|
Lemming posted:I think self-driving cars are going to put a lot more people out of work than robot fast food, at least in the near future. Not really, as in the near future you should expect there to have be a seat-warmer to put liability on if the self driving vehicle crashes. Wage cuts rather than losses of jobs, really.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
haveblue posted:There don't seem to be any Carl's Jr.s on the east coast, so yes, I am living in a different world. You may know them better as Hardee's in your neck of the woods. Corporate mergers are a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Not really, as in the near future you should expect there to have be a seat-warmer to put liability on if the self driving vehicle crashes. Wage cuts rather than losses of jobs, really. You can't shift liability onto an employee for negligence when they're doing their job. I mean maybe the company could turn around and sue them, but they'd probably be poor enough to be judgment-proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can't shift liability onto an employee for negligence when they're doing their job. I mean maybe the company could turn around and sue them, but they'd probably be poor enough to be judgment-proof. Not to mention why would I put one of my employees into a google truck and risk my own involvement at all? If the google truck is empty there can be no one at fault but google if it crashes. If my employee is in it they could be blamed for touching a big red button, why would I do that unless it was mandated by law? Just because you own the vehicle doesent make you liable for the things the vehicle does without your input, like rushing into another car due to a floormat. Why introduce your own liability at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Not really, as in the near future you should expect there to have be a seat-warmer to put liability on if the self driving vehicle crashes. Wage cuts rather than losses of jobs, really. Watch CPG Grey's video on the topic, he addresses this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can't shift liability onto an employee for negligence when they're doing their job. I mean maybe the company could turn around and sue them, but they'd probably be poor enough to be judgment-proof. Current laws in most states require that if a vehicle's going to be on the road, there's got to be a driver "responsible" for it in the car, since they do not explicitly allow driverless vehicles on public roadways. So if you're Big Truck Co and you want to start running self-driving rigs from Tulsa to Pittsburgh in 2017, you still gotta have some guy sitting in the driver's seat who's supposedly in control. I sincerely doubt a federal legalization of driverless vehicles nationwide, or even a majority of states approving driverless vehicles anytime soon. Spaceman Future! posted:Not to mention why would I put one of my employees into a google truck and risk my own involvement at all? Unless you're in California, your Google Truck ain't allowed to drive without someone in the driver's seat who could choose to drive manually at any time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Current laws in most states require that if a vehicle's going to be on the road, there's got to be a driver "responsible" for it in the car, since they do not explicitly allow driverless vehicles on public roadways. So if you're Big Truck Co and you want to start running self-driving rigs from Tulsa to Pittsburgh in 2017, you still gotta have some guy sitting in the driver's seat who's supposedly in control. Do those laws require and specify that the person controlling the car has to be physically present in the drivers seat in the car, or just that a human can interact with the car manually at any time? I mean there would have to be very specific language requiring you to be biologically present in the seat, otherwise presence could easily be interpreted as telepresense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Do those laws require and specify that the person controlling the car has to be physically present in the drivers seat in the car, or just that a human can interact with the car manually at any time? I mean there would have to be very specific language requiring you to be biologically present in the seat, otherwise presence could easily be interpreted as telepresense. You could even have someone present but pay them a fraction of the normal rate. All they are doing is keeping the seat warm while the car/truck drives itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Do those laws require and specify that the person controlling the car has to be physically present in the drivers seat in the car, or just that a human can interact with the car manually at any time? I mean there would have to be very specific language requiring you to be biologically present in the seat, otherwise presence could easily be interpreted as telepresense. I doubt the actual regulations of any state besides California would accept telepresence in their current state, or in the near future. Not to mention, hello, sticking some doofus in the chair for minimum wage probably costs less than maintaining an acceptable live connection for bona fide teleprescence. After all, all your seat warmer needs to be able to manage is to hit the brakes and steer away from danger should something go wrong. While remote controlled stunt cars are used for movies filmed on real streets and the like, they also have special police permits that block normal traffic and all the rest during that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I assume this is some in house stuff your company has developed? Because the COTS stuff I've worked with sucks poo poo, and I haven't seen anything presented that looks much better. Not really the place for it (PM maybe?) but I'd be interested in talking shop about your system, compare your online conversions vs face to face conversions. The fact that we can't get the ecomm to catch up with the store and the shrinking mall traffic really hurt us this year. I don't have any data about our face-to-face conversions, unfortunately. I'm not even sure where anything would have to be "off the shelf", we've