Wanderer @ Wanderer @lemm.ee

Posts

36

Comments

1,474

Joined

2 yr. ago

I haven't heard anything about that. Got a link? I don't even see how that would work in real time. Waymo is a very safe driver and can Indians even drive in the US on their licence because it's so crap?

This story came out recently about Amazon shopping:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actually-1-000-people-in-india-2024-4?amp

You thinking of that?

If I built a catapult and fired a big arse log into the tower things wouldn't it look kick arse and make cool sparks and shit?

I feel like I would need some Bros to help make and manoeuvre the catapult obviously.

But like... are we sure we come out ahead spending decades on machine vision and self driving versus just having more human taxi drivers, and spending the money on the end goals we actually want?

Human driving cost is forever. A self driving programme cost is for today only.

The money has been spent. Waymo is operating without a driver in Phoenix, LA and San Francisco.

Ultimately it's private money. No public money is being spent on it. The government can (and should) invest in public transport also. But how alphabet spends their money isn't up to the government.

Anything can be nationalised.

So just for context.

Fixed wind turbines can only really be put in in 60m depth or less. Water that shallow is usually close the coast though there are some exceptions like the dogger bank, but that's rare.

If you are 100m off the ground you can see 36 km out to sea. (Or be visible 36 km from shore).

The EEZ of countries, where you can install wind turbines, is 370km from shore. Currently (new tech) there seems to be floating offshore capable of operating at 1km deep waters.

If floating wind takes off. Visibility might not be an issue at all. Wind speeds are higher and more constant out out sea. It's a win, win, win. If it can be made cheap enough.

I'm team Waymo. They seem to be the leaders and to be following a path I most agree with. Basically and taxi model like uber except Waymo owns the cars.

I still follow /r/waymo and /r/selfdrivingcars on reddit if you fancy reading more.

Currently people drive all the way to the destination and all the way back. If taxis funnelled them to trains that is a huge improvement if nothing else. And like you say parking gets freed up and that land can be used for more density, more parks and more cycling without losing roads then all good. (Roads should be reduced I'm just saying politically it will be easier to turn an unused carpark into a park than to turn a road into a park).

It terms of cost. I think that will be a huge boom for the economy. High milage, electric cars fueled by cheap renewables is going to make upfront costs non existent and lower per milage costs. That will increase riders verses personal cars.

Then I think that will cause a higher density per car. Ride sharing with uber works but it isn't great. The more people that use it the higher likelihood you have of people going to the same area so the time cost of ride sharing will decrease as usage increases. The UK actually experimented with on demand buses (Demand Responsive Transport) which I really liked but the uptake hasn't been as good as hoped. Think this will be more common.

All these factors I believe will make walking/cycling/ trains safer and more accessible and allow for more infrastructure and better cost per rider.

But it can't be the end-state. We should still be working towards denser, walkable, living spaces. I don't want to continue with the idea that the suburbs are ok.

I agree but the political will isn't there. Getting rid of parking and a lane here or there is achievable on the current trajectory. Once that's done, I hope more change like you mention comes.

But it's also the built it and they will come factor. Who wants more cyclists? People that cycle. If the self driving car makes more cyclist more people will want more cycling. I'm really hoping for a self feeding cycle grown from the self driving car.

Fuck them.

But more realistically there should be a land value tax in place anyway. If the price does go down I wouldn't be totally against giving them money. But would have to be over a period of say 10 years to avoid any market inefficient panic causing a temporary dip.

I hate cars as much as the next rational man. But I'm ironically really into the self driving car hype.

I think of transport like a pyramid.

Walking is at the top followed by micro mobility and cycling. Then at the bottom is trains, with metros/ trams above and buses above that.

The issue comes from two things. The last mile problem. You need to get to the railway station and sometimes it's too far for a walk or a bike, or you need a bike at both ends. The "obvious" solution to that is to drive to the station. But then it just becomes easier to drive the whole way (especially if you need transport at the next station).

So people start driving and then there is less demand for public transport and more cars mean less people want to cycle.

I think self driving cars will be game changing. They solve the last mile problem which means metro and railway usage could very easily increase. Much, much higher usage of ride hailing means more people in each vehicles (might even replace buses with mini buses), those vehicles don't need to park in say a cycle lane or even downtown. This frees up land and opportunity for more walking and cycling. Also people will be more comfortable cycling closer to a self driving car.

I really hope this causes a cultural shift and that shift is well utilised. But it could do absolutely nothing if those car brains foam at the mouth and complain about a new cycle path and bike storage no matter the positives.

It's nice to be in the city where there aren't many cars. Very quiet.

Cities aren't loud cars are.

Thanks.

I would like to know more.

This is a liberal echo chamber but reddit fucked me off.

Anything more neutral? Something with a sense of humour. This are some of the most boring fucks I've ever met on the internet. They all got their panties in a twist on their high horse.

But I am left leaning so I don't want a right wing echo chamber I just want free speech and banter.

Their idea of building a new rocket is by reusing as much of the 1970's shuttle tech as they can.

Those are valid points. The people that actually know even small amounts about the company do have interesting insights.

But I wasn't talking about those people. I was talking about people that see the name Elon and immediately "know" the company is in a shambles, failing and can't keep up with the competition and all other sorts of nonsense based on no facts.

It's not context because it's irrelevant to the point at hand. It's an adjacent point but it isn't related.

I'm talking about people perception of SpaceX. The actual inner workings of the company is an irrelevant point.

I have definitely seen that. You see it more on the tests of Starship. Even when it is successful and goes better than expected. Because it blows up a lot of people are laughing at how bad the company is.

This is all irrelevant to the point I was making which is about people thinking Spacex is a terrible company due to bias.

No more. No less.

I don't think anyone alive is a coloniser.

The only people that live in new Zealand are locals and immigrants. Even if you removed all the immigrants it would still be full of full blooded white kiwis that have never lived anywhere else and potentially never even met a relative that has lived anywhere else. They are a New Zealander.

Glazing for what? How?

Seriously what is going on here?

Okay? If that is or isn't correct what did I say that was wrong?

Are you saying. People think Spacex is a failing company (when it isn't) because of Shotwell?

I know. But I made the original comment and I wasn't on about horses being used for moving men and equipment. I was talking about them being used instead of tanks.

Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?