|
however taxis are bad and creeps. you fools (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
We have been visited by a Christmas ghost. Stay safe, Avshalom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Time posted:I have a boss who has every one of those slides he has ever seen saved in one PowerPoint. He emails an updated version around every 6 months and makes me add in post-mortem stats about how hard they failed. Is there any chance he will make that document free to the public at some point because I would kill to read it
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Speaking of dumb money, with interest rates at long last being raised, are we going to see a sudden drying up of funding sources as it percolates down the network? Some of it, sure. The group of investors happy with the new increased returns might tap out of VC. For the most part, startups are funded by people who are really ingrained in the tech world. It's either a lot of "true believers" or firms that don't do anything but invest in tech so they have no other avenues to pivot into. Giant institutional investors will pull out some of their cash but this is still a small cross-section of where the money is coming from. Also, a lot of the banks will continue to fund venture debt rounds because being a relationship bank gets you put at the front of the line when IPOs/advisory work is being handed out. This is where the real money from investment banking is made. Leading giant IPOs and mergers brings in a ton of fees, puts you at the top of the rankings, and builds bank prestige. This then brings in more deals, more money, and more prestige. Uber is going to be a knife fight to land. If you wondered why uber was able to get a leveraged loan at L+550 over the summer, this is why. A ton of investment banks are jockeying to lead their IPO and will do "favors" to uber by lending them cheap money. There is no actual quid pro quo here, but if you aren't a bank they know and deal with, like through a loan, they won't know you well enough to hire you. This makes banks undercut one another to a degree to build the relationship. hiddenmovement posted:Is there any chance he will make that document free to the public at some point because I would kill to read it This type of thing isn't super valuable as it's mostly a joke. We send around as a "can you believe what these fuckers tried to get over with???". That said, it falls under the umbrella of "hedge funds don't ever publish any info ever if they are smart". There is a long history of funds accidentally giving away info and losing their edge. Time fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Uber CEO is on Trump's economic transition team so terrible low paying, no benefits jobs for everyone! in the free market you'll be able to call a uber to drive you away from coastal areas being flooded by melting polar icecaps
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Typo posted:in the free market you'll be able to call a uber to drive you away from coastal areas being flooded by melting polar icecaps
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Uber admits to self-driving car 'problem' in bike lanes as safety concerns mountquote:The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has released a warning about Uber’s cars based on staff members’ first-hand experiences in the vehicles. When the car was in “self-driving” mode, the coalition’s executive director, who tested the car two days before the launch, observed it twice making an “unsafe right-hook-style turn through a bike lane”. Dec 16 Guardian article quote:Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber’s autonomous vehicle program, said the rules did not apply to the company’s fleet of vehicles because of its particular form of technology. So "not autonomous" seems to mean "We'll teach our drivers to grab the wheel when we know in advance it's going to do the wrong thing".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
The bike lane issue may be a case where it learned too well by observing human drivers. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The bike lane issue may be a case where it learned too well by observing human drivers. "System operating as speced."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
I assume that Dan Lyons Hubspot memoir is worth reading by thread consensus, any other on topic reading recs people might have? Can be light or heavy fare, I was just curious Also was it ever revealed what those Hubspot guys were doing in regards to trying to get his manuscript? Feels crazy that they're all happily employed right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I assume that Dan Lyons Hubspot memoir is worth reading by thread consensus, any other on topic reading recs people might have? Can be light or heavy fare, I was just curious I think Chaos Monkeys is similar, but about Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
I don't see what the point of a self-driving car which needs the driver to pay attention at all times just in case. I guess it might be handy for people with carpal tunnel syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Yeah if I have to be constantly poised to grab the wheel at any sign of trouble then I would rather just drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see what the point of a self-driving car which needs the driver to pay attention at all times just in case. I guess it might be handy for people with carpal tunnel syndrome. It's an interim step, but for boring highway driving and in stop-and-go it's nice to be able to sit back a bit and just watch. Same idea as cruise control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
