Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
chrisonatrike wrote:
Good Lord – I’m more of an “extreme left whinger” than I thought. Maybe everyone’s axes have shifted? Did this before and don’t remember so many questions too.Well, if enough of us score left-extremist, then maybe we can finally get round to eating the rich
There’s a reason that people
There’s a reason that people call her the Iron Weathervane
chrisonatrike wrote:
[quote=chrisonatrike]Let’s get multidimensional! https://www.politicalcompass.org/%5B/quote%5D
That’s a lot of questions – I ended up in the bottom left (-9, -7.79)
Yes to the EU. Let’s get back in to the customs union and single market.Another referendum!
Mind you, I wouldn’t want to just give up the Brexit benefits I’ve been enjoying
well I read an article today that said that Liz Truss was the first Conservative PM in the last 30 years who actually was conservative, so opinions may differ on how “hardline as this lot” actually are or have been or as an old saying said its all true, from a certain point of view. Johnsons period in government fwiw was considered left of true centre politics by those who actually follow these things properly.on social media platforms, people surround themselves in a bubble with others who only agree with them, they only follow positive reinforcement of ideals they agree with, therefore are shocked to discover there are people outside of their bubble who follow the negative and dont agree with them
I tend to think that the left-centre-right categories aren’t all that useful except for a very sky-high view of matters. I’d agree that Johnson was unusually centre/left for the Tories and if only he had some integrity he may have introduced some reasonable policies.
The problem with using left/right is that the dividing line tends to shift. e.g. The U.S. has Democrats on the left, but they’d be considered hard right anywhere else. Similarly, we have Starmer’s Labour supposedly on the left, but not supporting strikers.
I’d’ve thought that
I’d’ve thought that autonomous bus services would have some kind of optimisation to have a limited number of stops and certainly hundreds of stops would imply that the bus would have hundreds of passengers all going to different locations which is not realistic. A bus is more likely to have approx thirty people going to maybe 5 separate locations and having about 5 pickup points.EVs each transporting their maximum capacity (4 people) is cherry-picking the best possible CO2 emissions. I suspect that a mixture of buses and cars would be more likely, but still e-bikes would be a better solution for high density cities.
Rich_cb wrote:
Those scenarios would only occur with privately owned driverless cars. Once autonomous cars are a reality private car ownership will plummet as it will be far cheaper to summon a driverless taxi. Pick up journeys are a good example of how occupancy could increase. If one person is being taken to a station the car could easily pick up several more who want to travel to the station whilst on the way. Then once they’ve been dropped off the car could fill up with passengers who’ve just arrived at the station and head off again. The cars could easily be partitioned so each customer had their own space. Trips to refuel could be scheduled to coincide with delivering passengers near to the depot.I think that scenario is more or less re-inventing buses. Autonomous buses could work well as they could add pick-ups and drop-offs dynamically whilst on their journey.
Rich_cb wrote:
Most people want to travel in the sort of comfort that bicycles can’t always provide. There’s no easy way around that. Driverless cars should increase the occupancy of the average car which should significantly decrease the number of cars needed.I don’t see why the occupancy would increase. One advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they can go and fill up with fuel or drive themselves to where they’re needed, so I’d guess that there will be some journeys with zero occupancy which would reduce the average occupancy.
There’s also the journeys where someone is driving just to get their passenger somewhere, so with autonomous vehicles, that would be reduced from a journey with two people to a journey with one person which again would reduce occupancy although I’d consider it more efficient as it wouldn’t need the driver to be make the journey at all.
I think it is a sort of taxi-sharing idea.I can see that you could offer different rates for exclusive use and shared use which could help with this.
Our car does not move off the drive very much but a hire car for us would need to be able to accommodate 2 bikes or 2 kayaks. No doubt 99% of the population will claim a similar sort of special case !
That should reduce the number of parked vehicles, but would probably result in more vehicles driving on the road due to the journeys with zero occupants. Again, the problem with cars is their excess size, so they’re good for transporting a whole family (with or without bikes and kayaks), but they really suck for shifting a large number of people in densely populated areas. E-bikes don’t suffer from being too big and they wouldn’t need to perform unaccompanied journeys (i.e. without a rider) as they are a reasonable price for commuters to invest in one.
“A bad driver with quick
“A bad driver with quick reactions” – that nicely sums up how I think about autonomous vehicles.
How do I join the wonderful simplicity of your black and white world?Just check out the reliability of their reporting – it’s not difficult to separate fact from fiction.
Here’s a couple of starter links for you that summarise their reporting:
From: https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-guardian-reliable/
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, The Guardian scored an average Factual Grade of 64.8%. This is slightly above the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the newspaper in the 60th percentile of our dataset.From: https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the site in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.You will also notice that I am providing links and external sources to back up my claim. Feel free to respond with a similar level of accountability, though I suspect you just wish to make some political snipe rather than being interested in what’s actually going on.
I don’t think it’s worthwhile
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to base heuristics on dogs being on leads or not. Surely any object moving along a pavement can be safely ignored until their direction changes. AI should be able to respond almost instantly, so if a dog on a lead suddenly spots a squirrel and manages to slip its lead and run into the road, the car can be hitting the brakes the moment the dog is off the pavement. Humans would believe a dog on a lead to be under control and would be unable to react in time.
However, things suddenly running into the road is an edge case and certainly human drivers will be unable to avoid collisions in those circumstances if they’re moving quickly.
‘A good piece in the Grauniad….’Just like saying – ‘A good piece in the Heil….’
For it’s faults…no it bloody isn’t.
Both just comics. Both utterly biased. Both rubbish.
The Gradinua bases its reporting on facts, whereas the Heil just makes shit up.
Looks like we’ll have some practical experience soon. DPD launching autonomous delivery in Milton Keynes. Currently learning routes according to this.https://www.lapostegroupe.com/en/news/dpd-uk-to-launch-autonomous-delivery-robots-in-milton
A bit sceptical myself.
Those little robots are kinda cute.
I suspect they’ll have more difficulty from people going and kicking them over, than they’ll get from any collisions, but then they move slow enough and are small enough that collisions are unlikely to be serious.
I still think that
I still think that determining the class of moving object is less important than reliably detecting it. With unpredictable movers such as dogs and children, I’d say that the AI only needs to predict their current trajectory to determine if there’s any need to slow down or change course. The advantage of using AI is that it shouldn’t matter that it’s approaching a sheep lazily munching on the roadside – it should detect the proximity and lack of kerb and slow down appropriately to pass it and if the sheep suddenly makes a run for it, the AI would be able to detect that and react in milliseconds. It’s our slow reactions that mean that we have to have such good predictive models in our heads.
I’d consider that even with decent LIDAR, the AI models will still need to have object persistence and tracking, so if it detects a small child (or large squirrel) on the pavement and then it loses sight of it as it runs behind a parked car, it’d flag it as a possible hazard and reduce speed as necessary until it spots it again or passes the last known location.