Self drive and snow

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

I don't think we're totally disagreeing, do we?

No, we're not.
But I don't think you understood my original post re. building new cities in place of our current ones to suit new technologies, that cities have evolved, that they will remain while cars and houses are replaced, that technology's job is to suit and improve them (the cities) not do away with them.

bladespin wrote: »

Don't recall reading that in there, anywhere???

The point is always the same. People wet their pants in near hysteria over self driving cars which certainly will be safer than drunk, inattentive humans looking at their phone and causing over 1 million deaths globally.
But there is always a fear of something new. People don't like change and they don't want to have to adapt to something new. It's human nature. We fear and resist change.
All the arguments about "beta" and Google Play apps are certainly not made by people who have even the faintest clue about the development process.
If anyone has such inside information that could prove negligence on behalf of the manufacturer and can support such claims with actual evidence other than "it's beta!", yes, please make the world aware.

bladespin wrote: »

I do live in a 1970s house, and have had a classic car and ride a 23year old motorbike (it still compares well with a brand new bike).
All are/were just fine and not the horrors you're making them out to be in your rant.

Think you're completely airshotting the car thing as I say they become obsolete and are replaced by newer improved items, (the house will too - that just takes longer) that said the basic design has not changed at all, it has been improved in many if not all areas but hasn't been redesigned, just evolved.

Btw cars/bikes of any era can be modernised just like the house, it's pretty basic engineering, I've done it.

On the 70's house, yes you can bring them up to scratch. If you completely gut them and replace the plumbing, electrics, insulate the attic, the outside walls and after that it's merely a matter of flooring, plastering, painting and adding a few doors, fixtures and the odd bathroom. I live in an old house, believe me, I know.
On 70's cars, well, we both know the possibilities are endless as far as restoring and upgrading goes. And I have owned W123 Mercs, VW T3 and a 73 MKIII Cortina. Loved them all. But for the daily commute I am happy to be in my 2005 Cmax with it's 205 tires, disc brakes all round, ABS, airbags, ESP, seatbelt tensioners and crumple zones.
Do you really want to modernise a 70's car that it comes as close to a modern car as possible?
It would lose it's appeal in my eyes. I love them for what they are, but I wouldn't destroy them on the daily commute. Especially with the salt in the winter.
You argument is that a house is still 4 walls with a roof and a car is still a combustion engine in a metal shell. Basically that's correct. There has been a lot of progress over 30-40 years. And by upgrading the old item till it's the same as the new one would destroy part of it's appeal in my eyes. Houses maybe less so, but the choice is still originality vs modernising.
Which is also a question of cost.
I don't think we're totally disagreeing, do we?

eeguy

People are getting ahead of themselves.
None of this is released. The Tesla stuff is a toy at the moment and noting compared to what Volvo and Renault are up to.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

But drunk and inattentive drivers are OK? Righty-ho.

Don't recall reading that in there, anywhere???

RandomAccess

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

RandomAccess wrote: »

The technology is lagging far behind the claims that have been made for it and that will remain the case for many years.

They are not suitable for use outside of motorways. Idiots will still do so but I reserve the right to kill any such person with my bare hands if they harm someone I care about.

But drunk and inattentive drivers are OK?
Righty-ho.

You misunderstood.
When it's ready then it can be used and I'm fine with that.
But idiots right now are experimenting with people's lives on beta test capabilities.

RandomAccess wrote: »

The technology is lagging far behind the claims that have been made for it and that will remain the case for many years.

They are not suitable for use outside of motorways. Idiots will still do so but I reserve the right to kill any such person with my bare hands if they harm someone I care about.

But drunk and inattentive drivers are OK?
Righty-ho.

RandomAccess

The technology is lagging far behind the claims that have been made for it and that will remain the case for many years.

