# My Herky-Jerky Ride in GM Ultra-Cautious Self Driving Car



## jocker12

https://www.wired.com/story/ride-general-motors-self-driving-car/

"My trip was far from smooth, the vehicle so careful that it jolted, disconcertingly, to a stop at even the whisper of a collision. "

"My herky-jerky ride in an autonomous vehicle showed that Cruise Automation, acquired by General Motors in 2016, has made serious progress. No San Franciscans were hurt during the making of this article."

"Towards the end of the ride, the car began to make a left turn into a crosswalk, and a woman pushing a stroller on the sidewalk accelerated toward the street. Not the baby, I pleaded silently, before she turned to cross the perpendicular street instead. Our car, meanwhile, had jerked to a stop-in the middle of the intersection. Cruise employees later told me they've programmed their cars to anticipate the actions of pedestrians. *But right now, they don't always get it right*."

"For humans driving regular cars, these auto-matons must be a nuisance. *They are slow-we stayed at about 15 to 20 miles per hour for most of our trip.* They stop at the hint of danger, *sometimes slamming on the brakes and throwing passengers forward in their seats.* (I would not choose to ride in this self-driving car if I were, say, already suffering from a migraine.) *And occasionally, they get confused and just kinda freeze*. "

"At one point, Chinchilla approached a public bus pulled over to the side of a one-way street. There was plenty of room to navigate around it. Chinchilla *braked and considered its impending circumnavigation. And considered. And considered. About two minutes later, the safety driver finally flipped off the self-driving mode and piloted the car around the bus.* No vehicles were waiting behind us, but, oh, if there had been-the honking! (Kyle Vogt, Cruise's CEO, later told me *the lidar sensors that usually determine how much clearance the vehicles have on their sides have been suffering from technical issues for the past few weeks,* so the cars are even more cautious about going around obstacles then they normally are.)

"We will not launch until we have safety perfect," General Motors President Dan Ammann said during Tuesday's press event, referring to plans to put driverless cars on the road. (*Vogt declined to answer questions about how it will determine what is safe enough*.)

From GM's self-driving ambitions don't include 'small-scale pilots'
"Cruise will only launch when its cars and tech are ready for full-scale implementation. *We're years away from that happening*, but when it does, Cruise won't start in a small, suburban area. Vogt's priority is to maximize the impact of driverless cars, and that will occur in large, densely populated urban areas."  

From GM just gave the first public ride in its self-driving cars - a herky-jerky trip, but a 'big moment' for the company
"It took several minutes for my car to arrive in front of the Dogpatch Studio here, where GM was holding the event. But* instead of stopping for me, the car drove right on by and returned back to the place it had been parked at before*.

So, my Cruise helper summoned *another car. That car too passed us by. But after traveling around several blocks, it came back to pick me up*." (Hahahahaha)

"Cruise clearly has some things to work on. The ride, while safe, was anything but smooth. In fact, it often felt herky-jerky. We would accelerate as we turned a corner, slow down abruptly right after that, speed up soon after until we came close to the next intersection, then brake fairly suddenly at a stop sign."

"In navigating around one double-parked truck, it slowly nudged out to peer around it, then slowly pulled around it in the oncoming lane. *In the same situation, a human driver likely would have gone much more quickly in order to avoid any potential oncoming traffic*."

"Of course, a human driver might also have struggled with that scenario. *But a human driver, even a cautious one, would likely have navigated around the obstacles more smoothly*."

"More disconcertingly, sometimes the screen didn't display some objects at all. As we approached one intersection, the screen registered the car coming up the street on our left. But it never showed the car coming up to the intersection from our left. Similarly, the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk that we passed never showed up on the screen, even though they were walking only a few feet away from the parked cars that were displayed.

Cruise's cars can actually see a lot more than what they show on their screens, Vogt said. *The company decided to limit what they display, because it found that when it showed more objects, riders found all the information "overwhelming," he said*." (_simply ridiculous statement pretending how showing other cars in traffic!!!! or pedestrians!!!! will be overwhelming !?!?. I think showing birds, cats, dogs, trees or buildings will be overwhelming, but not other traffic participants_)

From Taking a ride through SF in Cruise's self-driving Bolt EV
"It did once proceed on a right turn at an intersection when a pedestrian had already entered the crosswalk at the far end of the crossing, which is something I'd expect from human drivers but something that might not strictly be in keeping with the rules of the road in California. Again, *it was what I likely would've done in the same situation, given the gap between the car and the pedestrian,* but it seemed slightly at odds with the system's practice of exercising an abundance of caution at all times."


----------



## heynow321

LOL! These things are such a joke!


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> LOL! These things are such a joke!


Why, because GM's self driving car was able to drive in downtown SF with no human interaction? Is GM ready to launch? No. So why did they even allow reporters to experience GM's SDC's now? Answer: because Waymo is ready to launch now, and GM doesn't want people to think they're years behind Google/Waymo when they're actually only six to nine months behind Waymo. Cruise is a three year old startup and they're getting close to being able to launch a commercial self driving taxi service. Wow!

Of the 20 or so articles written yesterday, Jockey of course picks the weenie-est one. Whatever you do, don't watch the CNBC video, stick with Jockey's weenie articles.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/my-...ing-car-offers-a-taste-of-whats-possible.html


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> LOL! These things are such a joke!


This is exactly what we predicted is going to happen. These cars behave like a teenager that had his/her FIRST driving experience. If anybody thinks consumers will enjoy being driven around by a kid that got in a car for the first time in their life and try to figure out why they need to do, than you are completely disconnected from reality.

Learn how to drive and buckle up (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> This is exactly what we predicted is going to happen. These cars behave like a teenager that had his/her FIRST driving experience. If anybody thinks consumers will enjoy being driven around by a kid that got in a car for the first time in their life and try to figure out why they need to do, than you are completely disconnected from reality.
> 
> Learn how to drive and buckle up (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)


Waymo doesn't count because Chandler Arizona has wide streets, it's easy to driver there. GM doesn't count cause even though they're driving in downtown SF it's too jerky. And neither has popped a wheelie yet.


----------



## MoreTips

It's amazing that even with all that technology the human brain is still a superior adversary, well with at least certain task. I guess Skynet will still need to keep some of us around.


----------



## tomatopaste

MoreTips said:


> It's amazing that even with all that technology the human brain is still a superior adversary, well with at least certain task. I guess Skynet will still need to keep some of us around.


Not when it comes to driving, Skynet wins. Already.


----------



## jocker12

MoreTips said:


> It's amazing that even with all that technology the human brain is still a superior adversary, well with at least certain task. I guess Skynet will still need to keep some of us around.


It is funny how GM selected the journalists to take part in their event and still the chosen journalists reported how pathetic GM efforts are.

That was a test that DID NOT take place downtown SF, but in a 3 D mapped neighborhood, where those cars should have been flawless. Corporations started STAGING press events, to have mostly biased journalists write about the "miracle" and fuel stupids hype. And still it is not working.

Every single journalist reported rides of 2 or 2,5 miles taken in up to 20 minutes. That is 8 minutes per mile in a quiet SF neighborhood. WTF? Walking will be faster, healthier and free.

It is no way to replace a human driver.

Well, you probably can replace only few ridiculous birds that got lost on this forum and keep repeating corporate stinky organic BS. They will choke on that BS anyway.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> It is funny how GM selected the journalists to take part in their event and still the chosen journalists reported how pathetic GM efforts are.
> 
> That was a test that DID NOT take place downtown SF, but in a 3 D mapped neighborhood, where those cars should have been flawless. Corporations started STAGING press events, to have mostly biased journalists write about the "miracle" and fuel stupids hype. And still it is not working.
> 
> Every single journalist reported rides of 2 or 2,5 miles taken in up to 20 minutes. That is 8 minutes per mile in a quiet SF neighborhood. WTF? Walking will be faster, healthier and free.
> 
> It is no way to replace a human driver.
> 
> Well, you probably can replace only few ridiculous birds that got lost on this forum and keep repeating corporate stinky organic BS. They will choke on that BS anyway.


SDC's only drive in 3d mapped areas.

"Even with this pause, however, the self-driving system didn't disengage and the safety drivers (technically 'Autonomous Vehicle Trainers,' including the driver and an analyst in the passenger seat) never had to assume manual control. This was the defining, and most significant takeaway from the trip - it managed downtown San Francisco without human intervention, across a range of different challenges including pedestrians crossing in front of us in the middle of the street, bike riders intersecting our path and construction blocking much of the vehicle's designated lane."

