|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:The only thing that will make things different this time from the time Luddites smashed frames is that there won't be anywhere else for labor to go besides jail and street riots
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Who will be allowed to fix 'self driving' cars? On a similar note, weren't there a few stories a few months ago about a Tesla customer that cracked his ECU? I seem to recall that he reflashed it with a custom piece of software only to find that Tesla has overwritten it remotely by the next evening. It's a tough question though - I can see why wouldn't want someone treating the ECU like an unlocked Android* phone and downloading the latest (possibly even infected!) rom off of the internet. Yet much of that development came from the fact that manufacturers refused to push out important security updates, crippled hardware due to incompetence or maybe they simply go out of business. I don't have any good answers here, but I'd love to hear some thoughts. *AMA owning a Samsung Vibrant. Nice phone, but crippled to hell and back due to lovely programming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:56
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Plenty of land for mass graves. If the state breaks out brutal suppression before the workers can organize in a recognizable movement and the media stays in their pocket we're all hosed and headed straight for dystopia. I think it's more likely that there will be just enough suppression to keep resisting labor from having enough power to unseat capitalists without the messy PR backlash of stunts like the Bonus Army until the other shoe drops and capitalism runs out of consumption to fuel it, at which point chaos reigns and its anyone's guess what happens next.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Amazon wanting all sorts of exemptions from the FAA experimental flight rules was an absolute loving joke. To be fair, holding drones to the same regulations as manned aircraft is an absolute loving joke. Obviously there can't not be any regulations - any drone large enough to carry much of anything could do quite a bit of damage in a crash. It's just that for this sort of thing, FAA regulations are quite a bit more restrictive than what the potential risk would justify. Simply prohibiting flying beyond the pilot's line of sight would, in and of itself, make it effectively impossible to implement cost-effective drone delivery services. Ignatius M. Meen posted:All it takes is the state taking the side of capital for the displaced workforce to get broken in turn. The only thing that will make things different this time from the time Luddites smashed frames is that there won't be anywhere else for labor to go besides jail and street riots, and I don't think that will stop anyone unless labor proves amazingly successful at resisting incarceration and being framed as lazy malcontents. There's also the fact that there could potentially be too many of them to easily deal with via force of law. And if there are that many, the inadequacies in the job market just might be obvious enough to make it slightly harder to paint those people as lazy entitled good-for-nothings. rscott posted:Is there even a unified 3rd party test to certify driver aids and autopilots? Until such legislation and legal framework is in place it's really irresponsible to just throw poo poo out there, especially with the advertising complete with 8 point font disclaimer about the effacy or performance. Last I heard, the feds were discussing the idea of drawing up standards for testing and certifying self-driving systems. It's probably going to take them a while to come up with anything, given that they're in utterly uncharted territory. Guavanaut posted:Who will be allowed to fix 'self driving' cars? Even in the absence of IP bullshit, getting trained and equipped to handle new technology can be a pretty big challenge for many independent mechanics. Diagnosing and repairing problems with self-driving systems would probably involve procedures completely alien to the average mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:To be fair, holding drones to the same regulations as manned aircraft is an absolute loving joke. Obviously there can't not be any regulations - any drone large enough to carry much of anything could do quite a bit of damage in a crash. It's just that for this sort of thing, FAA regulations are quite a bit more restrictive than what the potential risk would justify. Simply prohibiting flying beyond the pilot's line of sight would, in and of itself, make it effectively impossible to implement cost-effective drone delivery services. That's fair. I was mostly irritated that they clearly didn't understand the system they wanted to jump into. For insurance, they bragged about having a former astronaut on their team as one of the reasons for an exemption. Not anything about what that experience meant, just something like "we even have an astronaut on our team!!" Another reason given was that they would be changing and testing new parts so often they didn't have the time to go through any of the FAA inspections or record keeping or whatever. For those who aren't familiar, the amount of inspecting the FAA does is (very simply) based on the experience of the manufacturer and the newness of the parts. It was like reading a court motion from pro se lawyer - it's clear they had a lot to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Even in the absence of IP bullshit, getting trained and equipped to handle new technology can be a pretty big challenge for many independent mechanics. Diagnosing and repairing problems with self-driving systems would probably involve procedures completely alien to the average mechanic. One option would be a simple division of ownership, a bit like the Network Terminating Equipment in telephony, where everything one side belongs to you and everything the other side belongs to the telephone company. That makes intuitive sense for phones/internet, as 'your stuff' is inside the house and 'their stuff' is outside, with a connecting box between, but it's a bit conceptually weird to be driving around with a huge part of the vehicle outside your ownership. It's also a problem if: Solkanar512 posted:manufacturers refused to push out important security updates, crippled hardware due to incompetence or maybe they simply go out of