They are not suitable for use outside of motorways. Idiots will still do so but I reserve the right to kill any such person with my bare hands if they harm someone I care about.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

Only difference is obsolescence? You should try living in a 1970's house and drive a 1970's car, the house with no insulation, no proper heating, a 50 liter hot water tank, wonky electrics, single pane windows, basically cold, drafty and costing a fortune to heat and the car with drum brakes, no power steering, rustholes after 5 years and breaking down every other week and in an accident about as much protection as a wet tissue. There may not have been a complete redesign, but a car and house from 40 years ago are very different to what you get today. People think back to old cars and old houses with rose tinted spectacles, even I do, but live with them on a day to day basis and you'll appreciate what you have now. I'd say the one difference is that houses last a long time and can be modernised to a certain degree. Anyways, that's today's rant, carry on everyone

I do live in a 1970s house, and have had a classic car and ride a 23year old motorbike (it still compares well with a brand new bike).
All are/were just fine and not the horrors you're making them out to be in your rant.

Think you're completely airshotting the car thing as I say they become obsolete and are replaced by newer improved items, (the house will too - that just takes longer) that said the basic design has not changed at all, it has been improved in many if not all areas but hasn't been redesigned, just evolved.

Btw cars/bikes of any era can be modernised just like the house, it's pretty basic engineering, I've done it.

bladespin wrote: »

Well yes, modern houses for the most part are just mass produced boxes, cars too.
However cars and even houses have evolved there has'nt been a complete redesign of either, the same for our cities, only difference is obselescence, cars and houses have a limited lifespan and then they're done a newer improved version arrives, cities just keep evolving so not really a valid comparison.

Only difference is obsolescence?
You should try living in a 1970's house and drive a 1970's car, the house with no insulation, no proper heating, a 50 liter hot water tank, wonky electrics, single pane windows, basically cold, drafty and costing a fortune to heat and the car with drum brakes, no power steering, rustholes after 5 years and breaking down every other week and in an accident about as much protection as a wet tissue.
There may not have been a complete redesign, but a car and house from 40 years ago are very different to what you get today.
People think back to old cars and old houses with rose tinted spectacles, even I do, but live with them on a day to day basis and you'll appreciate what you have now.
I'd say the one difference is that houses last a long time and can be modernised to a certain degree.
Anyways, that's today's rant, carry on everyone

Lantus wrote:

Who forced cars to be redesigned? Or houses? Are improved cars and houses horrible and uninspiring? Why would a city built without congestion, pollution, planned open spaces, integrated systems and communities be undesirable?

Well yes, modern houses for the most part are just mass produced boxes, cars too.
However cars and even houses have evolved there has'nt been a complete redesign of either, the same for our cities, only difference is obselescence, cars and houses have a limited lifespan and then they're done a newer improved version arrives, cities just keep evolving so not really a valid comparison.

HonalD

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I work for a company who does this stuff, although not directly in the software engineering side. We have regular presentations on new software developments and my area does interface with the software side quite often.

While I can't go into specifics because I don't know enough detail, what I can is that this stuff is absolutely nothing like weekly updates to a phone app.

When was the last time your car didn't start because the ECU software screwed up. I've never heard of it happenig to anyone. This is software that sits on a tiny chip, has to run dozens of sensors all around the vehicle in all conditions imaginable. It doesn't just work, it takes hundreds of engineers working around the world to pull it together so that your car starts in -20°C in Finland and +50°C in Nevada.

The development process for a new product takes literally years. We are already in the process of developing products that won't be released for 5 years because the validation procees takes so long. There is no option but to be right first time.

From my experience, I agree.

HonalD

Dakota Dan wrote: »

HonalD wrote: »

Babies born today will never have to learn to drive. That's how close it is to happening.

It's a long way off yet.

I'm working in the area so there is some factual basis for my postings. But even if you said it's 20 years away, that's my point.

368100

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Well, here's my reasoning. If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) or a young child or children playing by the roadside, a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

A computer will only look at what's on front of it and brake at the last minute if something comes on front of it.

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Im sure the car could be programmed to slow down in that circumstance too

Lantus

bladespin wrote:

Lol, technology is there to help and improve our lives not to force us to redesign them, a 'designed' city woul be a horrible and uninspiring place.