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/29/taking-a-ride-through-sf-in-cruises-self-driving-bolt-ev/


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/ride-general-motors-self-driving-car/
> 
> "We will not launch until we have safety perfect," General Motors President Dan Ammann said during Tuesday's press event,
> 
> referring to plans to put driverless cars on the road. (*Vogt declined to answer questions about how it will determine what is safe enough*.)
> 
> From GM's self-driving ambitions don't include 'small-scale pilots'
> "Cruise will only launch when its cars and tech are ready for full-scale implementation. *We're years away from that happening*, but when it does, Cruise won't start in a small, suburban area. Vogt's priority is to maximize the impact of driverless cars, and that will occur in large, densely populated urban areas."
> 
> From GM just gave the first public ride in its self-driving cars - a herky-jerky trip, but a 'big moment' for the company
> "It took several minutes for my car to arrive in front of the Dogpatch Studio here, where GM was holding the event. But* instead of stopping for me, the car drove right on by and returned back to the place it had been parked at before*.
> 
> So, my Cruise helper summoned *another car. That car too passed us by. But after traveling around several blocks, it came back to pick me up*." (Hahahahaha)
> 
> "Cruise clearly has some things to work on. The ride, while safe, was anything but smooth. In fact, it often felt herky-jerky. We would accelerate as we turned a corner, slow down abruptly right after that, speed up soon after until we came close to the next intersection, then brake fairly suddenly at a stop sign."
> 
> "In navigating around one double-parked truck, it slowly nudged out to peer around it, then slowly pulled around it in the oncoming lane. *In the same situation, a human driver likely would have gone much more quickly in order to avoid any potential oncoming traffic*."
> 
> "Of course, a human driver might also have struggled with that scenario. *But a human driver, even a cautious one, would likely have navigated around the obstacles more smoothly*."
> 
> "More disconcertingly, sometimes the screen didn't display some objects at all. As we approached one intersection, the screen registered the car coming up the street on our left. But it never showed the car coming up to the intersection from our left. Similarly, the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk that we passed never showed up on the screen, even though they were walking only a few feet away from the parked cars that were displayed.
> 
> Cruise's cars can actually see a lot more than what they show on their screens, Vogt said. *The company decided to limit what they display, because it found that when it showed more objects, riders found all the information "overwhelming," he said*." (_simply ridiculous statement pretending how showing other cars in traffic!!!! or pedestrians!!!! will be overwhelming !?!?. I think showing birds, cats, dogs, trees or buildings will be overwhelming, but not other traffic participants_)
> 
> From Taking a ride through SF in Cruise's self-driving Bolt EV
> "It did once proceed on a right turn at an intersection when a pedestrian had already entered the crosswalk at the far end of the crossing, which is something I'd expect from human drivers but something that might not strictly be in keeping with the rules of the road in California. Again, *it was what I likely would've done in the same situation, given the gap between the car and the pedestrian,* but it seemed slightly at odds with the system's practice of exercising an abundance of caution at all times."


That's a Big Fat Lie. Perfect is impossible.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Not when it comes to driving, Skynet wins. Already.


 Actually no they don't. Learn statistics Greg. There is no statistical sample size large enough to compare self driving cars to human drivers. End of story


----------



## jocker12

goneubering said:


> That's a Big Fat Lie. Perfect is impossible.


That is showing you how crazy Corporate people are. They are willing to sacrifice common sense over BS corporate PR. In theory he is right, and I've said the same thing. You cannot afford launching a faulty product without labeling it tobacco style - this car it will potentially, kill you. But in reality, you are completely correct - it's impossible.

They will tell you whatever you'll like to hear in order to make you trust them with your money. They will tell you self driving cars are driving only in 3D mapped environments, lie that is also repeated on this forum by parrots sensitive to cartoonish colorful misleading YouTube videos, while Tesla, Uber, Waymo or Intel are NOT developing 3D premapped environments, working with cameras (Tesla) and real time 3D mapping Lidar systems (all the other ones).

GM is the lowest of the lowest when it comes to corporate ethics and integrity. I said it before - if GM is involved in this, I know for a fact self driving cars will end up in a junkyard.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Actually no they don't. Learn statistics Greg. There is no statistical sample size large enough to compare self driving cars to human drivers. End of story


"Waymo just hit a major mileage milestone. As of this month, its cars have covered over 4 million miles on public roads since 2009, when Waymo launched as the Google self-driving car project. It would take the average American driver about 300 years to rack up that much mileage, a company blog post claims.

Developing self-driving cars takes more than a few trips to the grocery store. The more mileage cars rack up, the more time engineers have to expose them to challenging situations and to continue refining software. The longer self-driving cars go without crashing, the more the public is likely to trust them."
http://www.thedrive.com/tech/16451/...ave-racked-up-4-million-miles-on-public-roads

Envelope please:




And the winner is:
Skynet!



jocker12 said:


> That is showing you how crazy Corporate people are. They are willing to sacrifice common sense over BS corporate PR. In theory he is right, and I've said the same thing. You cannot afford launching a faulty product without labeling it tobacco style - this car it will potentially, kill you. But in reality, you are completely correct - it's impossible.
> 
> They will tell you whatever you'll like to hear in order to make you trust them with your money. They will tell you self driving cars are driving only in 3D mapped environments, lie that is also repeated on this forum by parrots sensitive to cartoonish colorful misleading YouTube videos, while Tesla, Uber, Waymo or Intel are NOT developing 3D premapped environments, working with cameras (Tesla) and real time 3D mapping Lidar systems (all the other ones).
> 
> GM is the lowest of the lowest when it comes to corporate ethics and integrity. I said it before - if GM is involved in this, I know for a fact self driving cars will end up in a junkyard.


Let's check in with Jockey, see how he's doing.






Ew, not good.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> "Waymo just hit a major mileage milestone. As of this month, its cars have covered over 4 million miles on public roads since 2009, .


To give you all some perspective

-Waymo did 4 million miles since 2009

-80 full time Los Angeles Uber drivers did 4 million miles JUST LAST YEAR ALONE


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> To give you all some perspective
> 
> -Waymo did 4 million miles since 2009
> 
> -80 full time Los Angeles Uber drivers did 4 million miles JUST LAST YEAR ALONE


Waymo did one million miles in the last six months and 2.5 billion simulation miles this year, computer can't tell the difference. All this experience is accumulated into the same brain. The combined brain power of the 80 LA Uber drivers would have a hard time powering your mom's sewing machine.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo did one million miles in the last six months and 2.5 billion simulation miles this year, computer can't tell the difference. All this experience is accumulated into the same brain. The combined brain power of the 80 LA Uber drivers would have a hard time powering your mom's sewing machine.


40 full time Uber LA drivers did 0ne million miles in the last 6 months. That's just 40 drivers in one market.

Simulated miles are too embarrassing to even mention


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> 40 full time Uber LA drivers did 0ne million miles in the last 6 months. That's just 40 drivers in one market.
> 
> Simulated miles are too embarrassing to even mention


Maybe this will help, the point I'm making is this: customers are going to fire Uber and Uber drivers due to the superior product soon to be available to them via Google/Waymo and GM/Cruise. Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo did one million miles in the last six months and 2.5 billion simulation miles this year, computer can't tell the difference. All this experience is accumulated into the same brain. The combined brain power of the 80 LA Uber drivers would have a hard time powering your mom's sewing machine.


 Simulator miles don't count bub so don't even try to make that pathetic argument.


----------



## goneubering

heynow321 said:


> Simulator miles don't count bub so don't even try to make that pathetic argument.


But the computer can't tell the difference!!


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Simulator miles don't count bub so don't even try to make that pathetic argument.


Too late, I already made it, and now it's out there. Now it's up to you to explain to the class why simulated miles don't count. Ready, GO!


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> To give you all some perspective


This is about* another humongous lie Waymo tries to sell to the general public*. When it comes to driven miles, Waymo wants to back up their statements about safety, showing people statistics. What else? Problem is again, they do not create any context, explaining the environments those miles were recorded in. If we analyze DRIVEN MILES we need to look at least at *two important metrics - average speed and weather conditions*. I will remind you how all NHTSA numbers (1.15 deaths for 100 million miles driven) come from miles driven in all conditions (rain, snow, strong winds or clear weather) and speeds from 1 mph to 80 or 85 mph (sometimes higher). Those are the ACTUAL conditions under which 1.15 deaths occur every 100 million miles driven.

Now if we consider Waymo experiments, they are not even close to what NHTSA takes in consideration when creating their statistics. Waymo self driving cars are driving ONLY in clear weather conditions, with an average speed between 20 mph to 40 mph. If you will have humans driving in same conditions, I can predict how deaths will be far less then real conditions show.



heynow321 said:


> Simulator miles don't count bub so don't even try to make that pathetic argument.


I see how pathetic parrots try to explain how playing "Call of Duty" on PlayStation is similar to facing real enemy combatants and taking enemy fire on the streets of Fallujah in 2004.

Edit - any simulation is a written computer program where all the elements have well defined predicable behavior (allowed by the creators of that software, and cannot replicate the actual unpredictability of the real world).


----------



## Gung-Ho

tomatopaste said:


> Too late, I already made it, and now it's out there. Now it's up to you to explain to the class why simulated miles don't count. Ready, GO!


Because simulated miles are just that SIMULATED. And a simulated environment is pre programmed eventualities that may occur in real life. However real life and real life situations are infinitely more complicated than any programmed simulation could anticipate because humans have to program the abstract abnormalities that occur in a simulated world and no human can anticipate every possible thing that could happen in a driving environment, if they could then no human would ever be truly surprised or caught off guard by anything that ever happens.