done things as simple as adding a lightbox modal to the checkout page (after the CC has been acquired) to attach another super-profitable service, and attach rates nearly doubled. No, I have not done a peer-reviewed study to determine the relative effectiveness of in-person vs eCommerce upselling, but I was simply refuting the idea that upselling is impossible when done by a computer. edit: What's the point of having a seat warmer in the car when they cannot even in theory have control of the vehicle beyond pushing a panic button? Just someone for cops to intimidate or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I doubt the actual regulations of any state besides California would accept telepresence in their current state, or in the near future. Not to mention, hello, sticking some doofus in the chair for minimum wage probably costs less than maintaining an acceptable live connection for bona fide teleprescence. After all, all your seat warmer needs to be able to manage is to hit the brakes and steer away from danger should something go wrong. yeah but surely one mook who can control 50 cars at any given time is cheaper than 50 mooks in 50 cars. Smart cars will already need data links to operate anyway, and those same links can be used for telepresence if you need a manual driver, ford is already playing with this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/06/mobility-experiment-remote-repositioning-atlanta.html all over cell data. Seems to me that unless the state reqired, in the wording of the law, that your warm body have skin touching the seat of the car that you could argue that your remote vehicle management agent in Vermont or Florida is just as present in that vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Current laws in most states require that if a vehicle's going to be on the road, there's got to be a driver "responsible" for it in the car, since they do not explicitly allow driverless vehicles on public roadways. So if you're Big Truck Co and you want to start running self-driving rigs from Tulsa to Pittsburgh in 2017, you still gotta have some guy sitting in the driver's seat who's supposedly in control. Yes, but that's complying with regulation, not shifting the liability onto that warm body.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
The Senate Republican budget is out now, no real analysis yet, but it does have one notable part. It calls for repealing the ACA and directs the Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Lamar Alexander) to come up with an alternative by July 31st 2015, and calls for using reconciliation to adopt as a replacement to the ACA. Using reconciliation lets them bypass the senate filibuster
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:yeah but surely one mook who can control 50 cars at any given time is cheaper than 50 mooks in 50 cars. Smart cars will already need data links to operate anyway, and those same links can be used for telepresence if you need a manual driver, ford is already playing with this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/06/mobility-experiment-remote-repositioning-atlanta.html all over cell data. Seems to me that unless the state reqired, in the wording of the law, that your warm body have skin touching the seat of the car that you could argue that your remote vehicle management agent in Vermont or Florida is just as present in that vehicle. Nah, if the driver is needed it will be because something has gone wrong and he needs to override the computer, and you can't just drop someone in like that because they'll have no idea what's going on for a few seconds, at which point the crash has already occurred. If a state wants a responsible person you can't have them in multiple cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Suddenly, locking in my mortgage at 4.375% doesn't seem like all that bad of a deal. 3.5% 30-yr  Which is kinda ridiculous. Rates were like 7% a few years ago. Last few years have been great if you have money/credit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
It's pretty unamerican of you to lock yourself into a home for anything less than five years. You are just as much of a reason for the economy collapsing as the banks, you should be buying more homes!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:While remote controlled stunt cars are used for movies filmed on real streets and the like, they also have special police permits that block normal traffic and all the rest during that. Fried Chicken posted:The Senate Republican budget is out now, no real analysis yet, but it does have one notable part. It calls for repealing the ACA and directs the Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Lamar Alexander) to come up with an alternative by July 31st 2015, and calls for using reconciliation to adopt as a replacement to the ACA. Using reconciliation lets them bypass the senate filibuster
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:3.5% 30-yr Only had 5% down. I had the option of going ahead with a couple of points lower but it would have cost something absurd like $6,000 so I just said no thanx
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The Senate Republican budget is out now, no real analysis yet, but it does have one notable part. It calls for repealing the ACA and directs the Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Lamar Alexander) to come up with an alternative by July 31st 2015, and calls for using reconciliation to adopt as a replacement to the ACA. Using reconciliation lets them bypass the senate filibuster Did they just one weird tricked a Senate repeal of aca?