|
Robots have taken your job, what do you do? Complain about it! We've all heard about them and maybe even used them, computers, why do they hate us? In this brave new world do we work with computers to bring about a techno-utopia or fight against the trend to retain our current lifestyle? Is it possible to integrate these advances in computing and technology to improve lives or will the people who can afford the technology keep the efficiency gains for themselves? Discuss!  Car Talk Feel free to do it but please cite sources and try not to speculate whenever possible.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
uber should be held criminally responsible for the death of that lady
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
how long before self-driving car talk kills this, the third automation thread, too? because god drat do people really loving hate the very idea of self-driving cars
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:how long before self-driving car talk kills this, the third automation thread, too? self driving cars are cool, people acting like the poo poo uber is doing the absolute poo poo and any issues raised are just them being haters is terrible, uber should be dissolved and its executives shot
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:how long before self-driving car talk kills this, the third automation thread, too? I love car talk, it's one of the biggest automation techs that could drastically change transportation in the US. It's not just about having a car drive you around, it also changes the whole distribution model of every company selling physical goods in the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:self driving cars are cool, people acting like the poo poo uber is doing the absolute poo poo and any issues raised are just them being haters is terrible, uber should be dissolved and its executives shot I think you're possibly reacting to what you preceive is happening as opposed to what is actually happening. Nobody is saying Uber isn't at fault, nobody is defending Uber, you're assuming anyone who wants more information or who want to defend the technology is defending Uber itself. This is pretty toxic and shuts down discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:self driving cars are cool, people acting like the poo poo uber is doing the absolute poo poo and any issues raised are just them being haters is terrible, uber should be dissolved and its executives shot Like in the Uber vs Waymo trial, emails came out that Lewandowski was arguing with Page against having redundant systems, and with Kalanick at Uber their conversation was all "gotta catch up to Google at any cost".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:how long before self-driving car talk kills this, the third automation thread, too? how dare people talk about one of the most consumer-visible and potentially impactful automation projects currently in progress, which is mostly being run in a hilariously unsafe and unregulated manner in public spaces and sharing space with regular commuters
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:how dare people talk about one of the most consumer-visible and potentially impactful automation projects currently in progress, which is mostly being run in a hilariously unsafe and unregulated manner in public spaces and sharing space with regular commuters Yeah it’s not 2015 anymore, the technology industry is finally being scrutinized for its impact on society. Facebook destroyed the already shaky journalism industry on a lark and because no one in any position of authority thought it worthwhile to consider the effects of their decisions. And where Facebook destroyed the business model for journalism, Twitter destroyed the actual minds of journalist. That, and continues to provide quarter for Nazis. Meanwhile, Google seems content to destroy the minds of infants and old people through YouTube. And now as the planet cooks and inequality sky rockets and facism rises around the world, untold billions are being funneled into a furtherance of detachment and atomization. Worse, the charge is being led by one of the most overtly awful corporate actors around. There’s a lot of cool tech in self-driving technology, but man, it’s already literally killing people, does nothing to advance the shift to public transit that everyone knows needs to happen, and is about to create a fertile ground for alt-right recruitment by putting a million truck drivers out of work. And those are just the painfully obvious consequences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Yeah it’s not 2015 anymore, the technology industry is finally being scrutinized for its impact on society. Facebook destroyed the already shaky journalism industry on a lark and because no one in any position of authority thought it worthwhile to consider the effects of their decisions. And where Facebook destroyed the business model for journalism, Twitter destroyed the actual minds of journalist. That, and continues to provide quarter for Nazis. Meanwhile, Google seems content to destroy the minds of infants and old people through YouTube. And now as the planet cooks and inequality sky rockets and facism rises around the world, untold billions are being funneled into a furtherance of detachment and atomization. Worse, the charge is being led by one of the most overtly awful corporate actors around. So we shouldn’t automate because truck drivers will turn into nazis? This seems pretty stupid, there have been many technological revolutions in the past several hundred years yet we still keep finding poo poo for people to do (in fact every revolution creates more poo poo to do). I understand people think there is a finite amount of work to be done, but I just don’t see that happening. People will always want things and others will always be providing. Maybe if we advance to the point where we live in a Wall-e style robo-butler smoothie chair future... but we’ve got so many steps to get there. Not only that but we already see that these changes start in large cities and slowly make it out to the rest of the world, people will be driving trucks for a while. Maybe some distribution changes will happen in short order but it will take time and not everyone will be driven to lynch minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Self-driving cars are fine. The issue is that self-driving cars that don't kill people are much farther away than most will admit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Self-driving cars are fine. The issue is that self-driving cars that don't kill people are much farther away than most will admit. also that self driving cars aren't going to transform society, they're just a marginal change in cars that perform the same function except you can jerk off while driving with less chance of killing someone. robot cars or manual cars, they're both the same from the perspective of land use/transportation being car centric