It's not so much to say one of these cars could be programmed to know what to do if a ball rolls across the street with a child chasing after it. It's the other 50 million things that can happen unexpectedly in the real world that the computer simulation can't anticipate.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> This is about* another humongous lie Waymo tries to sell to the general public*. When it comes to driven miles, Waymo wants to back up their statements about safety, showing people statistics. What else? Problem is again, they do not create any context, explaining the environments those miles were recorded in. If we analyze DRIVEN MILES we need to look at least at *two important metrics - average speed and weather conditions*. I will remind you how all NHTSA numbers (1.15 deaths for 100 million miles driven) come from miles driven in all conditions (rain, snow, strong winds or clear weather) and speeds from 1 mph to 80 or 85 mph (sometimes higher). Those are the ACTUAL conditions under which 1.15 deaths occur every 100 million miles driven.
> 
> Now if we consider Waymo experiments, they are not even close to what NHTSA takes in consideration when creating their statistics. Waymo self driving cars are driving ONLY in clear weather conditions, with an average speed between 20 mph to 40 mph. If you will have humans driving in same conditions, I can predict how deaths will be far less then real conditions show.
> 
> I see how pathetic parrots try to explain how playing "Call of Duty" on PlayStation is similar to facing real enemy combatants and taking enemy fire on the streets of Fallujah in 2004.


Um, Sparky, you realize the "person" doing the driving is not a "person", right? The computer doing the driving is reacting to input it receives from its sensors. It can't distinguish if the input is coming directly from the lidar sensor or from the simulation that it's being fed. It has no way of knowing and runs the same computer algorithms either way.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Maybe this will help, the point I'm making is this: customers are going to fire Uber and Uber drivers due to the superior product soon to be available to them via Google/Waymo and GM/Cruise. Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?


You're making a completely different point than what you originally made

You first tried to say that waymo's 4 million miles and 1 of those million just in the last 6 months is a big deal.

It is not.

40 LA full time Uber drivers do the same # of Miles in their sleep

As for your new point that you're pivoting to: will customers choose Waymo over Uber? Only time will tell. Wait some time then talk to me


----------



## tomatopaste

Gung-Ho said:


> Because simulated miles are just that SIMULATED. And a simulated environment is pre programmed eventualities that may occur in real life. However real life and real life situations are infinitely more complicated than any programmed simulation could anticipate because humans have to program the abstract abnormalities that occur in a simulated world and no human can anticipate every possible thing that could happen in a driving environment, if they could then no human would ever be truly surprised or caught off guard by anything that ever happens.
> 
> It's not so much to say one of these cars could be programmed to know what to do if a ball rolls across the street with a child chasing after it. It's the other 50 million things that can happen unexpectedly in the real world that the computer simulation can't anticipate.


Google is taking real world drives from its real world cars and then running variations of the same drive thousand times to see how the computer reacts. For example, on a roundabout Google is able to add two more cars and speed up every car by 5 miles per hour to see how the computer reacts. To do that in the real world be prohibitively expensive and time consuming.



iheartuber said:


> 40 LA full time Uber drivers do the same # of Miles in their sleep


Can someone in the vaunted "UP community" please explain to iheart that the number of miles Uber drivers drive is meaningless. Miles are only relevant to determine if self driving systems are competent or not. If Uber drivers drive ten cabillion miles, who cares? If a self driving system is able to drive millions of miles with zero accidents then human drivers are obsolete.


----------



## Linux Geek

jocker12 said:


> ... If we analyze DRIVEN MILES we need to look at least at *two important metrics - average speed and weather conditions*. I will remind you how all NHTSA numbers (1.15 deaths for 100 million miles driven) come from miles driven in all conditions (rain, snow, strong winds or clear weather) and speeds from 1 mph to 80 or 85 mph (sometimes higher). ...


Thanks for putting this in black and white. 
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I think about this every time I see the claim "self-driving cars are already far safer than human drivers." I'm willing to acknowledge that some self-driving cars are safer than some drivers in some conditions. However, there is zero evidence that self-driving cars can do arbitrary Uber/Lyft trips in dense urban areas without becoming flummoxed regularly.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Um, Sparky, you realize the "person" doing the driving is not a "person", right? The computer doing the driving is reacting to input it receives from its sensors. It can't distinguish if the input is coming directly from the lidar sensor or from the simulation that it's being fed. It has no way of knowing and runs the same computer algorithms either way.


You are limited and you keep repeating stupid things.

The computer driving car is reacting to the lidar sensors scanning the *REAL environment* around the vehicle, while in a simulation all that environment is artificially created and all the elements (possible obstacles) have a limited well defined predictable behavior. It is a scenario, like Red Hood or Snow White stories. Do you think the wolf really talked to little Red Hood or The Queen drank the magic potion and changed her appearance?

In real world is those real unpredictable elements the lidar sensors are reading and send to the cars computer to process, while in a simulation those elements are artificially created and have limited behavior.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

So...

They invented a self driving car that drives like an old lady?

Combine that with Uber's that drives like an insane cab driver... and you have a city in CHAOS.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Google is taking real world drives from its real world cars and then running variations of the same drive thousand times to see how the computer reacts. For example, on a roundabout Google is able to add two more cars and speed up every car by 5 miles per hour to see how the computer reacts. To do that in the real world be prohibitively expensive and time consuming.
> 
> Can someone in the vaunted "UP community" please explain to iheart that the number of miles Uber drivers drive is meaningless. Miles are only relevant to determine if self driving systems are competent or not. If Uber drivers drive ten cabillion miles, who cares? If a self driving system is able to drive millions of miles with zero accidents then human drivers are obsolete.


Why does tomatopaste have so much hatred for humans?

Maybe he's really an AI


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You are limited and you keep repeating stupid things.
> 
> The computer driving car is reacting to the lidar sensors scanning the *REAL environment* around the vehicle, while in a simulation all that environment is artificially created and all the elements (possible obstacles) have a limited well defined predictable behavior. It is a scenario, like Red Hood or Snow White stories. Do you think the wolf really talked to little Red Hood or The Queen drank the magic potion and changed her appearance?
> 
> In real world is those real unpredictable elements the lidar sensors are reading and send to the cars computer to process, while in a simulation those elements are artificially created and have limited behavior.


When airline pilots are trained in simulators because it's too expensive to fly the actual miles and too dangerous to attempt some of the scenarios in real life without putting themselves or others in danger, is that not valid?



iheartuber said:


> Why does tomatopaste have so much hatred for humans?
> 
> Maybe he's really an AI


Why does the vaunted "UP community" believe that by sticking their heads in the sand the tidal wave will somehow bypass them?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> When airline pilots are trained in simulators because it's too expensive to fly the actual miles and too dangerous to attempt some of the scenarios in real life without putting themselves or others in danger, is that not valid?


When I've asked pilots if there are any similarities, they've started laughing. Flying up in the air has very few variables, elements and potential obstacles compared to driving on the road with unpredictable everything around you.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> When airline pilots are trained in simulators because it's too expensive to fly the actual miles and too dangerous to attempt some of the scenarios in real life without putting themselves or others in danger, is that not valid?
> 
> Why does the vaunted "UP community" believe that by sticking their heads in the sand the tidal wave will somehow bypass them?


Sir, we have all given plenty of common sense reasons why SDCs could very well fail. You, on the other hand, simply dismiss these reasonable concerns.

Just because you scream loudly doesn't make it so. And that's all you're really doing: just screaming loudly.


----------



## WeirdBob

tomatopaste said:


> Of the 20 or so articles written yesterday, Jockey of course picks the weenie-est one. Whatever you do, don't watch the CNBC video, stick with Jockey's weenie articles.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/my-...ing-car-offers-a-taste-of-whats-possible.html


I am missing something here. Where in the CNBC article does it say that SDCs are currently offering a superior, more comfortable ride than a competent human driver? Certainly in in this excerpt:

 GM takes wraps off self-driving cars 10:28 AM ET Wed, 29 Nov 2017 | 01:43 

Was it a smooth ride? No. More than once the Bolt stopped or paused due to another vehicle in the area or a construction worker walking in the street while working on a project nearby. If you or I were driving the car in those same situations we would likely have slowed down or steered to the side of the lane in a less herky-jerky fashion.

That was the clearest indication GM's self-driving cars and the technology in them still need refinement before they are ready for the public. It's a point GM executives readily admit.
Still, they say their self-driving cars are becoming safer day by day as the automaker logs tens of thousands of miles in San Francisco and Arizona.​


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Sir, we have all given plenty of common sense reasons why SDCs could very well fail. You, on the other hand, simply dismiss these reasonable concerns.
> 
> Just because you scream loudly doesn't make it so. And that's all you're really doing: just screaming loudly.


Why is it ok to use simulators to teach human airline pilots but not ok to use simulation to teach self driving cars?



jocker12 said:


> When I've asked pilots if there are any similarities, they've started laughing. Flying up in the air has very few variables, elements and potential obstacles compared to driving on the road with unpredictable everything around you.