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nah, if the driver is needed it will be because something has gone wrong and he needs to override the computer, and you can't just drop someone in like that because they'll have no idea what's going on for a few seconds, at which point the crash has already occurred. If a state wants a responsible person you can't have them in multiple cars. Well at that point the argument that you could drop any rando minimum wage worker into the seat falls apart anyway as whoever you put in would need to respond to emergency situations within a few seconds with no notice and from a completely lax state would and with professional accuracy. You cant even get that from people who drive professionally, and at that point what improvement do you have over someone who isnt about to die and isnt full of adrenaline punching the clock a few states away? And if there is no clear benefit what case do the states make that someone should be there anyway during the inevitable lawsuit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The Senate Republican budget is out now, no real analysis yet, but it does have one notable part. It calls for repealing the ACA and directs the Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Lamar Alexander) to come up with an alternative by July 31st 2015, and calls for using reconciliation to adopt as a replacement to the ACA. Using reconciliation lets them bypass the senate filibuster The other fun thing is it repeals the ACA...except for the taxes that fund it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The other fun thing is it repeals the ACA...except for the taxes that fund it. What I'd really love to see, and won't, is the 'ACA Replacement' being 'Extend Medicare to cover everyone'. Old white people like Medicare, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The other fun thing is it repeals the ACA...except for the taxes that fund it. More needless taxes, goddamn you   fatman1683 posted:What I'd really love to see, and won't, is the 'ACA Replacement' being 'Extend Medicare to cover everyone'. Old white people like Medicare, right? I've thought about this, too- it's a program that seems fairly well-liked and successful, so maybe use it as a model for everything else? But no, COMMUNISM, BETTER DEAD THAN RED
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I don't think wishing death is wrong. I hope O'Keefe dies an extremely graphic, painful, and slow death. I hope it's caught on film and is something entirely of his own doing like getting electrocuted while trying to bug another senator's office. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, but that's complying with regulation, not shifting the liability onto that warm body. I would fully expect, under current laws in most states, that the guy who's being paid to sit at the driver's seat is going to be considered responsible for any accident, and to be the one who has to deal with points on his license/some of the fines/possible revocation of driver's license. Spaceman Future! posted:yeah but surely one mook who can control 50 cars at any given time is cheaper than 50 mooks in 50 cars. Smart cars will already need data links to operate anyway, and those same links can be used for telepresence if you need a manual driver, ford is already playing with this: https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ng-atlanta.html all over cell data. Seems to me that unless the state reqired, in the wording of the law, that your warm body have skin touching the seat of the car that you could argue that your remote vehicle management agent in Vermont or Florida is just as present in that vehicle. That's also close to impossible, especially with near future technology. No one is capable of being aware enough to handle potential crash scenarios with multiple vehicles at once when they can't also control all other nearby vehicles. Rail automation is "easy" even when you have a mix of manually operated and automatic trains on the same line, because worst comes to worst, the central control offices can halt all nearby trains if something fucky is about to happen. TruckCo HQ can't control all the cars around their truck. Can you have some guy back at TruckCo HQ who's monitoring your 50 automatic trucks? Sure, just like you have people monitoring transit networks and the like. But they're not going to be capable of suddenly jumping to a given truck's controls so they don't plow into the back of something. People's relfexes are bad enough when they're physically present and aware of the ongoing situation, it goes right to hell when you add mobile network latency and the fact that the remote operator wasn't aware of that particular truck's situation fully until 5 seconds ago. Spaceman Future! posted:Well at that point the argument that you could drop any rando minimum wage worker into the seat falls apart anyway as whoever you put in would need to respond to emergency situations within a few seconds with no notice and from a completely lax state would and with professional accuracy. You cant even get that from people who drive professionally, and at that point what improvement do you have over someone who isnt about to die and isnt full of adrenaline punching the clock a few states away? And if there is no clear benefit what case do the states make that someone should be there anyway during the inevitable lawsuit? Your automatically driven truck can't have a manual transmission for obvious reasons, so right there that's a significant loss of needed experience compared to most trucks on the road. All the driver needs to be able to handle is steering and brakes really, and maybe redirecting the truck back onto the road once danger's passed. This requires less training than operating a standard truck by a lot. All your minimum wage guy needs to handle is the ability to pass a CDL test in a rig with an automatic transmission and he's good to go to be your warm body. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
fatman1683 posted:What I'd really love to see, and won't, is the 'ACA Replacement' being 'Extend Medicare to cover everyone'. Old white people like Medicare, right? like most social assistance programs, old white people like it until republicans remind them that some of the people it helps would be blacks or messicans