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:also that self driving cars aren't going to transform society, they're just a marginal change in cars that perform the same function except you can jerk off while driving with less chance of killing someone. robot cars or manual cars, they're both the same from the perspective of land use/transportation being car centric The change in society will be how many people lose their jobs because of it. Also, way more time for poo poo posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Taffer posted:The change in society will be how many people lose their jobs because of it. Also, way more time for poo poo posting. imo the job loss will be minimized for two reasons -this technology is inherently assistive than a replacement, it will make the job more idiot proof and lower paid but not entirely gone -population increases will cause more demand for goods being moved, thus more need for drivebot helpers, etc. population increases will also wipe out marginal efficiency gains from self driving cars in terms of traffic throughput. we're racing time because american cities are only going to get bigger and denser
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:imo the job loss will be minimized for two reasons In my ideal world autonomous cars will replace the need for your own car, and even if you still opt to have your own car you can now have it drive and park itself somewhere reasonable (like back at home). This way we can optimize for density and still have all the mobility we want. For me it would allow my family to only have one car, right now the only reason we need two cars is to transport our kid to and from daycare. The car can drop me or my wife off at work and then go back and allow us to drop off our kid at daycare and then take the other person to their work. I was using car2go and the bus at a previous job, but now taking the bus would add 45 minutes to my commute and since I'm not downtown anymore car2go availability is pretty limited when I'm commuting home (and it's always been bad when commuting to work). If every vehicle were autonomous I could call up a car on my way out the door hop in and get to work in 15~ min. If I were still working downtown I'd hop into one to get to the park and ride and do that. car2go was great for the last few miles from the park and ride to my home at my last job but it was a pain to have to walk up to a mile just to find one, especially when I'm running late.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:In my ideal world autonomous cars will replace the need for your own car, and even if you still opt to have your own car you can now have it drive and park itself somewhere reasonable (like back at home). This way we can optimize for density and still have all the mobility we want. if you optimize for density mass transit becomes more efficient. sending your car back home to park itself just means you're generating more trips, except now half the vehicles on the road are driving around with nobody inside them the converse is more likely, self driving cars will just further incentivize sprawl by reducing one of the major downsides of the suburban commuter lifestyle, which is that driving in traffic is boring and painful ElCondemn posted:For me it would allow my family to only have one car, right now the only reason we need two cars is to transport our kid to and from daycare. The car can drop me or my wife off at work and then go back and allow us to drop off our kid at daycare and then take the other person to their work. talking about society as a whole and not your choices in specific, we could achieve this right now by encouraging people to get away from wasteful, exclusionary suburban living. no self driving cars or fantastic technology required it's really just a matter of people saying that they want the convenience of personal vehicle use without the downsides of having to maintain or pay for that vehicle. imo it's an unrealistic fantasy, one which has been promised to americans since the 1950s
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
and i just want to point out in a separate post, so you don't feel like i'm attacking you personally because i am not, but we need to destroy the american conception of suburbs anyway because they are deliberately constructed as a wasteful, racist barrier to enforce racial segregation. i'm not posting extensive cites because i dont want to derail this thread so early but you can pm me or if there's ever an urban planning thread i will lecture to excrutiating extent about it but trust me, suburban sprawl as practiced in america is entirely a legacy of white supremacy and it needs to be destroyed
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:if you optimize for density mass transit becomes more efficient. sending your car back home to park itself just means you're generating more trips, except now half the vehicles on the road are driving around with nobody inside them Well in my ideal world the self driving car would be a subscription service like car2go and pick up the closest passenger(s). It should be like car2go and charge per mile encouraging the use of mass transit, so I would use it how I used to. The issue I have today is that my job is no longer along a bus route that doesn't add multiple miles on each end, also I had a kid so it's a bit harder to just hop in a car without a car seat. boner confessor posted:the converse is more likely, self driving cars will just further incentivize sprawl by reducing one of the major downsides of the suburban commuter lifestyle, which is that driving in traffic is boring and painful I'm hoping cost and accessibility of car services will reduce individual car ownership, especially in cases where people are just trying to get to a mass transit terminal. boner confessor posted:talking about society as a whole and not your choices in specific, we could achieve this right now by encouraging people