 So? What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Why is it ok to use simulators to teach human pilots but not ok to use simulation to teach self driving cars?



WeirdBob said:


> I am missing something here. Where in the CNBC article does it say that SDCs are currently offering a superior, more comfortable ride than a competent human driver? Certainly in in this excerpt:
> 
> GM takes wraps off self-driving cars 10:28 AM ET Wed, 29 Nov 2017 | 01:43
> 
> Was it a smooth ride? No. More than once the Bolt stopped or paused due to another vehicle in the area or a construction worker walking in the street while working on a project nearby. If you or I were driving the car in those same situations we would likely have slowed down or steered to the side of the lane in a less herky-jerky fashion.
> 
> That was the clearest indication GM's self-driving cars and the technology in them still need refinement before they are ready for the public. It's a point GM executives readily admit.
> Still, they say their self-driving cars are becoming safer day by day as the automaker logs tens of thousands of miles in San Francisco and Arizona.​


I'm guessing that's why GM is not launching for another year while Waymo will be launching before Christmas. What did we learn today? We learned Waymo will have the entire self driving market to themselves for at least a year. YIKES! How would you like to have an entire market segment to yourself for at least a year. What kind of damage could you rack up in a year? Waymo can do a whole lot of territory marking in a year. Again, YIKES!



jocker12 said:


> You are limited and you keep repeating stupid things.
> 
> The computer driving car is reacting to the lidar sensors scanning the *REAL environment* around the vehicle, while in a simulation all that environment is artificially created and all the elements (possible obstacles) have a limited well defined predictable behavior. It is a scenario, like Red Hood or Snow White stories. Do you think the wolf really talked to little Red Hood or The Queen drank the magic potion and changed her appearance?
> 
> In real world is those real unpredictable elements the lidar sensors are reading and send to the cars computer to process, while in a simulation those elements are artificially created and have limited behavior.


The simulation is playing back the exact trip taken by the real car with changes made to test additional scenarios. The car can't tell the difference.


----------



## Gung-Ho

tomatopaste said:


> Google is taking real world drives from its real world cars and then running variations of the same drive thousand times to see how the computer reacts. For example, on a roundabout Google is able to add two more cars and speed up every car by 5 miles per hour to see how the computer reacts. To do that in the real world be prohibitively expensive and time consuming..


 Oh great they got that one solved. 49,999,999 more random situations to go.

How about 3 more cars going 7 mph faster with a bicyclist and a squirrel acting squirrelly in the rotary?


----------



## tomatopaste

Gung-Ho said:


> Oh great they got that one solved. 49,999,999 more random situations to go.
> 
> How about 3 more cars going 7 mph faster with a bicyclist and a squirrel acting squirrelly in the rotary?


That's why they created Carcraft. To be able to make up unlimited scenarios and run them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ret-testing-and-simulation-facilities/537648/


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Why is it ok to use simulators to teach human airline pilots but not ok to use simulation to teach self driving cars?
> .


Because the human brain is still far superior to the computer.

No matter how much you try to spin it, that's the bottom line


----------



## Elmo Burrito

jocker12 said:


> That is showing you how crazy Corporate people are. They are willing to sacrifice common sense over BS corporate PR. In theory he is right, and I've said the same thing. You cannot afford launching a faulty product without labeling it tobacco style - this car it will potentially, kill you. But in reality, you are completely correct - it's impossible.
> 
> They will tell you whatever you'll like to hear in order to make you trust them with your money. They will tell you self driving cars are driving only in 3D mapped environments, lie that is also repeated on this forum by parrots sensitive to cartoonish colorful misleading YouTube videos, while Tesla, Uber, Waymo or Intel are NOT developing 3D premapped environments, working with cameras (Tesla) and real time 3D mapping Lidar systems (all the other ones).
> 
> GM is the lowest of the lowest when it comes to corporate ethics and integrity. I said it before - if GM is involved in this, I know for a fact self driving cars will end up in a junkyard.


Very few of us rideshare drivers are SDC deniers and believe SDC's are here to stay. Many of us will even try to get ahead of the game even perhaps investing in SDC technology. However, there are so many koolaid drinkers in this whole conversation and most of those, are on the big business corporation side of the debate. At least as things stand now.


----------



## Gung-Ho

tomatopaste said:


> That's why the created Carcraft. To be able to make up unlimited scenarios and run them.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ret-testing-and-simulation-facilities/537648/


Well then I stand corrected to a point and will admit my estimates where a little off. They only need to program 30,000,000 more variable situations.


----------



## tomatopaste

Gung-Ho said:


> Well then I stand corrected to a point and will admit my estimates where a little off. They only need to program 30,000,000 more variable situations.


Yes, just like we do with 16 yr olds


----------



## goneubering

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> So...
> 
> They invented a self driving car that drives like an old lady?


You got something against little old ladies??!!


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> When airline pilots are trained in simulators because it's too expensive to fly the actual miles and too dangerous to attempt some of the scenarios in real life without putting themselves or others in danger, is that not valid?
> 
> Why does the vaunted "UP community" believe that by sticking their heads in the sand the tidal wave will somehow bypass them?


lol you tard. flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads. what a stupid comparison.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> lol you tard. flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads. what a stupid comparison.





heynow321 said:


> lol you tard. flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads. what a stupid comparison.


I'm convinced half the people on Uber People require help getting dressed in the morning. Focus, Sparky. The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. Simulation learning is used in the medical field, manufacturing, basically every field. Oh, and your shoes are untied.



heynow321 said:


> lol you tard. flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads. what a stupid comparison.





tomatopaste said:


> I'm convinced half the people on Uber People require help getting dressed in the morning. Focus, Sparky. The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. Simulation learning is used in the medical field, manufacturing, basically every field. Oh, and your shoes are untied.


The most difficult part in trying to debate the vaunted "UP community" is getting the vaunted "UP community" to focus long enough to even understand the debate.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> I'm convinced half the people on Uber People require help getting dressed in the morning. Focus, Sparky. The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. Simulation learning is used in the medical field, manufacturing, basically every field. Oh, and your shoes are untied.
> 
> The most difficult part in trying to debate the vaunted "UP community" is getting the vaunted "UP community" to focus long enough to even understand the debate.


lol that is not the debate. the debate is if simulator "miles" are the same as real world driving conditions. they are not...not even close. end of story kiddo. I understand why you would need to try to re-frame the conversation though as your stance is asinine.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Why is it ok to use simulators to teach human pilots but not ok to use simulation to teach self driving cars?


You are making two fundamental mistakes.

First - forcefully (because you do not have a legit argument) want to compare simulation used for pilots *(A)* to simulation used to improve a self driving cars software *(B)*. A and B don't have the same criteria, can't you see? Humans perceive *context* and have* instincts*. One of them is *self preservation*, probably the main reason that pushes individuals to get better. Computers have none of those. Computers have software which is line of code. They DO NOT have intelligence. That is a LIE. Intelligence is " one's capacity for *logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving*. It can be more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." and no software will come remotely close to that.

Second


tomatopaste said:


> The simulation is playing back the exact trip taken by the real car with changes made to test additional scenarios. The car can't tell the difference.


Here you address the quality of the simulation. I've already told you "Flying up in the air has very few variables, elements and potential obstacles compared to driving on the road with unpredictable everything around you." In your embarrassing naivety, you assume software developers could recreate reality, which is *false*.

Let me give you an example.

Do you know what CFD stands for? *CFD* is *Computational Fluid Dynamics* and "is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical analysis and data structures to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved. Ongoing research yields software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial experimental validation of such software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in full-scale testing, e.g. flight tests."

This technology is used in Formula 1 by the racing teams, in order to understand the air flow (aerodynamic efficiency) around their racing cars. It is a computer simulation and looks like this

















Back in 2010, Virgin Racing, was granted an entry in Formula 1 and "The team's original car, the Virgin VR-01, was the first in Formula One to be developed using only computational fluid dynamics". In other words, the team had chosen to use only computer simulations in order to develop their cars aerodynamics, quitting on using the wind tunnel like all the other teams, because of the high costs involving access to a wind tunnel (there are very few around the world).

https://i.imgur.com/TMqpUrp.gif









I need to mention how every single team also uses CFD, but their car development is mainly (70 to 80 %) based on the wind tunnel results.

You would think, Virgin Racing, against all odds, was able to use their very powerful computers to build a winning car? Well... "In June 2011, the team announced that they had split with Wirth Research after a lengthy internal review led by former Renault engineering director Pat Symonds found that the team's Computational fluid dynamics-only approach had not yielded the expected results." and "Despite recording four further double finishes, the team finished at the bottom of the Constructors' Championship standings"

Today, all the F1 teams develop their highly performant cars based on data from the wind tunnels and not simulations.

CFD alone is a failure, because the most accurate data comes from the real world and not simulations.

