|
We’re still at the point where they gleefully run down pedestrians. We’re ages away from a driverless utopia and it’s not going to be any faster now that the machines are realizing how fun vehicular homicide can be
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
If pedestrians really cared about their safety then they would be in cars. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Seriously, how many more pedestrians are gleefully run over by manned cars every day? Several, if I have anything to do about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I thought the biggest problem for driverless cars is dealing with non-driverless cars. not just non-driverless cars, literally everything. wind, inclement conditions, the sun being in your eyes/camera, the presence of trucks, accidents, road debris. There's a million things that are and can be happening while you drive, and a human brain, the most complex information-processing and decision-making organ in existence, deals with it all quite well, in most cases. Solice Kirsk posted:Nothing will ever be 100% safe, but it could be made waaaaay more safe than letting a bunch of idiots propel themselves forward in one ton metal boxes. People say this, but that's because they don't really consider the issue of miles driven vs accidents. Humans are great drivers. Every day literally hundreds of millions of people in America strap themselves in to giant metal boxes and go careening down the road next to hundred of other metal boxes at 60 miles an hour, past schools and churches and homes, and somehow, they don't all die. The vast, vast majority of people make it to their destinations. That's loving amazing. Meanwhile, my cellphone keeps giving me "update needed" notices but when I click on the notice it says there's no updates available. There's no reason to assume that driverless-cars will be safer on average than human operated cars until somebody makes a driverless car that is that safe. And I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because of how complex an action driving in the real world is. Solice Kirsk posted:Plus, think of all the savings that will be passed on to you, the consumer, if we get rid of all the added expense of having to hire long haul truckers to move freight everywhere. lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Seriously, how many more pedestrians are gleefully run over by manned cars every day? When I take my car out of my garage, I cannot return it until it has devoured blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
If militaries want them bad enough there will be driverless cars within the next two decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If militaries want them bad enough there will be driverless cars within the next two decades. I don't see why they'd bother. We're already pretty close to having driverless military planes, all they need to do is code an algorithm to detect weddings or hospitals and they can get rid of the "pilots" altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If militaries want them bad enough there will be driverless cars within the next two decades. They will be as safe, cheap, and reliable as the F-35
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:They will be as safe, cheap, and reliable as the F-35 I'll take a million! Put it on America's tab.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:They will be as safe, cheap, and reliable as the F-35 I think you’re being unfair to Tesla here, and I don’t say that lightly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:I think you’re being unfair to Tesla here, and I don’t say that lightly. Say what you will about the F-35, at least it doesn't spontaneously burst into flame 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:We're still at the point where they gleefully run down pedestrians. We're ages away from a driverless utopia and it's not going to be any faster now that the machines are realizing how fun vehicular homicide can be Guy Goodbody posted:People say this, but that's because they don't really consider the issue of miles driven vs accidents. Humans are great drivers. Every day literally hundreds of millions of people in America strap themselves in to giant metal boxes and go careening down the road next to hundred of other metal boxes at 60 miles an hour, past schools and churches and homes, and somehow, they don't all die. The vast, vast majority of people make it to their destinations. That's loving amazing. Meanwhile, my cellphone keeps giving me "update needed" notices but when I click on the notice it says there's no updates available. There's no reason to assume that driverless-cars will be safer on average than human operated cars until somebody makes a driverless car that is that safe. And I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because of how complex an action driving in the real world is. There's still a lot of merit in trying to perfect a car that both drives itself and doesnt drive over people. Yes, humans are able to do all of this just fine, but there's always things out of someone's grasp, like serious medical issues, heavy rain limiting how far you can see in front of the car, or old/drunk people thinking they can still drive. It's better to research cars that don't have issues with these kind of things, and while it will take time and a half to get it ready for widespread use, it will be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Electric cars explode. Like cell phones and cheap power sticks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:There's still a lot of merit in trying to perfect a car that both drives itself and doesnt drive over people. Yes, humans are able to do all of this just fine, but there's always things out of someone's grasp, like serious medical issues, heavy rain limiting how far you can see in front of the car, or old/drunk people thinking they can still drive. It's better to research cars that don't have issues with these kind of things, and while it will take time and a half to get it ready for widespread use, it will be worth it. Honestly that’s probably effort better spent on public transportation with the goal of minimizing the number of cars on the road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Muskrat420 on the tesla forums sent me this sick custom firmware that's supposed to improve the battery life, I can't wait to try it out on my evening commute!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:But there will always be human fallibility in the equation. We will never create a perfect artificial intelligence. There will always be unforeseen ways for whatever we come up with to fail (or be made to fail). They don't have to be perfect or even particularly good to be better than human drivers. Agree with public transport being much more feasible though, and that can be helped along by incentivizing people to move into tight urban centers where they don't need a car for anything, and can't even afford one anyway due to parking costs, traffic tolls, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Everyone inevitably sells out, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Say what you will about the F-35, at least it doesn't spontaneously burst into flame True, but Teslas can drive in the rain. Until they burst into flames, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Say what you will about the F-35, at least it doesn't spontaneously burst into flame they're working on it