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:yeah but surely one mook who can control 50 cars at any given time is cheaper than 50 mooks in 50 cars. Smart cars will already need data links to operate anyway, and those same links can be used for telepresence if you need a manual driver, ford is already playing with this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/06/mobility-experiment-remote-repositioning-atlanta.html all over cell data. Seems to me that unless the state reqired, in the wording of the law, that your warm body have skin touching the seat of the car that you could argue that your remote vehicle management agent in Vermont or Florida is just as present in that vehicle. Hmm, a high-stress, low-paying, labor-saving job monitoring multiple vehicles at once where the employee is set up to fail and act as a lawsuit sponge in the ensuing accident? I'm surprised ALEC hasn't written model legislation worming their way around safety regulations to make this a reality already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Hmm, a high-stress, low-paying, labor-saving job monitoring multiple vehicles at once where the employee is set up to fail and act as a lawsuit sponge in the ensuing accident? As is being discussed already, this doesn't work. The employer has civil liability in case of an accident. There's no reason to think this would change for a remote-operated semi-autonomous drone as compared to a physically-present driver. Who would have any potential criminal liability is a more complicated question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
A Republican state legislator in Tennessee opposed giving tax incentives to Volkswagen on the grounds that the company is insufficiently anti-union. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/tenn-goper-slams-volkswagen-creating-200000-jobs-is-intentionally-a-magnet-for-unionized-labor/
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:A Republican state legislator in Tennessee opposed giving tax incentives to Volkswagen on the grounds that the company is insufficiently anti-union. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/tenn-goper-slams-volkswagen-creating-200000-jobs-is-intentionally-a-magnet-for-unionized-labor/ "No gently caress YOU, I'm gonna drop this cinder block on my foot if I want to!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:3.5% 30-yr 3.25  When we got our rate locked my wife said that her parent's mortgage started out at 12% or something crazy like that 25ish years ago. I feel really lucking buying at a low rate in a down market, especially with how crazy the rental market seems to have gotten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
lol that guy needs to take a chill pill
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:A Republican state legislator in Tennessee opposed giving tax incentives to Volkswagen on the grounds that the company is insufficiently anti-union. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/tenn-goper-slams-volkswagen-creating-200000-jobs-is-intentionally-a-magnet-for-unionized-labor/ Best part: quote:The Chattanooga Republican turned to several Volkswagen officials and demanded that they explain why the vice chairman of VW’s European and Global Group Works Council had pledged to spread the United Auto Workers “far beyond Tennessee.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I would fully expect, under current laws in most states, that the guy who's being paid to sit at the driver's seat is going to be considered responsible for any accident, and to be the one who has to deal with points on his license/some of the fines/possible revocation of driver's license. The company remains liable - sure, he'll have points added to his licence and he might also be liable ("jointly and severally", meaning that if he can only pay $1 then his employer must pay the rest). But the company cannot evade liability by pointing at the guy and saying sue him, not us: companies are held liable for the negligence of their employees when they're doing their job. Otherwise the injured party probably would not be able to recover, and companies would have an incentive to push their employees into making more profit for the company by acting negligently and then evading liability. This is why Tracy Morgan is suing Wal-Mart for its truck driver that fell asleep and crashed into his car: Wal-mart has the deep pockets, not the driver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
borkencode posted:3.25 I guess I lucked the gently caress out, then, cause escrow should be closing today on a 4.5% 30 year. Never realized it used to be that crazy and might get that insane in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
fatman1683 posted:What I'd really love to see, and won't, is the 'ACA Replacement' being 'Extend Medicare to cover everyone'. Old white people like Medicare, right? House budget turns Medicare into a voucher program, Medicaid into a block grant
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:House budget turns Medicare into a voucher program, Medicaid into a block grant 'Get your goddamn government hands off my Medicare - unless you're a Republican, then it's fine.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
The chances are that self-driving cars will be a lot safer than most drivers on the road, so the liability issues will most likely be dealt relatively quickly if the trucking companies expect to save a buttload of cash from prevented accidents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Computer's never fall asleep. (And lack souls) In fact iirc, the google car driving around was noted by most drivers who interacted with it as considerably better than all the other drivers on the road; but I dunno a source.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Lemming posted:The chances are that self-driving cars will be a lot safer than most drivers on the road, so the liability issues will most likely be dealt relatively quickly if the trucking companies expect to save a buttload of cash from prevented accidents. on top of that your self driven truck never sleeps or gets drunk or gets pissed at its wife and drives like an rear end. It can route around construction and traffic jams 100 miles in advance, can optimize refueling to take advantage of the cheapest gas (or I guess battery swap stations in the future?) and never calls in sick or dies of a hear attack induced by truck stop food / hookers. Its cheaper in pretty much every way you could consider, even if they do have to stick some dude in the truck he will probably also double as ta company accountant and will be expected to treat the cab as his mobile office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:27
|
|