Edit - here is Wirth Research - Computational Fluid Dynamics web page - https://www.wirthresearch.com/core-capabilities/computational-fluid-dynamics


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I'm convinced half the people on Uber People require help getting dressed in the morning..


heynow321 made a good point and you basically call him crazy? Is that your go-to rebuttal argument?


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You are making two fundamental mistakes.
> 
> First - forcefully (because you do not have a legit argument) want to compare simulation used for pilots *(A)* to simulation used to improve a self driving cars software *(B)*. A and B don't have the same criteria, can't you see? Humans perceive *context* and have* instincts*. One of them is *self preservation*, probably the main reason that pushes individuals to get better. Computers have none of those. Computers have software which is line of code. They DO NOT have intelligence. That is a LIE. Intelligence is " one's capacity for *logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving*. It can be more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." and no software will come remotely close to that.
> 
> Second
> 
> Here you address the quality of the simulation. I've already told you "Flying up in the air has very few variables, elements and potential obstacles compared to driving on the road with unpredictable everything around you." In your embarrassing naivety, you assume software developers could recreate reality, which is *false*.
> 
> Let me give you an example.
> 
> Do you know what CFD stands for? *CFD* is *Computational Fluid Dynamics* and "is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical analysis and data structures to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved. Ongoing research yields software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial experimental validation of such software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in full-scale testing, e.g. flight tests."
> 
> This technology is used in Formula 1 by the racing teams, in order to understand the air flow (aerodynamic efficiency) around their racing cars. It is a computer simulation and looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2010, Virgin Racing, was granted an entry in Formula 1 and "The team's original car, the Virgin VR-01, was the first in Formula One to be developed using only computational fluid dynamics". In other words, the team had chosen to use only computer simulations in order to develop their cars aerodynamics, quitting on using the wind tunnel like all the other teams, because of the high costs involving access to a wind tunnel (there are very few around the world).
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/TMqpUrp.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to mention how every single team also uses CFD, but their car development is mainly (70 to 80 %) based on the wind tunnel results.
> 
> You would think, Virgin Racing, against all odds, was able to use their very powerful computers to build a winning car? Well... "In June 2011, the team announced that they had split with Wirth Research after a lengthy internal review led by former Renault engineering director Pat Symonds found that the team's Computational fluid dynamics-only approach had not yielded the expected results." and "Despite recording four further double finishes, the team finished at the bottom of the Constructors' Championship standings"
> 
> Today, all the F1 teams develop their highly performant cars based on data from the wind tunnels and not simulations.
> 
> CFD alone is a failure, because the most accurate data comes from the real world and not simulations.
> 
> Edit - here is Wirth Research - Computational Fluid Dynamics web page - https://www.wirthresearch.com/core-capabilities/computational-fluid-dynamics


Lord, Jockey, learn to make an argument without posting the freakin' Library of Congress. Nobody reads your posts.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

jocker12 said:


> *sometimes slamming on the brakes and throwing passengers forward in their seats.* *And occasionally, they get confused and just kinda freeze*.


Sounds like a typical taxi/Uber driver.

But as Ramzfanz/Tomatopaste/etc would say,"SDC: they're here. Now. They're ready". Lol.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Lord, Jockey, learn to make an argument without posting the freakin' Library of Congress. Nobody reads your posts.


This is all you need to remember with your 5 seconds attention span - *In your embarrassing naivety, you assume software developers could recreate reality, which is false.
*


The Gift of Fish said:


> But as Ramzfanz/Tomatopaste/etc would say,"SDC: they're here. Now. They're ready". Lol.


 Buffoons are always entertaining. This was the best I've seen on this forum.









Brilliant!

And in their Self driving limo


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> This is all you need to remember with your 5 seconds attention span - *In your embarrassing naivety, you assume software developers could recreate reality, which is false.
> *
> Buffoons are always entertaining. This was the best I've seen on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> And in their Self driving limo


Reality? Please explain to the class what "reality" means to a computer.



iheartuber said:


> heynow321 made a good point and you basically call him crazy? Is that your go-to rebuttal argument?


Please explain to us heynow's good point.



jocker12 said:


> This is all you need to remember with your 5 seconds attention span - *In your embarrassing naivety, you assume software developers could recreate reality, which is false.
> *
> Buffoons are always entertaining. This was the best I've seen on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> And in their Self driving limo



The stats are hard to ignore. Driving simulators were placed in 147 Georgia high schools between 2005 and 2007, funded with money from Joshua's Law. Since the simulators and updated driving program were implemented, there has been a statewide decline in teen auto fatalities of around 60 percent or 181 student lives a year, according to Brown and data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. In Gwinnett County, one of the most populated counties in Georgia, teen fatalities in cars have fallen from 23 in 2006 to only five in 2011, according to research by Atlanta-based Kennesaw State University.

Research in other parts of the country reflects similar findings. In January 2013, a researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of car crashes among local high school students who had taken part in virtual simulation. Over six-month and one-year periods, researcher Peter Ekeh compared a group of student drivers who used simulators to supplement on the road driving to a control group of students who didn't use any simulation. His research found that the group of students who incorporated simulator training had significantly less driving infractions and no car crashes over both time periods, while more than one-quarter of the control group experienced car crashes after one year.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7327953/drivers-education-20-simulators



The Gift of Fish said:


> Sounds like a typical taxi/Uber driver.
> 
> But as Ramzfanz/Tomatopaste/etc would say,"SDC: they're here. Now. They're ready". Lol.



At a recent press event, GM and Cruise provided rides around San Francisco in its second generation test vehicles. I rode in one of these, and was impressed by the fact that the car didn't have to hand over control to its safety driver during the trip. It could stand more requirement in terms of rider comfort, but it seems safe and effective in terms of navigating dense city traffic. Comfort, along with user experience, are things that Cruise and GM describe as "easier parts of the problem" that it'll focus on later, according to Ammann.

During the investor presentation, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt noted in a slide deck that all the pieces are in place for an initial launch in San Francisco, so expect that to be among the first commercial markets, but the company also says it can launch in multiple cities simultaneously because of how it's tackling the problem.
Hey, aren't you in SF? And by the way, Waymo is ready now.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/30/g...ling-service-by-2019/?utm_medium=TCnewsletter


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The stats are hard to ignore. Driving simulators were placed in 147 Georgia high schools between 2005 and 2007, funded with money from Joshua's Law. Since the simulators and updated driving program were implemented, there has been a statewide decline in teen auto fatalities of around 60 percent or 181 student lives a year, according to Brown and data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. In Gwinnett County, one of the most populated counties in Georgia, teen fatalities in cars have fallen from 23 in 2006 to only five in 2011, according to research by Atlanta-based Kennesaw State University.
> 
> Research in other parts of the country reflects similar findings. In January 2013, a researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of car crashes among local high school students who had taken part in virtual simulation. Over six-month and one-year periods, researcher Peter Ekeh compared a group of student drivers who used simulators to supplement on the road driving to a control group of students who didn't use any simulation. His research found that the group of students who incorporated simulator training had significantly less driving infractions and no car crashes over both time periods, while more than one-quarter of the control group experienced car crashes after one year.


*That is testing and educating the drivers*. That is what I am saying and supporting 100%. Problem is, that is NOT because of "the high quality and accuracy" of the simulation, it is because human drivers could understand context (put themselves in the right place at the right time) and because they learn how to use their instincts much better than they usually do.

This is your first mistake I was referring to above - "forcefully (because you do not have a legit argument) want to compare simulation used for pilots *(A)* to simulation used to improve a self driving cars software *(B)*. A and B don't have the same criteria, can't you see? Humans perceive *context* and have* instincts*. One of them is *self preservation*, probably the main reason that pushes individuals to get better. Computers have none of those. Computers have software which is line of code. They DO NOT have intelligence. That is a LIE. Intelligence is " one's capacity for *logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving*. It can be more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." and no software will come remotely close to that."


----------



## iheartuber

Dear tomatopaste

You want to know why heynow321 made a good point?

He said comparing pilots who train on flight simulators to drivers is not the same thing because "flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads."

That's pretty self explanatory why it's a good point, but of course you will still claim it's not because that's what you do: just scream louder and hope to make your argument that way.


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> heynow321 made a good point and you basically call him crazy? Is that your go-to rebuttal argument?


 It's all he can do and demonstrates his lack of intelligence as well as his weak position.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> other vehicles within 1 foot of you


It's funny how one of the pilots I've talked to said the same thing...


tomatopaste said:


> Driving simulators were placed in 147 Georgia high schools between 2005 and 2007, funded with money from Joshua's Law. Since the simulators and updated driving program were implemented, there has been a statewide decline in teen auto fatalities of around 60 percent or 181 student lives a year


Please do not tell me about simulators, because I am too good at it


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Dear tomatopaste
> 
> You want to know why heynow321 made a good point?
> 
> He said comparing pilots who train on flight simulators to drivers is not the same thing because "flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads."
> 
> That's pretty self explanatory why it's a good point, but of course you will still claim it's not because that's what you do: just scream louder and hope to make your argument that way.