business. Another option is that it just means a move away from personal automobile ownership, you lease it from Google or whoever for a number of years and it never belongs to you, so you never have a right to repair in the first place and it never needs basic maintenance by you because it goes back to them before then. Even outside of IP law and right to repair I'm not sure how that will play with the whole car culture thing, where it's all about owning and caring for your vehicle. From an environmental perspective tackling that culture might be a good thing, but I can't see it playing well outside of metro areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah, clearly the extreme cases, that every mechanic needs an advanced comp. sci. degree or that you have to go to an approved Googlecenter to get an oil change are ridiculous, but it's where between the two it will fall. Car parts are kinda like this already. There are lots of parts you can swap out at will but doing alterations on will make the part not certified and the car not inspectable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That's fair. I was mostly irritated that they clearly didn't understand the system they wanted to jump into. For insurance, they bragged about having a former astronaut on their team as one of the reasons for an exemption. Not anything about what that experience meant, just something like "we even have an astronaut on our team!!" Another reason given was that they would be changing and testing new parts so often they didn't have the time to go through any of the FAA inspections or record keeping or whatever. Oh cool they want to skip first article processes because they're iterating designs so quickly? That really gives me a lot of faith in their QA process in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I saw the funniest thing today. You know those sign spinners? People on the street corner rocking, spinning, and tossing adverts for some store or business? I saw a machine that mimicked that motion. They literally automated the job of standing on a corner and waving a sign...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I saw the funniest thing today. You know those sign spinners? People on the street corner rocking, spinning, and tossing adverts for some store or business? I saw a machine that mimicked that motion. They literally automated the job of standing on a corner and waving a sign... Which is funny because the whole reason those spinners exist is because towns have ordinances against sandwich boards but they can't stop you from putting a person on a corner. So those robots are illegal. Arrest em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
rscott posted:Oh cool they want to skip first article processes because they're iterating designs so quickly? That really gives me a lot of faith in their QA process in general. Well... yeah. Given the novel nature of delivery drones, the process of developing the first commercially viable one would inevitably involve a great many design iterations. All that inspection and record keeping and crap is there because in a manned aircraft, a minor malfunction can easily kill someone. With drones, a crashing drone won't endanger anything but itself so long as simple precautions are taken - there's nowhere near enough risk to human life to justify having the FAA scrutinizing every little design change. When Amazon wants to start flying those things in a populated area, then we can talk about first article processes. For what it's worth, people have claimed that even in manned aircraft, FAA regulations are making it too expensive to do much in the way of innovation - it wasn't until a few years ago that light airplanes stopped using leaded gasoline. Cockmaster fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
The marginal risk factor has to be weighed against the equally marginal utility provided delivering packages with drones
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
rscott posted:The marginal risk factor has to be weighed against the equally marginal utility provided delivering packages with drones Not to mention the time it would take someone to test/inspect a drone part would be quite small.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
You would think a company with access to giant fuckoff warehouses would realize that there is an easy solution to rapid iterative testing of small drones that doesn't require them to lock horns with the FAA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You would think a company with access to giant fuckoff warehouses would realize that there is an easy solution to rapid iterative testing of small drones that doesn't require them to lock horns with the FAA. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Speaking of "right to repair" and related things. is there a danger of automation making people unable to perform even basic tasks. Before you start I don't mean in a "Lazy kids these days!" fashion, I mean in the sense mentioned earlier of companies prohibiting people from taking apart/modifying things they own. In the car example with all these proprietary tools and DMCA closed off CPUs it's not that people will be too lazy to learn how to repair cars, It's that companies will make it so they can't even if they want to. If everything gets automated but no one is allowed to look inside the box to see how things work without getting sued into oblivion (unless your part of some corporate approved mechanic caste) you get to the point where its hard to know how things get done on more than the most theoretical level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