From a practical standpoint (i.e. not a legal one), for me: If the car is ACTUALLY better at driving than a person, it's fine. If it's worse then it's not fine, because people aren't really going to watch the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
It also needs to be ACTUALLY better at driving in all circumstances, not just 99% of them, if the driver is not expected to maintain an active watch and be ready to take control. Modern autopilots are pretty drat good in airplanes, but pilots still have to recognize the situations in which their use would be inappropriate and the ways in which they (and the systems they depend on) can fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
E: nm, self-driving car derails are the worst
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:E: nm, self-driving car derails are the worst Why would a discussion of self-driving cars be off-topic in a thread about Silicon Valley, which is pouring billions into them right now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Why would a discussion of self-driving cars be off-topic in a thread about Silicon Valley, which is pouring billions into them right now? Fine! Do you believe that the test for a human getting a driver's license is "better than all other drivers at everything"? Should it be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Fine! Gawd I hope not, I suck at driving. Roll on self-driving cars!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Do you believe that the test for a human getting a driver's license is "better than all other drivers at everything"? Should it be? Autonomous machines have to be held to a much higher standard of safety than human pilots. For so many reasons that if it's not immediately obvious to you I have to wonder if you're arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see what the point of a self-driving car which needs the driver to pay attention at all times just in case. I guess it might be handy for people with carpal tunnel syndrome. Saves you $150 and filling out some paperwork!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It also needs to be ACTUALLY better at driving in all circumstances, not just 99% of them, if the driver is not expected to maintain an active watch and be ready to take control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:No, from a practical standpoint an improvement is an improvement and taking a larger good with some lesser bad is a defensible option, and not just for tech worshiping sperglords. But I agree that the self-driving-car derails have been fully explored, people clearly have various personal momentums on the topic, and not much good is going to come of it. Self driving cars have to be perfect and above reproach. The auto pilot comparison is bad because everyone in the plane knows that the autopilot just does absolute basic stuff and that there are two highly trained pilots sitting right behind it. Additionally, there are so many fewer flights each day than car trips that when the auto pilot does gently caress up, its a once every few years thing. There are thousands of car accidents every day and it will take exactly one "Van with mom and kids drives itself off of bridge" story on facebook for the project to be dead as gently caress. You are thinking about this situation like a robot computing data instead of like an emotional human being.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Alternatively, if a roll out of self driving cars leads to an order of magnitude less automobile accidents, expect it to pick up considerably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
cheese posted:Everyone is going to say "gently caress that" because they imagine themselves as above average drivers (remember that when surveyed, a majority of people believe they are above average) I have an above average number of eyes so I'm probably a better driver than average.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
cheese posted:You forget the human element. Can you imagine the advertisement? "Buy our new self driving car! Its probably at least a little better than the average driver out there!". Everyone is going to say "gently caress that" because they imagine themselves as above average drivers (remember that when surveyed, a majority of people believe they are above average) and every day they see what lovely "other" drivers do on the roads out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Alternatively, if a roll out of self driving cars leads to an order of magnitude less automobile accidents, expect it to pick up considerably. Yeah but we are, conservatively, 15-20 years away from the tech being there to make this true. And we also need a decade of road/infrastructure work done on top of the tech
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Alternatively, if a roll out of self driving cars leads to an order of magnitude less automobile accidents, expect it to pick up considerably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I have an above average number of eyes so I'm probably a better driver than average. I feel my above average number of feet help with my driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
cheese posted:I would imagine that if self driving cars are a big enough percentage of cars that they can impact the accident rate in a significant way In a single city or area? Should be pretty possible in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
