Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: Admin on December 15, 2018, 02:49:44 AM
-
This is where the internet of things gets really interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDxDWdnLQDA
-
And what happens when one of those sensors doesn't function properly? Sensors do not last indefinitely. As an example, I had to change out a malfunctioning sensor for my brakes on my truck where the sensor was basically sending a false positive.
And as for the IoT's, anything connected to the internet can be hacked.
-
Yeah sensors will need testing and changing. Even with things like that, if you think humans are statistically safer than tech driven machines you are kidding yourself. People jumped up and down when Google had the first accident, pointing to it as a failure and ignoring the huge number of miles the program had in so many cars and different locales. The accident rate for people versus machines will be at least an order of magnitude, maybe two, when they are interconnected and erratic human drivers are off the roads.
-
Can they stop drop ins at crowded surf spots?
-
Very cool! Still a few years away from widespread adoption. I look forward to the time when driverless technology will take many vehicles off our roads. It can’t happen soon enough.
Bob
-
Yeah sensors will need testing and changing. Even with things like that, if you think humans are statistically safer than tech driven machines you are kidding yourself.
When I was working for a maritime company and was a boat captain piloting one of their ships, they installed a new auto pilot which was going to make my job "easier".
This "make my job easier" was in my opinion a "disaster waiting to happen". I never trusted this piece of equipment because based on my own workings with it since it seemed to be slightly "off" in its calculations. Complaining to the company higher ups fell on "deaf ears". When I was at the helm of the ship, I never used the auto pilot. I eventually left that company because of it. I never got burned but I don't put myself in a situation where I might get burned.
When an auto pilot is off by a slight amount, if one is stead fast in thinking the machine is better than a human, that can have serious consequences.
Fast forward a few years after I left the company, that same ship was being piloted by a much younger ship's captain than me and he relied on that autopilot because he thought like you and the machine was better than a human. One extremely thick foggy night that auto pilot "didn't work quite right" if you get my drift and the ship ran aground on a shoal. The CG took immediate possession of the ship where no one was allowed onboard except for CG personnel. Two weeks later, an official CG Board of Inquiry was started and held.
In the Inquiry, the company placed the blame on the young ship's captain, but someone (who wont' be mentioned) anonymously called the ship's captain and told him to have an outside company check the auto pilot "with a fine tooth comb". Once that came to light in the CG's Board of Inquiry and after the findings were found showing the auto pilot was "just off" for the want of a better term, the young ship's captain was cleared of negligence.
The maritime company was fined a goodly amount and it's reputation was "sullied" because the previous ship's captain documented in writing what he found wrong with the auto pilot, but the maritime company destroyed that report via the paper shredder and deleted the emails.......or so the company thought they had destroyed that report where it would never see the light of day ever again.
As for the young ship's captain, he left the company on his own terms just like the previous oldler ship's captain who left the company. So even though the odds are long and in favor with the machines, say "1" in 500,000 or "1" in (2,000,000), if you are that "1" and win that lottery so to speak, you'll change your tune.
Just like getting bit by a shark or getting struck by lightning, the odds are extemely low unless it happens to you.
As for me and technology, I'll never own an autonomous (driverless) vehicle or an all electric vehicle.
-
The autopilot experience from years back really isn't relevant to this technology. There is lots of negative anecdata out there, but compiled stats show a lot more competence by the machines. And they are improving every day with lots of ongoing development.
-
And what happens when one of those sensors doesn't function properly? Sensors do not last indefinitely. As an example, I had to change out a malfunctioning sensor for my brakes on my truck where the sensor was basically sending a false positive.
And as for the IoT's, anything connected to the internet can be hacked.
Hi Night,
That is one of the big advantages over humans. When an automated sensor goes out, you have massive redundancy (and the system can report it). That is even true in single auto scenarios. This however brings (at full fruition) all surrounding vehicles and surrounding V2X hardware into play. All can adjust when one gets wiggly and it can happen in real time.