Who forced cars to be redesigned? Or houses? Are improved cars and houses horrible and uninspiring? Why would a city built without congestion, pollution, planned open spaces, integrated systems and communities be undesirable?

It's much harder to demonstrate that modern fit for purpose cities will be better but no one would suggest we take a model t and try to fit the body panel if a veyron on it.

Modern cars need modern systems to achieve their full potential. The Vikings were not thinking about automated vehicles when they laid out most of Ireland's current day towns and cities.

kirving

I work for a company who does this stuff, although not directly in the software engineering side. We have regular presentations on new software developments and my area does interface with the software side quite often.

While I can't go into specifics because I don't know enough detail, what I can is that this stuff is absolutely nothing like weekly updates to a phone app.

When was the last time your car didn't start because the ECU software screwed up. I've never heard of it happenig to anyone. This is software that sits on a tiny chip, has to run dozens of sensors all around the vehicle in all conditions imaginable. It doesn't just work, it takes hundreds of engineers working around the world to pull it together so that your car starts in -20°C in Finland and +50°C in Nevada.

The development process for a new product takes literally years. We are already in the process of developing products that won't be released for 5 years because the validation procees takes so long. There is no option but to be right first time.

Hmmh, maybe Mr. Peppercorn is onto something.
I just got an Android car radio, maybe there's a self drive app I can download from Playstore?
Would have to be free mind you, I don't mind a few ads.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

Which doesnâ€™t mean they wonâ€™t. Google and Apple (etc) are used to iterative releases. Google and Apple follow agile processes. The idea is to release early and often. Move fast and break things.

Won't happen, I'm sure they will have to validate their software just like the FDA/FAA demand and having dealt with both they won't be updating often, your iphone is not a life critical device.

Tell me, where do you get your amazing insights of how the software for autonomous vehicles is developed? You must be in the team. Because when I'm reading your description, it's like I'm in the room with them. :rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You don't seriously believe that the autonomous software in self driving cars will be updated along with Google maps and gmail?
Or that the team who develops your music player app also develops the AI software?
Seriously? Really?
Nah.

You’re right. it’s been built by the really smart guys. They haven’t had much to do in decades because it was all music players, operating systems, search algorithms,cloud and the like.

But these guys are the real smart software devs and although they’ve been paid for years to do nothing now they will produce perfect code in version 1.0 even though nobody has ever done this before and the list of unknown unknowns is massive. It will be magical software. Produced by magical people.

(Oh and existing car software is in fact updated. And autonomous car software will have to be if it dangerous. In fact it will probably be forced updates as cars can hardly continue to drive with known issues).

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Which doesn’t mean they won’t. Google and Apple (etc) are used to iterative releases. Google and Apple follow agile processes. The idea is to release early and often. Move fast and break things.

Which means version 1.0 won’t be any good of it follows this practice. As it stands this software isn’t written, as far as I can tell, in the extremely documented regimented way that, say, airplane autopilot software is written. It can take months to change a line of code in those systems and Silicon Valley doesn’t follow that model. As for the manufacturers they already have spaghetti code i their systems.

The supposed gold rush here is highly dependent on speed, but critical software can’t be speedy.

You don't seriously believe that the autonomous software in self driving cars will be updated along with Google maps and gmail?
Or that the team who develops your music player app also develops the AI software?
Seriously? Really?
Nah.

eeguy

Your move fast and break things analogy doesn't work in automotive, which is why it's at least 5 years behind consumer software. . They'll need to comply with 26262 at a minimum to release anything, and autonomous systems will be in the highest safety category, ASIL-D.
They won't be able to meet regulations if their software doesn't pass QA. And, as I said before, the cost of recall or litigation is far greater than the profit to be made by releasing early.

eeguy wrote: »

Critical software rarely fails. This isn't a phone app knocked up over the weekend by some teenager.
The litigation cost if something goes wrong would easily sink a company so you can bet nothing will be released until it's bulletproof.