No, that won't happen. I'll explain why it's an unfounded fear right after I get done replacing the CPU in my Macbook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Automakers have already made some noises about preventing individuals from doing certain repairs themselves, and specialized diagnostic equipment can already price independent shops out of some work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Cost of maintenance is kind of one of the biggest things people weigh when choosing a car, so unless they all form a cartel and decide to DRM-lock their new models simultaneously, that probably won't go well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Speaking of "right to repair" and related things. is there a danger of automation making people unable to perform even basic tasks. Before you start I don't mean in a "Lazy kids these days!" fashion, I mean in the sense mentioned earlier of companies prohibiting people from taking apart/modifying things they own. In the car example with all these proprietary tools and DMCA closed off CPUs it's not that people will be too lazy to learn how to repair cars, It's that companies will make it so they can't even if they want to. If everything gets automated but no one is allowed to look inside the box to see how things work without getting sued into oblivion (unless your part of some corporate approved mechanic caste) you get to the point where its hard to know how things get done on more than the most theoretical level. That is how europe was for like a thousand years with trade guilds and their secret knowledge. So automation doesn't really factor into the ability of that happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That is how europe was for like a thousand years with trade guilds and their secret knowledge. So automation doesn't really factor into the ability of that happening. This doesn't make logical sense - there can be more than one path to being locked out of the ability to repair goods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Cost of maintenance is kind of one of the biggest things people weigh when choosing a car, so unless they all form a cartel and decide to DRM-lock their new models simultaneously, that probably won't go well. Most people don't fix their own cars or even do their own routine maintenance. Cost of ownership is a concern if you can't take your car to independent mechanics, but the obvious solution here is to just offer longer warranties. The vast majority of new car buyers aren't going to care that they can't have their car fixed at the shop down the street if the dealership is offering them a five year warranty anyway. It'd absolutely destroy the used car market, but that's a separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This doesn't make logical sense - there can be more than one path to being locked out of the ability to repair goods. Other than something hyper sci-fi like AI designing products using evolution to design physical processes humans don't understand or something crazy like that I'm not sure how "automation" leads to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Speaking of "right to repair" and related things. is there a danger of automation making people unable to perform even basic tasks. Before you start I don't mean in a "Lazy kids these days!" fashion, I mean in the sense mentioned earlier of companies prohibiting people from taking apart/modifying things they own. In the car example with all these proprietary tools and DMCA closed off CPUs it's not that people will be too lazy to learn how to repair cars, It's that companies will make it so they can't even if they want to. If everything gets automated but no one is allowed to look inside the box to see how things work without getting sued into oblivion (unless your part of some corporate approved mechanic caste) you get to the point where its hard to know how things get done on more than the most theoretical level. For example, I used to fix iPods in college for some extra pocket money, and while it wasn't trivial to get the case apart, it wasn't too difficult. Once inside, it was pretty easy to get to the battery and the capacitive touch scroll wheel assembly and hard drive, which was connected by an old-fashioned ribbon with pin connectors. 90% of the time, a problem could be traced to one of those three things, and easily replaced, and the iPod was as good as new. With newer generation iPods and iPhones, getting the case apart is now extremely difficult without specialized tools, and it is not so easy to identify, much less access and remove, anything other than the battery. The ribbon and pin connector has been replaced by a kind of flimsy plastic with metallic tracks printed on it sort of like a bendable PCB, and when it is taken out of the hard drive, it can't be put back. I think they did this exclusively to be able to make the iPod/iPhone thinner and smaller, and it wasn't some attempt to make it irreparable, but that's essentially the effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This doesn't make logical sense - there can be more than one path to being locked out of the ability to repair goods. I think the real right that is getting attacked is the right to own things. When you buy a car but part of the car are really only licenses, selling the car is gray area, repairing (by opening and debugging it) is gray area, and so on. Topic is interesting, but a bit off-topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Other than something hyper sci-fi like AI designing products using evolution to design physical processes humans don't understand or something crazy like that I'm not sure how "automation" leads to this. It's more of a secondary effect. Automated cars will be more complex and the consequences of getting something wrong will be more serious. Plus, automation of diagnostic work is actually already a thing. A device I can buy for $15 that works on a decades old standard can instantly provide a level of diagnostic information that used to take a trained technician hours or days to work out. Actual dealerships have access to vastly more advanced (and expensive) diagnostic equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Tei posted:I think the real right that is getting attacked is the right to own things. How companies try to get around this to dick people about will be interesting, but automation will be full of interesting legislation, like who is responsible if highly automated things harm someone. Not sure about right to repair in the EU, but in practice it's a smart cow problem, it only takes one person to figure out how to do it and publish it, which could then lead to a whole host of other issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Countdown until the automated driving features in your car require a monthly subscription.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