-
I feel ya Night Wing. We are wise to not put blind faith in new technology. That said, for every anecdote about a failure in technology- there are likely (quite conservatively) 10 more demonstrating a failure in human judgement/actions. There is all kinds of now standard reliable and trusted technology on a ship that was at one time new and untrusted by old hands. One key is safety standards that require built in redundancy within critical parts/applications.
Like it or not- the world is changing. Fast. We humans tend to think of the future in terms of linear progress similar to our own past experience, but the reality is a synchronistic effect of all areas of science/study providing exponential advancement. The last 10 years and the socio-political chaos/ growing pains we are feeling... the sensation that the world is racing forward faster than we can adjust points to this. I'd be very surprised if we'll even be allowed to drive a vehicle within an urban area in 20 years.
-
Very cool! Still a few years away from widespread adoption. I look forward to the time when driverless technology will take many vehicles off our roads. It can’t happen soon enough.
Bob
Because many will be scared to death to go out there with all those driverless cars.
-
Very cool! Still a few years away from widespread adoption. I look forward to the time when driverless technology will take many vehicles off our roads. It can’t happen soon enough.
Bob
Because many will be scared to death to go out there with all those driverless cars.
The most difficult programming in AVs is interacting with erratic humans. People turn left in front of you when there isn't enough time unless you jump on the breaks, run red lights, step off the curb against the light, etc. Other people have accidents when this happens. Not every time but often. But if an AV has an accident 1 in 1000 times when that happens, people are up in arms even though a person might have had an accident 1 in 50 times in those situations. I am just making up ballpark numbers; I think the real numbers are worse than that. We really aren't that good at driving. Most people think they are far better than average drivers and the stats are about other people. Some are right; most are not. But that is a big part of why people won't accept them.
-
Wings observations are particularly relevant because they are consistent with the majority of people looking at new technology--and almost anything else. They freeze the timeframe to their era of highest productivity and professional accomplishment. It's a natural effect--that's when your knowledge is most relevant. It's difficult to keep up with technological change when you don't need to. So the clumsy and limited analog technology of a ship's autopilot seems relevant to bleeding edge tech that is literally 50 years newer.
That's not restricted to technology. Most people believe the world is headed towards vast overpopulation as third world birthrate continues to skyrocket. You can tell someone that the birthrate worldwide peaked several years ago, and that after the population reaches 9 billion (inevitable barring catastrophe since the people who will have those children have already been born) the world population will decline--fairly precipitously barring big changes. They read the Population Bomb in 1968, and that's what they expect to happen. The fact that 50 years have passed and the cataclysm didn't happen is irrelevant. They think it's still ticking away.
The fact that the phone in your pocket, even if it's three generations out of date, contains more powerful sensors, more capable communications, and more computing power than an entire ship had fifty years ago just doesn't register. Or that the wiring and mechanical components of your car don't work anything like you think they do unless you're driving something vintage, simply slides by. Or that you can set a drone that costs a few hundred dollars to hover in three-dimensional space with a location accuracy of a foot. Doesn't matter.
Yes, people will be scared of autodrive cars, until the generation passes and people who think a human driving a car should be arrested for being irresponsible are running the show. And they will be right. Not only are people inadequately trained and frequently inadequately responsible to handle a vehicle that can and does wipe out a family in an oncoming lane in a few seconds of inattention, but their biological sensors and controls are incapable of analyzing and responding to situations properly--regardless of their training and experience. Formula One drivers--arguably the best drivers on the planet--lose control of their cars. Electronic aids to the drivers are severely limited by the rules--because otherwise they would never lose control and anyone could win at Monaco.
-
Formula One drivers--arguably the best drivers on the planet--lose control of their cars. Electronic aids to the drivers are severely limited by the rules--because otherwise they would never lose control and anyone could win at Monaco.
Or even more problematic for the sport...no one would pay to watch it any longer.