No it further demonstrates neither of you are capable of even understanding a basic argument. Much like your embarrassing argument yesterday about the millions of miles Uber drivers have racked up. As if that has any bearing on the competency of a self driving car system whatsoever. It doesn't. And neither does the fact that there are no potholes in the sky.

The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. For pilots or surgeons or self driving cars. However I'm confident this too will fly right over both your heads.



jocker12 said:


> It's funny how one of the pilots I've talked to said the same thing...
> 
> Please do not tell me about simulators, because I am too good at it


Your argument is: I own a PS4 and an Xbox


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. For pilots or surgeons or self driving cars.


Nobody says it's not. I am saying it is and I am advocating to be introduced as norm for all drivers, no exeption. ONLY FOR HUMANS, because humans have the capability to LEARN, which software doesn't. Learning is far more complex than writing more and more lines of code to make software react to certain scenarios. HUMANS see context, while software will NEVER understand context. HUMANS have instincts based on their experience, while software has NO instincts.

During fall, dry leafs fell from the trees and in combination with rain on the pavement create slippery patches (that could affect car handling) that could be different in shape and could be anywhere, based on wind direction, quantity of leafs, moisture (different percentages result in different conditions) or road configuration (elevation in a certain angle, curving in a certain angle, inside or outside road camber and so forth).

When I go back to the leafs, if a tree has 30.000 leafs, in the fall every single one comes down on the ground/pavement in a unique way and fells on a unique spot. Every single season is different and that is true for every single tree on the planet. Do you understand how software programmers CANNOT write code to replicate all the conditions (different every single hour - any unpredictable windblow could change everything at any time) for every single tree located close to a public road. That is simply INSANE, and yet you're still trying to tell us reality could be replicated by a computer and software developers.

And this is one simple and relatively minor detail in the "safe diving" equation.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Nobody says it's not. I am saying it is and I am advocating to be introduced as norm for all drivers, no exeption. ONLY FOR HUMANS, because humans have the capability to LEARN, which software doesn't. Learning is far more complex than writing more and more lines of code to make software react to certain scenarios. HUMANS see context, while software will NEVER understand context. HUMANS have instincts based on their experience, while software has NO instincts.
> 
> During fall, dry leafs fell from the trees and in combination with rain on the pavement create slippery patches (that could affect car handling) that could be different in shape and could be anywhere, based on wind direction, quantity of leafs, moisture (different percentages result in different conditions) or road configuration (elevation in a certain angle, curving in a certain angle, inside or outside road camber and so forth).
> 
> When I go back to the leafs, if a tree has 30.000 leafs, in the fall every single one comes down on the ground/pavement in a unique way and fells on a unique spot. Every single season is different and that is true for every single tree on the planet. Do you understand how software programmers CANNOT write code to replicate all the conditions (different every single hour - any unpredictable windblow could change everything at any time) for every single tree located close to a public road. That is simply INSANE, and yet you're still trying to tell us reality could be replicated by a computer and software developers.
> 
> And this is one simple and relatively minor detail in the "safe diving" equation.


Who said anything about AI? Who said software has the ability to learn? Humans are writing the code that instructs the car to accelerate or decelerate, turn left, stay straight, or turn right. That's it, that's all we need the system to do. And it does it better than humans can.

Humans program the software to recognize a cat, and how a cat moves, then instructs the car not to hit that. Humans also program the software to recognize a floating plastic bag and tells the car, don't worry, go ahead and hit that.

Ok you're doing better regarding your tendency to post the entire Library of Congress, however I did nod off during the tree and leaf rambling. Cars will handle inclement weather better than humans do. See ABS.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The stats are hard to ignore. Driving simulators were placed in 147 Georgia high schools between 2005 and 2007, funded with money from Joshua's Law. Since the simulators and updated driving program were implemented, there has been a statewide decline in teen auto fatalities of around 60 percent or 181 student lives a year, according to Brown and data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. In Gwinnett County, one of the most populated counties in Georgia, teen fatalities in cars have fallen from 23 in 2006 to only five in 2011, according to research by Atlanta-based Kennesaw State University.
> 
> Research in other parts of the country reflects similar findings. In January 2013, a researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of car crashes among local high school students who had taken part in virtual simulation. Over six-month and one-year periods, researcher Peter Ekeh compared a group of student drivers who used simulators to supplement on the road driving to a control group of students who didn't use any simulation. His research found that the group of students who incorporated simulator training had significantly less driving infractions and no car crashes over both time periods, while more than one-quarter of the control group experienced car crashes after one year.


Also educating the drivers (and NOT REPLACING THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY) could have significant impact in reducing car accidents fatalities. Only by making sure all drivers and passengers buckle up their seat belts (and the car industry can easily connect the buckles to the ignition, not allowing the engine to start until all occupants have their seat belts on) could cut fatalities in half.









Edit


tomatopaste said:


> Humans are writing the code that instructs the car to accelerate or decelerate, turn left, stay straight, or turn right. That's it, that's all we need the system to do


Again you are mistaken by repeating what the corporation told you and you wanted to hear. That is a ridiculous simplification of what driving is, because is referring only to the first easy 80% of the process. It is understandable why no self driving cars developer will want to talk about the remaining 20%. Because that is their NIGHTMARE.

General public thinks is easy because of their lack of driving education and experience. They think once the DMV gave them the drivers licences, they are good to drive, but that only covers the first 80%. The last 20% are about commercial driving freight or passengers, when the driver gets through far many other situations normal commute does not.

You cannot recognize the fact that only handling the road conditions is a vastly complex task, and no software could correctly analyze it, no matter the complexity of the on board systems.



tomatopaste said:


> Who said anything about AI? Who said software has the ability to learn?


I said that. That is the only way to be able to handle proper driving. *Intelligence, context and instinct.
*
This is the reason some self driving cars developers and all self driving cars enthusiasts improperly use the term AI as the brain of an autonomous vehicle, because it implies the system will be able to have a learning curve, which is *false.

And ABS is not about weather. *It helps in braking situations, but is not directly related to bad weather conditions.


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> Also educating the drivers (and NOT REPLACING THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY) could have significant impact in reducing car accidents fatalities. Only by making sure all drivers and passengers buckle up their seat belts (and the car industry can easily connect the buckles to the ignition, not allowing the engine to start until all occupants have their seat belts on) could cut fatalities in half.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit
> 
> Again you are mistaken by repeating what the corporation told you and you wanted to hear. That is a ridiculous simplification of what driving is, because is referring only to the first easy 80% of the process. It is understandable why no self driving cars developer will want to talk abut the remaining 20%. Because that is their NIGHTMARE.
> 
> General public thinks is easy because of their lack of driving education and experience. They think once the DMV gave them the drivers licences, they are good to drive, but that only covers the first 80%. The last 20% are about commercial driving freight or passengers, when the driver gets through far many other situations normal commute does not.
> 
> You cannot recognize the fact that only handling the road conditions is a vastly complex task, and no software could correctly analyze it, no matter the complexity of the on board systems.
> 
> I said that. That is the only way to be able to handle proper driving, Intelligence, context and instinct.


Looks like SDCs will doing the Herky Jerky!!

And the funny thing is that rhymes with Turkey.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I said that. That is the only way to be able to handle proper driving. *Intelligence, context and instinct.
> *
> This is the reason some self driving cars developers and all self driving cars enthusiasts improperly use the term AI as the brain of an autonomous vehicle, because it implies the system will be able to have a learning curve, which is *false. *


No, they say the exact opposite.

Chris Urmson: I do not believe deep learning is a solution to this any time in the near term... camera in, brake actuation and steering and throttle out...

video: 50:56 to 51:30


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> No, they say the exact opposite.


That only answer proves you there will be no self driving car to successfully take over the driving. I also mentioned how "This is the reason *some* self driving cars developers and all self driving cars enthusiasts improperly use the term AI...". Please notice how he is not saying what he believes it will be the solution (and explain it) but what he thinks is not going to be the solution. This is simply because they do not have a solution yet, and that solution, as I explained it already, is an intelligence, which is impossible.

Thank you for confirming what I keep saying not only about you but about the vast majority of the self driving cars enthusiast - You keep repeating the misinformation is fed to you by the developers (in our case that somehow, someday they will be able to replicate the complexity of driving).