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
There should be a tax on vacant homes
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Is there not?! Like someone owns it and pays property tax because even if uninhabited, you own land, and with that comes dues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Is there not?! Yeah it's subject to the same taxes as any other home, but I mean an extra tax on homes that sit vacant more than x% of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Not sure if this is unpopular but the sequel to “Now you see me” should have been “now you don’t”
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Not sure if this is unpopular but the sequel to “Now you see me” should have been “now you don’t” It should have been called "never should have been made". I hate those movies to an extreme degree. Especially because they made woody harrelson look like a bad actor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Not sure if this is unpopular but the sequel to “Now you see me” should have been “now you don’t” 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
My fiance works for a company that maintains homes foreclosed on by banks, and I can assure you that the people who own it are massive, massive, pieces of poo poo and ironically the CEO is a Christian who is always sending out emails saying she's praying for the company
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Rich people are better than poor people. But rich people need to pay way the gently caress more taxes. That's what being better means, having more responsibility. If this is not reinforced they forget themselves and start thinking they are in charge. They are not in charge. The State is in charge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Rich people are better than poor people. But rich people need to pay way the gently caress more taxes. That's what being better means, having more responsibility. If this is not reinforced they forget themselves and start thinking they are in charge. The State is exclusively comprised of rich people though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Rich people are better than poor people. But rich people need to pay way the gently caress more taxes. That's what being better means, having more responsibility. If this is not reinforced they forget themselves and start thinking they are in charge. The rich people are responsible for empowering the poor to contribute to society like they are. They are not there to be leeched from and give everyone else an easy life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Rich people are better than poor people. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The rich people are responsible for empowering the poor to contribute to society like they are. They are not there to be leeched from and give everyone else an easy life. laying it on a little thick
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:laying it on a little thick He's hoping a rich person notices his good good bootlicking and throws him a shiny new penny
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:He's hoping a rich person notices his good good bootlicking and throws him a shiny new penny that post was not bootlicking, I was acknowledging they aren't doing something that is their responsibility currently. but yeah i'll take the penny if they throw it my way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The rich people are responsible for empowering the poor to contribute to society like they are. They are not there to be leeched from and give everyone else an easy life. The rich are literally parasites. Jeff Bezos has literally tens of billions of dollars, while people in Amazon shipping centers live in their cars. Bezos takes the value generated by his workers and keeps the bulk of it for himself
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The rich are literally parasites. Jeff Bezos has literally tens of billions of dollars, while people in Amazon shipping centers live in their cars. Bezos takes the value generated by his workers and keeps the bulk of it for himself I'm going to predict the response to this, here goes: "well if they can afford cars they can't be in such a bad place!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The rich are literally parasites. Jeff Bezos has literally tens of billions of dollars, while people in Amazon shipping centers live in their cars. Bezos takes the value generated by his workers and keeps the bulk of it for himself So string him up. I'd have no problem with seeing people like him purged as long as they are replaced by people that aren't consumed by greed and give a fair share to both their stockholders and their employees. e: while still conducting the company in a way that generates maximum profit
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
or we could just make sure everyone can make a living, instead of playing shitbag whack-a-mole
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:or we could just make sure everyone can make a living, instead of playing shitbag whack-a-mole this is the kind of thing that sounds great and anyone would agree with it, until you put it on paper and realize what it would mean re: taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
There should be a maximum wage
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:this is the kind of thing that sounds great and anyone would agree with it, until you put it on paper and realize what it would mean re: taxes. lol, you fuckin rube
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:44
|
|