-
Formula One drivers--arguably the best drivers on the planet--lose control of their cars. Electronic aids to the drivers are severely limited by the rules--because otherwise they would never lose control and anyone could win at Monaco.
Or even more problematic for the sport...no one would pay to watch it any longer.
Sano
Driving a vehicle can be quite a bit of fun.......at times such as yesterday for me insanely fun. My work group rented an electric go cart track for a couple of hours. I have never raced before and this brought out every good aspect of competition that I can think of. This “fun” part of driving is what we will lament the loss of in the move to driverless cars.......but we can always go to the track.......
Bob
-
data + internet+computing power + trump + putin + the likes of black cube/cambridge analytica getting the likes of duterte elected via fake trolled shit all over facebook) == a world of breakneck change moving too fast for society to rein in the ill effects
crispr??? yikes
lotta scary horses well outta the barn
auto drive sounds great--once developed and adopted, driving will be way safe for all of us---collection of every data point one produces while "driving" scares me---tho all those data points are already being collected by my phone---and google's server, through which i am currently typing via chrome---they know so much more aboput me than i know about myself--think im nuts? nope--not in this case, at least....
i often shake my head at the world we will leave our children---with things changing so quickly, it may be our world too, before we know it
then there's the human-caused-global-warming horse that is galloping wildly, encouraged by many who have stake in carbon burning profits
check this scary horse:
https://www.wired.com/story/two-melting-glaciers-could-decide-the-fate-of-our-coastlines/
not sure this one can be stopped--likely i will have my toe tag before it hits
-
There's a reason why Uber has so much value in the Valley--and it's not taxi rides.
Technology has always been a two-edged sword, but now the rate of change is so rapid that it's impossible to control. Nuclear weapons have been around for seventy years, and the genie has remained more or less in the bottle. Not so easy to do today.
When I rambled about smartphones it made me think of how much tech is actually embedded in one. Disregard sensors, cameras, touch control, gyroscopes, haptics, proximity detection, etc. and just consider communications--the fundamental function. Every smartphone has at least three radios that hand off communication with no intervention, mostly seamlessly. A constant stream, receiving information from multiple satellites, Transmitting and receiving data, audio, video, managing multiple protocols and CODECs, all without intervention or control. The more you think about it, or know about it, the more like magic it becomes--nearly incomprehensible. Technologists view the stack for that technology as perhaps five or at most ten layers deep, but really it's thousands of layers, all the way to the quantum level going down and all the way up to space exploration. I wouldn't mind all the people staring constantly at their smartphone if they were looking at it in wonder, but really they're using it to say "I'm here, and I'm going there". Or to shoot selfies.
-
Very cool! Still a few years away from widespread adoption. I look forward to the time when driverless technology will take many vehicles off our roads. It can’t happen soon enough.
Bob
Because many will be scared to death to go out there with all those driverless cars.
The most difficult programming in AVs is interacting with erratic humans. People turn left in front of you when there isn't enough time unless you jump on the breaks, run red lights, step off the curb against the light, etc. Other people have accidents when this happens. Not every time but often. But if an AV has an accident 1 in 1000 times when that happens, people are up in arms even though a person might have had an accident 1 in 50 times in those situations. I am just making up ballpark numbers; I think the real numbers are worse than that. We really aren't that good at driving. Most people think they are far better than average drivers and the stats are about other people. Some are right; most are not. But that is a big part of why people won't accept them.
Agree 100%, it's a mental thing more than a tech thing, it would probably take a generation of manual drivers to die off before it's totally excepted.
But then there is the future of weaponry, an electronic pulse that could knock out the technology, making all the cars go out of control or just stop. Leaving the car owners with a manual backup that they don't know how to use. Which I said "car owners" not 'car drivers'. The future's so bright, I've got to wear 8).
-
Two words I forgot in my earlier post about machines being better drivers - road rage. Lots of accidents could be avoided or the situations that caused them never created if there weren't any emotions involved. That problem goes away with AVs.