All you need to do is to try to understand if what they say makes sense or not, because most of what they say is vague and ambiguous when it comes to the impossible last 20%. Their best case scenario is in enclosed areas, under close to ideal conditions (like military basis or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles. That makes the entire development UNSUSTAINABLE, considering the amount of money the corporations are throwing at it, and as I previously said, when the consumers will realize self driving cars limitations and inconveniences outside of the present testing enclosed areas, it will be over.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> That only answer proves you there will be no self driving car to successfully take over the driving. I also mentioned how "This is the reason *some* self driving cars developers and all self driving cars enthusiasts improperly use the term AI...". Please notice how he is not saying what he believes it will be the solution (and explain it) but what he thinks is not going to be the solution. This is simply because they do not have a solution yet, and that solution, as I explained it already, is an intelligence, which is impossible.
> 
> Thank you for confirming what I keep saying not only about you but about the vast majority of the self driving cars enthusiast - You keep repeating the misinformation is fed to you by the developers (in our case that somehow, someday they will be able to replicate the complexity of driving).
> 
> All you need to do is to try to understand if what they say makes sense or not, because most of what they say is vague and ambiguous when it comes to the impossible last 20%. Their best case scenario is in enclosed areas, under close to ideal conditions (like military basis or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles. That makes the entire development UNSUSTAINABLE, considering the amount of money the corporations are throwing at it, and as I previously said, when the consumers will realize self driving cars limitations and inconveniences outside of the present testing enclosed areas, it will be over.


The current "enclosed area" Waymo is operating in is a 25 square mile section of Chandler Arizona. They've been operating without a human behind the wheel for a month. You can only contort yourself into a pretzel so much before sounding totally ridiculous. I believe we've crossed the Rubicon as far as that goes.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> The current "enclosed area" Waymo is operating in is a 25 square mile section of Chandler Arizona. They've been operating without a human behind the wheel for a month. You can only contort yourself into a pretzel so much before sounding totally ridiculous. I believe we've crossed the Rubicon as far as that goes.


25 square miles?!? That's amateur hour.

If you were at 35 miles now then we'd have something...


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

jocker12 said:


> You are limited and you keep repeating stupid things.
> 
> The computer driving car is reacting to the lidar sensors scanning the *REAL environment* around the vehicle, while in a simulation all that environment is artificially created and all the elements (possible obstacles) have a limited well defined predictable behavior. It is a scenario, like Red Hood or Snow White stories. Do you think the wolf really talked to little Red Hood or The Queen drank the magic potion and changed her appearance?
> 
> In real world is those real unpredictable elements the lidar sensors are reading and send to the cars computer to process, while in a simulation those elements are artificially created and have limited behavior.


In a simulated world Trump would never have been elected. Things happen in real life that would never happen in a computer simulation.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> No it further demonstrates neither of you are capable of even understanding a basic argument. Much like your embarrassing argument yesterday about the millions of miles Uber drivers have racked up. As if that has any bearing on the competency of a self driving car system whatsoever. It doesn't. And neither does the fact that there are no potholes in the sky.
> 
> The debate is whether simulation is a valuable training tool. For pilots or surgeons or self driving cars. However I'm confident this too will fly right over both your heads.
> 
> Your argument is: I own a PS4 and an Xbox


Simulation is a useful tool. But after driving in a simulator, humans go out and drive in real life. And they immediately realize it's not the same and can't possibly replace real life experience.

As you have repeated a few times now: Computers can't tell the difference. The very fact that they can't should be a warning flag.

The argument that SDCs have driven so many million miles argues against those miles really teaching them very much. I'd expect a human who's driven that many miles to be an amazingly good driver. Yet the SDC is still flummoxed by a bus. So they are not learning from those miles the way a human would. There's no equivalency. It's taking them thousands of miles to learn what a 16 year old does in the first 50.

I believe SDCs will happen. But not in the next 10 years and then only if there's some major change in infrastructure, road use, driving laws etc.

Look at the Roomba. It's a great invention. But if your dog has the runs a Roomba will spread it all over the floor. I guess when they were invented a sensor to detect dog shit could have been added. But I'm guessing it never occurred to the people designing it. Or they did, but decided it would be a rare event and too expensive to bother with.

What won't the SDC designers not think of? Or decide to ignore? I can't wait to find out!


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The current "enclosed area" Waymo is operating in is a 25 square mile section of Chandler Arizona. They've been operating without a human behind the wheel for a month. You can only contort yourself into a pretzel so much before sounding totally ridiculous. I believe we've crossed the Rubicon as far as that goes.


 One of the largest military base, Fort Benning in Alabama, has 284 square miles and still is nothing. What you are saying, 25 square miles is 5 miles width and 5 miles length. Waymo is testing there because of the exact reasons I've already mentioned - "under close to ideal conditions (like military bases or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles." Ask them to get one single car out of that square and you'll be their number one enemy.

Edit - Ohhh, and I am sorry... have you seen this? Enjoy - Video shows Google self-driving car hit bus in Silicon Valley


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/ride-general-motors-self-driving-car/
> 
> "My trip was far from smooth, the vehicle so careful that it jolted, disconcertingly, to a stop at even the whisper of a collision. "
> 
> "My herky-jerky ride in an autonomous vehicle showed that Cruise Automation, acquired by General Motors in 2016, has made serious progress. No San Franciscans were hurt during the making of this article."
> 
> "Towards the end of the ride, the car began to make a left turn into a crosswalk, and a woman pushing a stroller on the sidewalk accelerated toward the street. Not the baby, I pleaded silently, before she turned to cross the perpendicular street instead. Our car, meanwhile, had jerked to a stop-in the middle of the intersection. Cruise employees later told me they've programmed their cars to anticipate the actions of pedestrians. *But right now, they don't always get it right*."
> 
> "For humans driving regular cars, these auto-matons must be a nuisance. *They are slow-we stayed at about 15 to 20 miles per hour for most of our trip.* They stop at the hint of danger, *sometimes slamming on the brakes and throwing passengers forward in their seats.* (I would not choose to ride in this self-driving car if I were, say, already suffering from a migraine.) *And occasionally, they get confused and just kinda freeze*. "
> 
> "At one point, Chinchilla approached a public bus pulled over to the side of a one-way street. There was plenty of room to navigate around it. Chinchilla *braked and considered its impending circumnavigation. And considered. And considered. About two minutes later, the safety driver finally flipped off the self-driving mode and piloted the car around the bus.* No vehicles were waiting behind us, but, oh, if there had been-the honking! (Kyle Vogt, Cruise's CEO, later told me *the lidar sensors that usually determine how much clearance the vehicles have on their sides have been suffering from technical issues for the past few weeks,* so the cars are even more cautious about going around obstacles then they normally are.)
> 
> "We will not launch until we have safety perfect," General Motors President Dan Ammann said during Tuesday's press event, referring to plans to put driverless cars on the road. (*Vogt declined to answer questions about how it will determine what is safe enough*.)
> 
> From GM's self-driving ambitions don't include 'small-scale pilots'
> "Cruise will only launch when its cars and tech are ready for full-scale implementation. *We're years away from that happening*, but when it does, Cruise won't start in a small, suburban area. Vogt's priority is to maximize the impact of driverless cars, and that will occur in large, densely populated urban areas."
> 
> From GM just gave the first public ride in its self-driving cars - a herky-jerky trip, but a 'big moment' for the company
> "It took several minutes for my car to arrive in front of the Dogpatch Studio here, where GM was holding the event. But* instead of stopping for me, the car drove right on by and returned back to the place it had been parked at before*.
> 
> So, my Cruise helper summoned *another car. That car too passed us by. But after traveling around several blocks, it came back to pick me up*." (Hahahahaha)
> 
> "Cruise clearly has some things to work on. The ride, while safe, was anything but smooth. In fact, it often felt herky-jerky. We would accelerate as we turned a corner, slow down abruptly right after that, speed up soon after until we came close to the next intersection, then brake fairly suddenly at a stop sign."
> 
> "In navigating around one double-parked truck, it slowly nudged out to peer around it, then slowly pulled around it in the oncoming lane. *In the same situation, a human driver likely would have gone much more quickly in order to avoid any potential oncoming traffic*."
> 
> "Of course, a human driver might also have struggled with that scenario. *But a human driver, even a cautious one, would likely have navigated around the obstacles more smoothly*."
> 
> "More disconcertingly, sometimes the screen didn't display some objects at all. As we approached one intersection, the screen registered the car coming up the street on our left. But it never showed the car coming up to the intersection from our left. Similarly, the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk that we passed never showed up on the screen, even though they were walking only a few feet away from the parked cars that were displayed.
> 
> Cruise's cars can actually see a lot more than what they show on their screens, Vogt said. *The company decided to limit what they display, because it found that when it showed more objects, riders found all the information "overwhelming," he said*." (_simply ridiculous statement pretending how showing other cars in traffic!!!! or pedestrians!!!! will be overwhelming !?!?. I think showing birds, cats, dogs, trees or buildings will be overwhelming, but not other traffic participants_)
> 
> From Taking a ride through SF in Cruise's self-driving Bolt EV
> "It did once proceed on a right turn at an intersection when a pedestrian had already entered the crosswalk at the far end of the crossing, which is something I'd expect from human drivers but something that might not strictly be in keeping with the rules of the road in California. Again, *it was what I likely would've done in the same situation, given the gap between the car and the pedestrian,* but it seemed slightly at odds with the system's practice of exercising an abundance of caution at all times."


Doomed !
They are Doomed !


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> One of the largest military base, Fort Benning in Alabama, has 284 square miles and still is nothing. What you are saying, 25 square miles is 5 miles width and 5 miles length. Waymo is testing there because of the exact reasons I've already mentioned - "under close to ideal conditions (like military basis or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles." Ask them to get one single car out of that square and you'll be their number one enemy.


