Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars

[Divine Wind]

It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.

Programs are now so complex that it would take years to debug them with pure research alone. By issuing them after basic research and letting users use them 100,000 times a day, bugs are found, fixed and issued for free. To spend years doing this themselves would not only be cost prohibitive, but by the time the program is released, it's outdated.

I see this problem with government-issued equipment and programs. By the time it's tested, manufactured and issued to personnel, it's 5 years out of date behind what civilians have off the shelves.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.

Programs are now so complex that it would take years to debug them with pure research alone. By issuing them after basic research and letting users use them 100,000 times a day, bugs are found, fixed and issued for free. To spend years doing this themselves would not only be cost prohibitive, but by the time the program is released, it's outdated.

I see this problem with government-issued equipment and programs. By the time it's tested, manufactured and issued to personnel, it's 5 years out of date behind what civilians have off the shelves.

Programs are only complex because software developers are lazy. Word processors do little more than they did 15 years ago yet take up 800% more hard drive and sends the latest Intel processor into conniptions out of the blue. Most testing is done by customers now. They toss something that almost works out there and wait for the failure reports to come in.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.

Programs are now so complex that it would take years to debug them with pure research alone. By issuing them after basic research and letting users use them 100,000 times a day, bugs are found, fixed and issued for free. To spend years doing this themselves would not only be cost prohibitive, but by the time the program is released, it's outdated.

I see this problem with government-issued equipment and programs. By the time it's tested, manufactured and issued to personnel, it's 5 years out of date behind what civilians have off the shelves.

Programs are only complex because software developers are lazy. Word processors do little more than they did 15 years ago yet take up 800% more hard drive and sends the latest Intel processor into conniptions out of the blue. Most testing is done by customers now. They toss something that almost works out there and wait for the failure reports to come in.

Dude, you're still living in a 286 world. You said it yourself.

Think what you want.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.

Programs are now so complex that it would take years to debug them with pure research alone. By issuing them after basic research and letting users use them 100,000 times a day, bugs are found, fixed and issued for free. To spend years doing this themselves would not only be cost prohibitive, but by the time the program is released, it's outdated.

I see this problem with government-issued equipment and programs. By the time it's tested, manufactured and issued to personnel, it's 5 years out of date behind what civilians have off the shelves.

Programs are only complex because software developers are lazy. Word processors do little more than they did 15 years ago yet take up 800% more hard drive and sends the latest Intel processor into conniptions out of the blue. Most testing is done by customers now. They toss something that almost works out there and wait for the failure reports to come in.

Dude, you're still living in a 286 world. You said it yourself.

Think what you want.

Facts is facts.

 

[Divine Wind]

Facts is facts.

Agreed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

 

[Montrovant]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

Sorry, what?

 

[SixFoot]

I foresee, look forward to, a day when I can summon an autonomous car as I'm getting dressed. It will arrive at my doorstep and recognize me as I approach, opening the door and asking my destination. Upon arrival, with the swipe of my hand, I confirm that the trip is over and approve the charge to my account.

When I leave, the same process. We won't need to own cars because we can summon one at any time. No insurance, no maintenance, no traffic woes because all the cars and trucks will move efficiently place to place, not the way humans drive. The only visible traffic signals will be for pedestrians and those on two wheels - car and truck traffic will be controlled electronically.

I'm no spring chicken, but I think I'll live to see the day with this is the norm. I also hope to see the day when schoolchildren ask, "Teacher, did we really used to burn irreplaceable fossil fuel for personal transportation?"

In 20 - 30 more years, 3D printers will be recycling common household trash. Even the garbage man isn't safe, but manufacturing itself is set to become a household norm.

 

[SwimExpert]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

Sorry, what?

Ask your smartphone.

 

[Montrovant]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

Sorry, what?

Ask your smartphone.

1. I don't have a smartphone
2. I think you may be confused as to the concept of automation

 

[SwimExpert]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

Sorry, what?

Ask your smartphone.

1. I don't have a smartphone
2. I think you may be confused as to the concept of automation

Let me explain it this way....

We live in an instant gratification, where typing two letters into a web browser takes you directly to pages, a quick spoken word into a smartphone tells you how to drive somewhere, etc. The modern digital age is training people to be mindless bags of organic matter. It is training people to expect whatever they want, whenever they want, because they want. Want it, and it will be delivered.

