and are working through them solving challenges as they go. Armchair warriors declare it doesn't work and is decades away. Also not even sure how this derail came up. I don't think anyone is saying autonomous personally owned vehicles are a mass transit solution. Where the gently caress did I say or imply impossibility? Once again tech bros like yourself can't admit that these are difficult problems that don't have easy solutions and they're being created by firms with absolutely no experience in this. I'm sure their code is improving, but Tesla/Google doesn't have the same background in things like human behaviour under stress or emergency redundancies that other manufacturers have. Thus, they have a much higher bar to reach before I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt with only internal research. Given that I work for a large manufacturing firm focused on transportation, I think "armchair warrior" is really a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
In other news, Austin Jenkins seems to be moderating the debate here. The soda is cold, but the seats are way too low. I'm stuck sitting near the Vance campaign, but everything seems chill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I think there is an argument to be made self-driving cars will be common place in 20-30 years, but saying literally every car will always be self-driving or that this will make traffic effectively disappear is completely a different matter. If anything Seattle would need both driving cars AND a well developed rail system to deal with the increased traffic of the next 20-30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
It's really shocking to me to see a substantive debate in person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
It honestly probably is that much if you're relying on software that has to read the paint on the ground to stay in its lane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It honestly probably is that much if you're relying on software that has to read the paint on the ground to stay in its lane. I doubt that everything would run client-side once automated cars are actually a viable thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:I doubt that everything would run client-side once automated cars are actually a viable thing. Great, so we have to worry about having as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:Why would it take 4 years? When ST2 failed in 2007 it was revised and put back on the ballot in 2008. The idea that we have to hurry up and pass something right now even if it's not particularly good doesn't sit well with me. ST3 should be broken into smaller, separate pieces and include a sunset for when the taxes will expire. They figure that transit is far more likely to pass during election years. They will very likely wait until 2020 for the next shot at getting an initiative passed. And what makes this "not particularly good" other than looking slow*? It's not perfect, but it draws a pretty clear and good line forward. (*remember, the timeframe on the ballot is just the slow minimum, what they can guarantee with the funds they can guarantee. More federal and state money is likely to speed things up, and being allowed to issue more bonds would speed things up. ST2 finished ahead of schedule and so will this. This isn't like Bertha where they can promise an optimistic timeframe and then gradually fall away from it.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It honestly probably is that much if you're relying on software that has to read the paint on the ground to stay in its lane. There are systems out there that aren't relying solely on paint, just because the only commercial publically available version uses one method doesn't mean all future vehicles, or even in the case of tesla their own fleet, will use one method exclusively. Tesla for instance is adding more sensors to all new generations of their vehicles, presumably as a response to the issues they've faced with the existing system. Anyway, everyone should vote yes on ST3, regardless of whether you believe autonomous vehicles will work in the long run. The fact is that we need more methods of transport for large volumes of people, as the city and surrounding areas grow it will just get worse and there isn't a single solution that will solve it all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Great, so we have to worry about having as well. If I were pressed to hypothesize, the most efficient model for transportation automation would be a hybrid model with local government ground and air traffic controllers with cars acting a little more autonomously on highways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
So I voted yes on 732, the carbon tax initiative. I know the Progressive Voters Guide didn't like it, but The Stranger does. Not too enthusiastic about it, I do think it might be problematic for low income people, but at the same time it might help internalize the externality of carbon pollution. That's my least enthusiastic initiative vote this year. I'm more excited about the King County Charter amendment to remove gendered language. The other stuff is all more exciting, and more likely to usher in 1000 years of liberal darkness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:this has always been one of my pet peeves - that there is already a law on the books that any vehicle which is visible shatting out great gobs of badly-mixed fuel or burning oil etc, can and should be pulled over and cited. I've literally never seen it happen, even when some idiot in a diesel pickup guns it off a stop light and leaves the police cruiser in a cloud of cancer.. Let alone the delivery trucks and big rigs It's funny how the police were all over lowriders and street racers if their vehicles didn't follow the letter of the law. I wonder what the difference could be... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
tumblr hype man posted:So I voted yes on 732, the carbon tax initiative. I know the Progressive Voters Guide didn't like it, but The Stranger does. Not too enthusiastic about it, I do think it might be problematic for low income people, but at the same time it might help internalize the externality of carbon pollution. That's my least enthusiastic initiative vote this year. I'm more excited about the King County Charter amendment to remove gendered language. The other stuff is all more exciting, and more likely to usher in 1000 years of liberal darkness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm going to vote yes on that as well. I'm getting sick and tired of folks on the left getting in the way of progressive policies that actually have a chance of succeeding simply because they think they have a better idea that they couldn't do anything with. If it goes down, it shows that the left doesn't actually give a poo poo about climate change. EDIT: RuanGacho posted:If I were pressed to hypothesize, the most efficient model for transportation automation would be a hybrid model with local government ground and air traffic controllers with cars acting a little more autonomously on highways. Perhaps, and I do agree that we'll see more automation for freeway travel. Internet connectivity and control of cars reminds me of all the tech bros that come crawling out of the woodwork when a commercial airliner crashes. You always hear the same things - we need computers to prevent pilots from going below X altitude, we need to be able to override the pilots via internet connection and so on. Let no one seems to notice how terrible computer security is, and how there's a huge difference between a desktop computer being hacked and a vehicle carrying people being hacked. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
I don't even want to know how bad cyber attacks will be in the next interstate war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Initiative 1 in Olympia is pretty neat. Hadn't even heard about it until I looked at my ballot and was like what is this? Woah its cool! Overall a decent collection of initiatives to vote on this time around. Still haven't been able to find any WA state polling, which is kind of sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm going to vote yes on that as well. I'm getting sick and tired of folks on the left getting in the way of progressive policies that actually have a chance of succeeding simply because they think they have a better idea that they couldn't do anything with. If it goes down, it shows that the left doesn't actually give a poo poo about climate change. Yeah frankly, waiting for Goldilocks legislation is the definition of perfect becoming the enemy of good. And we live in one of the bluest states, it's not like it's just going to sit there and rot. Voted yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Imagine if rolling coal was a thing urban black people did instead of a symbol of white rural resistance and culture. Imagine how brutal the crackdown would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
$0.22/gal increase according to the calculator which is pretty good. i'd have to use 1600 gallons of gas a year between my wife an I to spend more than the sales tax offset affords us (we don't fly often).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Perhaps, and I do agree that we'll see more automation for freeway travel. Internet connectivity and control of cars reminds me of all the tech bros that come crawling out of the woodwork when a commercial airliner crashes. You always hear the same things - we need computers to prevent pilots from going below X altitude, we need to be able to override the pilots via internet connection and so on. Let no one seems to notice how terrible computer security is, and how there's a huge difference between a desktop computer being hacked and a vehicle carrying people being hacked. What is your obsession with calling people "tech bros", as though knowing about computers makes you an idiot? Can you explain how a desktop and a vehicle are different? Have you ever worked with embedded computers or signed software? Do you know what kind of attack vectors are available for connected systems like these? Did you hear about the jeep hack and imagine some guy sitting at his computer driving a car into oncoming traffic? It's a gross misunderstanding of what is actually happening and what the impact is. You have no idea what kind of security goes into systems like these, comparing a desktop and an autonomous car system are apples and oranges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Someone's going to throw on their hacking rig and goggles and virtually fly through some sort of 3d maze to find the backdoor into my car, the next thing you know my lighter is zapping me with electricity and and doors and windows lock and heat gets set to 500 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:50
|
|