to get away from wasteful, exclusionary suburban living. no self driving cars or fantastic technology required I'd love to live within walking distance of work and daycare, but right now my office is about 6 miles from my home. It's actually a lot closer than my last job but it's not easily reachable via bus without adding a considerable amount of commute time so I drive/car pool instead. Where I live is actually in a really great spot with great access to downtown via express bus routes and a park and ride about 2~ miles from my house that can get you to any part of downtown or the surrounding areas. I walk to get my groceries, weed and comics etc. it's pretty great. The only issue is that I no longer work downtown so it makes having on a personal vehicle a lot more convenient. I think the "last mile(s)" is the problem for most people who commute, it's just a lot more efficient to have a commute where you only have to walk less than a mile after departing your personal vehicle/bus/whatever. boner confessor posted:it's really just a matter of people saying that they want the convenience of personal vehicle use without the downsides of having to maintain or pay for that vehicle. imo it's an unrealistic fantasy, one which has been promised to americans since the 1950s I think autonomous cars will give us the convenience we want but also improve the efficiency of our current infrastructure. Just imagine smaller "van" services that go into neighborhoods for morning commutes that have dedicated lanes to get to mass transit centers. It would give people the flexibility to have an end to end route that doesn't require long walking distances or a personal vehicle. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Well in my ideal world the self driving car would be a subscription service like car2go in my ideal world i take a futurama tube, it's about as realistic ElCondemn posted:I think autonomous cars will give us the convenience we want but also improve the efficiency of our current infrastructure. Just imagine smaller "van" services t yeah taxis already exist i like this fantasy world where robotaxis exist in the next thirty years and also are cheap enough to use daily. given the diurnal patterns of people as well as limited capacity of roadways you're going to be paying nicely for notUber Gold Level membership that guarantees less than a ten minute wait during peak travel times. why not just go for broke and assume teleportation or something equally convenient suburban infrastructure is already choking on traffic because it's not designed to be efficient, it's designed to be inefficient to keep the poors out. that's like exactly why it exists in the form in which it exists. you can't make it more efficient by using future cars, that's like saying you can cure heart disease by only drinking diet soda. the form factor of a car sized personal vehicle is exactly what causes the problem, who or what drives it is irrelevant boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:in my ideal world i take a futurama tube, it's about as realistic car2go exists... why is this unrealistic? boner confessor posted:yeah taxis already exist Taxis exist but they're not available on demand like a car2go is, the only problem with car2go is that sometimes the car is farther than a convenient walking distance. An autonomous ride share system would give you that last mile convenience. Uber/Lyft solve this problem somewhat but they're quite pricey and aren't efficient for single occupants. Car2go is already pretty drat cheap, it cost me maybe 100 bucks on top of my normal 100 dollar bus fare. Maybe that's a lot for some people but it's certainly cheaper than driving to work every day (at least when I worked downtown). I'm imagining a ride share van ferrying people the last mile into their neighborhoods, not really single occupant robo cars because as we've both identified the infrastructure isn't going to scale to put more cars on the road. Autonomous cars give us an entry into suburban mass transit without the expense of having every home demolished and replaced with mixed use high rises (which I agree is the ideal).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Taxis aren't available on demand? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:an entry into suburban mass transit without the expense of having every home demolished and replaced with mixed use high rises (which I agree is the ideal). it really is easier and more incremental than this, the whole "gosh we'll just have to flatten the suburbs and replace it all with soviet tower blocks and that's so expensive" is a misleading argument meant to make the issue seem insurmountable when i promise you suburban infill is happening all around us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlm7_OKJOI
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
It's cheap, it's only an extra hundred a month, says guy who has extra hundred a month
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Anyway here's a cross post from iThreadCondiv posted:ars technica did an article on how decievingly dark the video released of the crash is: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it really is easier and more incremental than this, the whole "gosh we'll just have to flatten the suburbs and replace it all with soviet tower blocks and that's so expensive" is a misleading argument meant to make the issue seem insurmountable when i promise you suburban infill is happening all around us I'm not trying to make an argument that it's too expensive, where I live (Seattle) we are moving that direction. My only point is that autonomous cars and other ride share options are great solutions to the last mile problem until we have mixed use neighborhoods. Though it certainly doesn't solve the whole "I live here but work there" problem, so we still have a last mile problem but maybe not as dire since bus routes should be more accessible in these areas. BENGHAZI 2 posted:It's cheap, it's only an extra hundred a month, says guy who has extra hundred a month Firstly, just gently caress off, you are the worst poster. Secondly, 100 dollars a month is peanuts if you're commuting into a city like mine. But even if you've got free parking a ride share program that gets you to a transit center for only 100 a month is enough to replace the cost of gas, parking, maintenance, and all the rest of the expenses of car ownership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