And to make matters worse, the more people want the more devices are modified to automate that which is desired. We went from wanting to talk with someone, to wanting to talk with someone anywhere (cell phones), to wanting to talk with someone now (text messaging), to wanting to talk with them face to face anywhere (mobile data), etc. And then, people didn't want to wait the extra half second to navigate their device to the appropriate app, so the devices were modified even more with quick launches, etc. And they couldn't bother with the time it takes to write a text, so the devices were modified to write texts out of what you speak, and to read them to you. Now, people can't be bothered to deal with actual human interaction anymore. They've got their heads so far up the asses of machines they can't be bothered with actually living their lives, they need an app for that. This is all part of a cycle of increasing automation, increased demand for instant gratification, and increased belief in technological inerrantcy.

So in the case of text messaging while driving.....people use their phones to navigate with google maps, and associate their phone with things that are good. Their phone sends them a text message. Their phones are good, therefore what their phone tells them is also a good thing to so. Therefore, they read the text message while driving. This causes an accident, which is bad. The proposed solution is for the phone to do the driving; the phone is good, it's people who are bad and dangerous. When in reality, the phone is the source of the problems to begin with.

 

[Al Azar]

All this instant gratification, that for younger folks is all they've ever known, is going to come back to bite us big time someday.

 

[Montrovant]

Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.

Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.

Sorry, what?

Ask your smartphone.

1. I don't have a smartphone
2. I think you may be confused as to the concept of automation

Let me explain it this way....

We live in an instant gratification, where typing two letters into a web browser takes you directly to pages, a quick spoken word into a smartphone tells you how to drive somewhere, etc. The modern digital age is training people to be mindless bags of organic matter. It is training people to expect whatever they want, whenever they want, because they want. Want it, and it will be delivered.

And to make matters worse, the more people want the more devices are modified to automate that which is desired. We went from wanting to talk with someone, to wanting to talk with someone anywhere (cell phones), to wanting to talk with someone now (text messaging), to wanting to talk with them face to face anywhere (mobile data), etc. And then, people didn't want to wait the extra half second to navigate their device to the appropriate app, so the devices were modified even more with quick launches, etc. And they couldn't bother with the time it takes to write a text, so the devices were modified to write texts out of what you speak, and to read them to you. Now, people can't be bothered to deal with actual human interaction anymore. They've got their heads so far up the asses of machines they can't be bothered with actually living their lives, they need an app for that. This is all part of a cycle of increasing automation, increased demand for instant gratification, and increased belief in technological inerrantcy.

So in the case of text messaging while driving.....people use their phones to navigate with google maps, and associate their phone with things that are good. Their phone sends them a text message. Their phones are good, therefore what their phone tells them is also a good thing to so. Therefore, they read the text message while driving. This causes an accident, which is bad. The proposed solution is for the phone to do the driving; the phone is good, it's people who are bad and dangerous. When in reality, the phone is the source of the problems to begin with.

Wow. That's pretty ridiculous.

First, let me just point out that we didn't go from people wanting to talk anywhere with cell phones to talking to someone now with texting. Texts are, in fact, almost always going to be a slower form of communication than a voice conversation. I don't think most people will read as quickly as someone else will talk, and I certainly don't think most people are going to type as quickly as they can talk. I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.

Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars. The only human interaction that may be affected by this would be with people like taxi drivers.

Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed. Texting may have caused more distracted driving accidents, but there were quite a few of them before texting or even cell phones. People ARE dangerous when it comes to driving. Here, let me give you some links to motor vehicle deaths : FARS Encyclopedia Fatality Facts

Your posts seems to be more anti-technology in general than anything specific to self-driving cars or even automation.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.

Which is why so many people get angry if you don't text back right away.

Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars.

It is subtracting "human" from both sides of an equation. Both cases are an instance of removing humans from the equation.

Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed.

You're the one who brought it up. Now you don't want to talk about it??

 

[Montrovant]

I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.

Which is why so many people get angry if you don't text back right away.

Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars.

It is subtracting "human" from both sides of an equation. Both cases are an instance of removing humans from the equation.

Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed.

You're the one who brought it up. Now you don't want to talk about it??

People get angry if you sit on the phone without saying anything during a conversation. How does someone wanting a text reply right away make texting about talking to someone 'now' where a traditional phone conversation is not?

There is a big difference between people interacting with other people socially and whether or not humans are better drivers than a self-driving car.

I brought up texting just as an example of people causing accidents rather than automation. I could just as easily have said reading a newspaper, or eating, or any other way people get distracted while driving. Or I could have brought up drunk driving, which would not be an issue with self-driving cars. Or I could point out that some people are simply reckless, bad drivers. Far too many, actually.

Self driving cars need to be exhaustively tested, but I don't see how automation is inherently more dangerous than people.

 

[GHook93]

Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need. There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.

Consider this. Suppose workers are making $20/hr and someone comes along with a robot that can do the same job for the equivalent of $10/hr. Bad news for the workers, right?