The other issue is not just if it might fail, but how it might fail. If it fails safe in every case where it gets into an exceptional state, I think people would be willing to put up with that in exchange for the added safety of a vehicle that's perfectly safe 99.9% of the rest of the time. However, if it fails in such a way that it kills or injures someone in a situation where a human driver wouldn't have done, can you imagine the outcry? Honestly, incremental improvements to things like self-parking, adaptive cruise, collision avoidance, etc, seem way more possible and less problematic than shooting for a 100% autonomous vehicle at this point. I think full vehicle autonomy is an interesting research problem that will lead to a lot of these advances, but I think it's a fair distance off in terms of being a practical technology at the consumer level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The other issue is not just if it might fail, but how it might fail. If it fails safe in every case where it gets into an exceptional state, I think people would be willing to put up with that in exchange for the added safety of a vehicle that's perfectly safe 99.9% of the rest of the time. However, if it fails in such a way that it kills or injures someone in a situation where a human driver wouldn't have done, can you imagine the outcry? Which is why elevators were never invented and we still use stairs. I mean, come on, this is kind of absurd, self-driving cars are happening and nobody is going to stop it. PT6A posted:Honestly, incremental improvements to things like self-parking, adaptive cruise, collision avoidance, etc, seem way more possible and less problematic than shooting for a 100% autonomous vehicle at this point. Those things already exist? quote:I think full vehicle autonomy is an interesting research problem that will lead to a lot of these advances, but I think it's a fair distance off in terms of being a practical technology at the consumer level. If it successfully lowers liability for commercial trucking companies you can expect it 4-5 years later in the consumer sector.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Which is why elevators were never invented and we still use stairs. Yeah, it's definitely going to happen. But the path to it is going to be longer, rockier, and more litigious than investors in it anticipate. I'll go out on a limb and actually give a projection that is based on nothing more than intuition and having looked at hundreds of non-related market penetration cases: 25 years before we see a 20% market penetration for non-commercial vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
cheese posted:I would imagine that if self driving cars are a big enough percentage of cars that they can impact the accident rate in a significant way, then they have already become a massive success. That scenario is decades away. Like a third of accidents involve alcohol and another third involve people who are too tired to be driving and a bunch others probably involve other sorts of impaired people. The amount of accidents people have that are just 'hey don't point the car at a tree" is actually pretty low just anyway. If a car can manage to drive on highways and stay in the lines most accidents end right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Time posted:Yeah, it's definitely going to happen. But the path to it is going to be longer, rockier, and more litigious than investors in it anticipate. I'll go out on a limb and actually give a projection that is based on nothing more than intuition and having looked at hundreds of non-related market penetration cases: 25 years before we see a 20% market penetration for non-commercial vehicles. What makes you think it will take 25 years? Who is going to sue the manufacturers and make them stop? The reason it's going to happen and happen quickly is there is literally nobody who has an interest in self-driving cars not becoming a thing. Or at least nobody with the financial resources to slow down what's already happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
People fear not being in control. That's why people are phobic of flying and not of driving themselves to the airport, despite the similar risks. People will be afraid of self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People fear not being in control. That's why people are phobic of flying and not of driving themselves to the airport, despite the similar risks. People will be afraid of self-driving cars. And yet, the airline industry exists, is incredibly successful, and anyone who claims to have a "fear" of flying is beaten down quickly by the loads of statistics that show you it's more safe than driving. Nobody votes on whether we get self-driving cars or not. The fact that some people are scared isn't going to stop it, same as it didn't stop any other number of technological advancements that were incredibly game-changing. This isn't a social networking app, it's a technology that is solving one of the worst problems the developed world has today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Uber wants to put 'autonomous' cars on the road that actually require a driver. But since the driver is under the impression that the car is autonomous, they are certainly going to slack off at some point and let the car drive itself while they post on some awful forum on the internet. The car then careens into the bike line or crossing guard or whatever the anomaly du jour is and murders people. Uber then still refuses to pay the $150 for the license
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Uber wants to put 'autonomous' cars on the road that actually require a driver. But since the driver is under the impression that the car is autonomous, they are certainly going to slack off at some point and let the car drive itself while they post on some awful forum on the internet. The car then careens into the bike line or crossing guard or whatever the anomaly du jour is and murders people. Even Uber's incredibly mismanagement of the situation is going to do nothing to the efforts of companies like Volvo. Call me when a state outlaws the technology. The writing is on the wall already and everyone knows it's happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:54
|
|