The likes of Volvo have already said they'd take the legal burden if an autonomous car crashed. I'd say others will follow suit. Again, it's not worth the cost to release crappy software.

Which doesn’t mean they won’t. Google and Apple (etc) are used to iterative releases. Google and Apple follow agile processes. The idea is to release early and often. Move fast and break things.

Which means version 1.0 won’t be any good of it follows this practice. As it stands this software isn’t written, as far as I can tell, in the extremely documented regimented way that, say, airplane autopilot software is written. It can take months to change a line of code in those systems and Silicon Valley doesn’t follow that model. As for the manufacturers they already have spaghetti code i their systems.

The supposed gold rush here is highly dependent on speed, but critical software can’t be speedy.

eeguy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I mean you guys keep saying that but software fails all the time. And if not programmed for a scenario it will crap out.

Then there’s the legal aspect. The car companies, not the driver or his insurance will have to take responsibility for any crash.

Critical software rarely fails. This isn't a phone app knocked up over the weekend by some teenager.
The litigation cost if something goes wrong would easily sink a company so you can bet nothing will be released until it's bulletproof.

The likes of Volvo have already said they'd take the legal burden if an autonomous car crashed. I'd say others will follow suit. Again, it's not worth the cost to release crappy software.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is pretty much /thread right there.
You can stuff all your arguments about the trolley dilemma, because in the real world you don't have time to sit down with a group of philosophy students and spend a weekend at a conference to debate the issue.
It's more like "hey, whaBAM!" and it's over.
Except with the autonomous car there'd be no BAM because it will have reacted.
So there will be a few crashes due to the car reacting incorrectly, but millions of crashes that won't happen at all.
It is useful to debate possible scenarios which an autonomous vehicle could be faced with, but it's idiotic to make the argument that those fantasy and extremely unlikely scenarios are a reason they are not viable.
Because in the face of billions of people driving drunk, drugged (legal and illegal), tired, distracted, under the influence of stupid and just plain not watching where they're going, this is no contest. Autonomous vehicle wins 9999 to 1.
And to say the 9999 accidents is better than the one is an unsustainable argument.
It will happen, get used to it.

edit:
It's more like several million to one...

I mean you guys keep saying that but software fails all the time. And if not programmed for a scenario it will crap out.

Then there’s the legal aspect. The car companies, not the driver or his insurance will have to take responsibility for any crash.

Lantus wrote: »

There are 1.2million deaths worldwide each year due to road accidents. It's a simply staggering waste of human life that autonomous cars have the potential to massively reduce. Anyone who opposes cutting that disgusting statistic is unsane.

That is pretty much /thread right there.
You can stuff all your arguments about the trolley dilemma, because in the real world you don't have time to sit down with a group of philosophy students and spend a weekend at a conference to debate the issue.
It's more like "hey, whaBAM!" and it's over.
Except with the autonomous car there'd be no BAM because it will have reacted.
So there will be a few crashes due to the car reacting incorrectly, but millions of crashes that won't happen at all.
It is useful to debate possible scenarios which an autonomous vehicle could be faced with, but it's idiotic to make the argument that those fantasy and extremely unlikely scenarios are a reason they are not viable.
Because in the face of billions of people driving drunk, drugged (legal and illegal), tired, distracted, under the influence of stupid and just plain not watching where they're going, this is no contest. Autonomous vehicle wins 9999 to 1.
And to say the 9999 accidents is better than the one is an unsustainable argument.
It will happen, get used to it.

edit:
It's more like several million to one...

eeguy wrote: »

If I live to 2070 and autonomous cars are released ASAP, then they'll save 1.1 million in the US alone. Considering the US accounts for about 3% of worldwide road deaths, if this was extrapolated out then about 36 million people total, equivalent to the entire population of Canada.

https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html

How can they possibly know that? These things aren’t on the road yet.

Complex software is never perfect and car software is complex already. . Machine learning - a buzz word - needs training. The cars need to crash to learn what not to do.

I’m sure that semi autonomous cars will be useful. Self driving cars will never be perfect.