But only until the maker of the robot becomes so essential that he figures he's entitled to charge more for his popular robots. Then the human worker may look like the better deal.

The dynamics generally find a mean. Things average out over time. There will be bumps along the road but resistance to change should ensure that transition to widespread automation will be manageable.

Say the so called burger maker robot takes off. Say it costs $100k and $5k in annual maintenance. Say it takes the place of 10 workers who cost the company $30k a piece. That is a $195k saving year one.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.

Which is why so many people get angry if you don't text back right away.

Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars.

It is subtracting "human" from both sides of an equation. Both cases are an instance of removing humans from the equation.

Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed.

You're the one who brought it up. Now you don't want to talk about it??

People get angry if you sit on the phone without saying anything during a conversation. How does someone wanting a text reply right away make texting about talking to someone 'now' where a traditional phone conversation is not?

There is a big difference between people interacting with other people socially and whether or not humans are better drivers than a self-driving car.

I brought up texting just as an example of people causing accidents rather than automation. I could just as easily have said reading a newspaper, or eating, or any other way people get distracted while driving. Or I could have brought up drunk driving, which would not be an issue with self-driving cars. Or I could point out that some people are simply reckless, bad drivers. Far too many, actually.

Self driving cars need to be exhaustively tested, but I don't see how automation is inherently more dangerous than people.

 

[Al Azar]

Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need. There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.

Consider this. Suppose workers are making $20/hr and someone comes along with a robot that can do the same job for the equivalent of $10/hr. Bad news for the workers, right?

But only until the maker of the robot becomes so essential that he figures he's entitled to charge more for his popular robots. Then the human worker may look like the better deal.

The dynamics generally find a mean. Things average out over time. There will be bumps along the road but resistance to change should ensure that transition to widespread automation will be manageable.

Say the so called burger maker robot takes off. Say it costs $100k and $5k in annual maintenance. Say it takes the place of 10 workers who cost the company $30k a piece. That is a $195k saving year one.

The robot maker may price his product at $100K initially, but once the owner makes the switch, Burgerman 2.0 is introduced, which does a lot of things that the restaurant owner wished his model did, and it costs $300K and $10K/yr to maintain.

One way or another, if the Burgerman is any good, it is going to become popular and the price will rise to meet demand. The initial savings goes right out the window and the restaurant owner is now completely dependent on a single burger-making system which either works fine or doesn't function at all, rather than a team of employees which can be replaced, increased or decreased as needed to keep the operation going.

It may, in the long run, work out cheaper for the restaurant, but in the short term it could cause fatal problems that would have been only hiccups when working with a human team. A machine that's offline for a week or ten days is no different than a week or ten-day long strike, except that a strike is both predictable and preventable.

 

[sealybobo]

'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future

The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.

There are 2 sides of the coin.
(1) The liberals will scream those poor uber drivers are losing their jobs to a greedy corporation, yet the reality is if uber didn't do this another company would have and then put them out of business. Think blockbuster refusing to change and Netflix innovations them out of the market place. So it would have occurred either way. Humans have been innovating and making things better since the dawn of time. Driverless cars were inevitable.

(2) The heartless conservative will say get a different job and cry on someone else's shoulder. Yes everyone loves innovation until it is their job automated out of existence. The reality is automation continues to grow the amount of jobs continue to shrink. Ex. The amount of people required to make a car has decreased 1000 fold in a just a few decades. The manufacturing and assembly sectors have been hit hardest, but won't end there. Low level service jobs are going to get hit hard. But it won't stop there, the medical field, legal field, accounting field, and really all white collar jobs will be reexamine and the list goes on and on. The number of people entering the workforce will only grow and the job market will only decrease.

What is going to be the solution? I don't know, but I doubt it won't involve less government intervention!

Uber drivers are complaining they aren’t being paid enough. At first they paid the workers well but slowly they have cut back so that now it’s no longer a good job.

I hope an Uber driver starts Iber. Get all the other Uber drivers to join you. Give them more pay and never cut their pay.

My Iber service will make every driver a part owner of the company.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Uber drivers are complaining they aren’t being paid enough. At first they paid the workers well but slowly they have cut back so that now it’s no longer a good job.

I hope an Uber driver starts Iber. Get all the other Uber drivers to join you. Give them more pay and never cut their pay.

My Iber service will make every driver a part owner of the company.

And despite the less pay Uber still loses money. Uber is paying drivers less because the drivers are willing to work for less. If they start running into a shortage of drivers they'll have to start paying more again. It's that simple.

There is actually an attempt to have a nationwide driver strike today for Uber, but I doubt it will be successful.

Why Uber and Lyft drivers are striking - CNN