A hundred bucks a month plus an extra hundred for Mass transit is almost four times what I pay for transportation now, don't give me poo poo because I point out that that isn't finacially feasible for a lot of people who you claim this is good for actually
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
That ars technica analysis is stupid, they say:quote:The view is roughly centered on that white sign on the right sidewalk. Impact is somewhere beyond the white sign. When we can clearly see the white sign in the video is at the point where the road splits into more lanes, the accident looks like it happened right after or under the bridge. The white sign that can be seen in the pedestrian video isn't the same one we see on the aerial view. Also we see the street lights illuminating the road in the distance, the area where the pedestrian was located was not illuminated so maybe the street light was out or something? If the argument is that Uber reduced the brightness on purpose it doesn't explain the lack of street illumination where the pedestrian is moving. Unless the argument is that Uber doctored the footage in addition to adjusting the contrast and brightness? If that's the argument, well I guess I can't prove that isn't what happened... BENGHAZI 2 posted:A hundred bucks a month plus an extra hundred for Mass transit is almost four times what I pay for transportation now, don't give me poo poo because I point out that that isn't finacially feasible for a lot of people who you claim this is good for actually Maybe in your poo poo city gas and the bus is a lot cheaper, adjust the math accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
I think the argument is just that the video sucks and isn't a good representation of the area, not an accusation of malfeasance on the part of Uber I mostly just wanted to use malfeasance in a sentence
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:That ars technica analysis is stupid, they say: you might actually try reading the article? their argument is that the dashcam was poorly configured for the light conditions they were driving in, making the environment the accident occurred in appear darker than it was in reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I think the argument is just that the video sucks and isn't a good representation of the area, not an accusation of malfeasance on the part of Uber Really? Because they go into analysis of headlight distance, and how the driver should've seen the person 4 seconds before impact. Yet we never see the driver look away for more than 4 seconds. I think it's pretty clear they're implying something more than just a poorly configured camera. But even so I'm not really sure what the point of all of this is, if it were as bright as you and these arm chair video analysis experts are claiming then why didn't the driver see the pedestrian way earlier? None of this has anything to do with the failure with the sensor system in that car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Because they weren't fuckin paying attention because riding in the car is inherently more passive than actively driving it, we keep going over this
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
You can contrast the video from Uber with other videos and talk about how weird it is without saying Uber deliberately released a video that makes them look better, Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Really? Because they go into analysis of headlight distance, and how the driver should've seen the person 4 seconds before impact. Yet we never see the driver look away for more than 4 seconds. they talk about headlight distance cause even if you think things were as dark as the video portrays, that just means the uber car was travelling at hilariously unsafe speeds for the visibility conditions it had. it's really like you just skimmed the article as fast as you could so you could come back into the thread and say how it's wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
pretty cool conspiracy theorizing about a crappy dashcam's bad resolution which wasn't even part of the car's sensor suite anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Taxis aren't available on demand? Have you ever ordered a taxi? I guess I meant they're slow, on demand I guess doesn't imply any amount of speed just that you have to call ahead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:pretty cool conspiracy theorizing about a crappy dashcam's bad resolution which wasn't even part of the car's sensor suite anyway Conspiracy theory implies we think they did it on purpose or that it's part of a larger narrative All I or as far as I can tell anyone else in this thread has said is "maybe let's not take that footage as godpel because it's not an accurate representation of the actual conditions"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Conspiracy theory implies we think they did it on purpose or that it's part of a larger narrative Right, so you're arguing with who? Where are the people saying "this is exactly what the human eye would see"? Seems like there aren't any people saying that, so maybe you're just full of poo poo and trying to make it seem like you're doing something other than implying Uber is conspiring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
The footage isn't as important as the other sensors, anyways, which obviously failed in some manner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The footage isn't as important as the other sensors, anyways, which obviously failed in some manner. Exactly, I'd love to hear what Uber has to say about that. This exact scenario is what automated cars are supposed to be good at, so what happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Right, so you're arguing with who? Where are the people saying "this is exactly what the human eye would see"? Seems like there aren't any people saying that, so maybe you're just full of poo poo and trying to make it seem like you're doing something other than implying Uber is conspiring. Sure nobody was basing their idea of what happened off that video, but anybody saying anything contrary to what that video showed is just full of poo poo and a conspiracy theorist Listen to yourself dude and take a step backa Edit I was also pretty open about calling the people who said "ah well clearly they compressed it or whatever to make it favorable to them" idiots
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:36
|
|