withak posted:Countdown until the automated driving features in your car require a monthly subscription. So, public transportation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:So, public transportation? That's where this is moving I'm sure. Which is gonna be real nice when we can start getting rid of these massive parking lots everywhere. Columbus has a car share service I already like and when those vehicles are automated you are gonna be able to service the same number/area of people with fewer vehicles overall, looser range restrictions, and the ability to send them away park themselves . If they were in other nearby cities I probably wouldn't have bought a car at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's where this is moving I'm sure. Which is gonna be real nice when we can start getting rid of these massive parking lots everywhere. Columbus has a car share service I already like and when those vehicles are automated you are gonna be able to service the same number/area of people with fewer vehicles overall, looser range restrictions, and the ability to send them away park themselves . If they were in other nearby cities I probably wouldn't have bought a car at all. we'll never be rid of massive parking lots until we get rid of cars entirely at best in the autonomous fleet car future the parking lots will be reserved for people on no-wait plans and everyone else with the bargain tier subscription will have to wait as more cars are brought in from suburban parking lots as rush hour ramps up
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
I think parking garages will become more common. Instead of having gigantic lots in front of every store, you'll just have loading/drop-off areas and your car will store itself 5 minutes away until you summon it. It'll create a whole new mess of problems at first, what do you do when the pick up area is full of cars waiting for their passengers who are still shopping, but your car is waiting to get in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I think parking garages will become more common. Instead of having gigantic lots in front of every store, you'll just have loading/drop-off areas and your car will store itself 5 minutes away until you summon it. we could and in many places do this today, the only alteration on today's practice is it eliminates the walk to/from the vehicle the problem with huge parking lots isn't a technical one, but a policy one - in many places, mandatory minimum parking requirements are absurdly outsized. plus, there's an economic incentive for large stores to make it as convenient as possible to shop there. neither of these factors are really addressed by self driving cars Dr. Arbitrary posted:It'll create a whole new mess of problems at first, what do you do when the pick up area is full of cars waiting for their passengers who are still shopping, but your car is waiting to get in? a bar i frequent has put up signs requesting uber customers stand in a different location, on a side street, when waiting for their rides because otherwise they stop in the middle of a higher traffic street and it's caused some complaints
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure if you really even need curbside pick-up, at least for reasonably dense urban areas. Have some centrally placed parking garage that your car drops you off at and that you later pick the car up from. If we're talking about fleet cars, then the garage can act as a sort of vehicle vending machine. Order a car, show up, get in, and leave. It's nothing that couldn't be done (or isn't already done) with human-driven cars, but centralizing infrastructure like that will probably start to make more sense if/when autonomous fleet vehicles become a common way of getting around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not sure if you really even need curbside pick-up, at least for reasonably dense urban areas. Have some centrally placed parking garage that your car drops you off at and that you later pick the car up from. If we're talking about fleet cars, then the garage can act as a sort of vehicle vending machine. Order a car, show up, get in, and leave. It's nothing that couldn't be done (or isn't already done) with human-driven cars, but centralizing infrastructure like that will probably start to make more sense if/when autonomous fleet vehicles become a common way of getting around. by what mechanism would this be enforced though? banning curbside pickup? the one clear advantage of the self driving car is that it can bring itself to you, rather than you having to go to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
With an Uber driver, you can yell at them, but how do you make a self driving car pull back around and come back in five minutes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Obviously the app coordinating the self-driving car would know your location and the car would show up when needed, not before. Otherwise the cars would queue up, just like when a driveway is full for non-autonomous cars. If the passenger is delayed then the car would circle the lot or whatever.
withak fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
withak posted:Obviously the app coordinating the self-driving car would know your location and the car would show up when needed, not before. Otherwise the cars would queue up, just like when a driveway is full for non-autonomous cars. If the passenger is delayed then the car would circle the lot or whatever. *nine autonomous cars circle a bar as a large party of twentysomethings decide to get one more round*
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:*nine autonomous cars circle a bar as a large party of twentysomethings decide to get one more round* Maximum Overdrive was a great movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:by what mechanism would this be enforced though? banning curbside pickup? the one clear advantage of the self driving car is that it can bring itself to you, rather than you having to go to it Probably, yeah. I can't see any other way to do something like that other than municipal bans. I'm not sure I agree that a car coming to you is really an advantage of autonomous cars, at least not for people who are already using taxis or ride-sharing services. An Uber driver comes to you too. If this technology is ever mature and actually takes off, it'll be because it's cheaper and/or more efficient than having a human driver. I was mostly spitballing ways that cities could leverage autonomous vehicle technology to actually reduce congestion and improve things for their residents, though, not suggesting that eliminating curbside pickup would be an advantage of self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:48
|
|