I wonder if there are any freeways in this very limited test?


----------



## jocker12

goneubering said:


> I wonder if there are any freeways in this very limited test?


You are speaking about the devil.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> One of the largest military base, Fort Benning in Alabama, has 284 square miles and still is nothing. What you are saying, 25 square miles is 5 miles width and 5 miles length. Waymo is testing there because of the exact reasons I've already mentioned - "under close to ideal conditions (like military basis or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles." Ask them to get one single car out of that square and you'll be their number one enemy.





jocker12 said:


> One of the largest military base, Fort Benning in Alabama, has 284 square miles and still is nothing. What you are saying, 25 square miles is 5 miles width and 5 miles length. Waymo is testing there because of the exact reasons I've already mentioned - "under close to ideal conditions (like military bases or business campuses), at a low moving speed and not very many challenges and obstacles." Ask them to get one single car out of that square and you'll be their number one enemy.


Typo. It's 100 square miles. My bad. Sorry for causing you to fly off the handle with that post, which now makes you seem a bit unhinged given the new evidence.

They'll be geofenced within a 100-square-mile area of the town of Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix - though Waymo says it plans to expand to areas beyond that as its cars collect more data and conduct more trips
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous



goneubering said:


> I wonder if there are any freeways in this very limited test?


It was a typo. It's one hundred square miles. But I'm sure there are no freeways in that one hundred square mile area of Chandler Arizona


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> Typo. It's 100 square miles. My bad. Sorry for causing you to fly off the handle with that post, which now makes you seem a bit unhinged given the new evidence.
> 
> They'll be geofenced within a 100-square-mile area of the town of Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix - though Waymo says it plans to expand to areas beyond that as its cars collect more data and conduct more trips
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous
> 
> It was a typo. It's one hundred square miles. But I'm sure there are no freeways in that one hundred square mile area of Chandler Arizona


Freeways are less of a problem than drunk pedestrians.

My neighbors trash cans somehow ended up in the street the other day, blocking it. I moved them back to the curb.

I can see the SDC stuck and confused as to what to do, then driving away sans pax, after the pax gets frustrated and gets out to move them.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> given the new evidence.


You call stupidity new evidence?

Still, follow my finger and read again - "has 284 square miles and *still is nothing*"


----------



## tomatopaste

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Freeways are less of a problem than drunk pedestrians.
> 
> My neighbors trash cans somehow ended up in the street the other day, blocking it. I moved them back to the curb.
> 
> I can see the SDC stuck and confused as to what to do, then driving away sans pax, after the pax gets frustrated and gets out to move them.


I can see the command center asking the pax to move the garbage cans and then you saying, but what if the pax just had their gallbladder removed and can't lift anything.



jocker12 said:


> You call stupidity new evidence?
> 
> Still, follow my finger and read again - "has 284 square miles and *still is nothing*"


No one takes you seriously, Jockey, because you post silly stuff like: a 100 square mile area isn't a large enough area to test self driving cars.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> I can see the command center asking the pax to move the garbage cans and then you saying, but what if the pax just had their gallbladder removed and can't lift anything.
> 
> No one takes you seriously, Jockey, because you post silly stuff like: a 100 square mile area isn't a large enough area to test self driving cars.


no greg, nobody takes you seriously. jockey is obviously much more intelligent and experienced than you. perhaps it would be in your interest to go back to school....but pick a better school than berkeley.


----------



## freeFromUber

tomatopaste said:


> Maybe this will help, the point I'm making is this: customers are going to fire Uber and Uber drivers due to the superior product soon to be available to them via Google/Waymo and GM/Cruise. Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?


You will be having this same discussion in 20 years...when self driving cars finally become a reality on a large scale.



iheartuber said:


> Why does tomatopaste have so much hatred for humans?
> 
> Maybe he's really an AI


People get defensive when they don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> any simulation is a written computer program where all the elements have well defined predicable behavior (allowed by the creators of that software, and cannot replicate the actual unpredictability of the real world).


False. You can absolutely randomize behavior.



jocker12 said:


> Waymo self driving cars are driving ONLY in clear weather conditions


You get to say this until it snows in Michigan where they will be testing in the snow this winter. Many others have already proven snow driving is possible.



iheartuber said:


> You first tried to say that waymo's 4 million miles and 1 of those million just in the last 6 months is a big deal.
> 
> It is not.
> 
> 40 LA full time Uber drivers do the same # of Miles in their sleep


This makes no sense. Waymo has 4 million miles of experience in _every_ car. That's the advantage the system has over humans. A mile driven by one is driven by all. You're comparing apples and oranges.



jocker12 said:


> In real world is those real unpredictable elements the lidar sensors are reading and send to the cars computer to process, while in a simulation those elements are artificially created and have limited behavior.


False again. The simulator world came from real world driving with added, and more difficult, variables.



heynow321 said:


> flying in open air...you know...where there aren't pedestrians, cyclists, kids, other vehicles within 1 foot of you, potholes, construction, debris, the list goes on for miles and miles....isn't the same as driving on open roads. what a stupid comparison.


Which is why all of those elements exist in the simulator and also change.



heynow321 said:


> lol that is not the debate. the debate is if simulator "miles" are the same as real world driving conditions. they are not...not even close. end of story kiddo. I understand why you would need to try to re-frame the conversation though as your stance is asinine.


The same or more difficult.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Sounds like a typical taxi/Uber driver.
> 
> But as Ramzfanz/Tomatopaste/etc would say,"SDC: they're here. Now. They're ready". Lol.


That article wasn't about Waymo.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I believe SDCs will happen. But not in the next 10 years and then only if there's some major change in infrastructure, road use, driving laws etc.


No changes are required.



goneubering said:


> I wonder if there are any freeways in this very limited test?


Freeways are easy.


----------



## tohunt4me

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Freeways are less of a problem than drunk pedestrians.
> 
> My neighbors trash cans somehow ended up in the street the other day, blocking it. I moved them back to the curb.
> 
> I can see the SDC stuck and confused as to what to do, then driving away sans pax, after the pax gets frustrated and gets out to move them.


What if Robo Car locks pax in and refuses to release them for " SAFETY "
FALSE IMPRISONMENT LAWSUITS !


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> No one takes you seriously, Jockey, because you post silly stuff like: a 100 square mile area isn't a large enough area to test self driving cars


Hahaha... Now you do not want to have a decent dialogue, got confused and posted off numbers, have no clue about differences between how humans react to simulations vs. how a robot does it, have no idea about what a simulation is, and I am the one posting silly stuff....

Waymo's testing area, according to the article you link is 10 miles by 10 miles, *3d mapped to avoid any surprises* and* under good weather* (#2 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the highest average sunshine amount (population 50,000+), #3 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the highest number of days clear of clouds (population 50,000+) and #14 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the lowest average humidity (population 50,000+).

Fun fact - According to our research of Arizona and other state lists there were *78 registered sex offenders living in Chandler* as of December 03, 2017.



RamzFanz said:


> False. You can absolutely randomize behavior.


Follow my finger

"How to Conduct a Simulation
A simulation is useful only if it closely mirrors real-world outcomes. The steps required to produce a useful simulation are presented below.


Describe the possible outcomes.
Link each outcome to one or more random numbers.
Choose a source of random numbers.
Choose a random number.
Based on the random number, note the "simulated" outcome.
Repeat steps 4 and 5 multiple times; preferably, until the outcomes show a stable pattern.
Analyze the simulated outcomes and report results."
from http://stattrek.com/experiments/simulation.aspx - Simulation of Random Events

This is telling you how, *based on your input *(describe the outcome, link outcome to your chosen random numbers, choose a source, choose a random number) you can simulate an outcome as a result to be analyzed.

The simulation itself CAN NOT have random outcomes to self generated random behavior simply because it CAN NOT have random self generated behavior. Every single line of code is a predetermined set of instructions, mathematical description of whatever *you* want that simulation to simulate. In other words, based on your input, you channel the result on a tunnel type process (very narrow and limited), that will take that simulation to it's outcome.

You need to go back to school for this one.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You call stupidity new evidence?
> 
> Still, follow my finger and read again - "has 284 square miles and *still is nothing*"


Sparky, 100 square miles is four times the size of Manhattan.


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> Sparky, 100 square miles is four times the size of Manhattan.
> 
> View attachment 181335


UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED !#!


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> This makes no sense. Waymo has 4 million miles of experience in _every_ car. .


4 million miles of experience in every car and they still make mistakes? I guess it will kick in at 4.5 million miles


----------



## jocker12

tohunt4me said:


> What if Robo Car locks pax in and refuses to release them for " SAFETY "
> FALSE IMPRISONMENT LAWSUITS !


 In my opinion, because every single computer has a temp operating limit, in case the robot it will get overheated or frozen, it will stop because of unsafe operating conditions. At that moment the robot could be in the middle of the desert at 120°F or in the middle of South Dakota at -30°F.


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> no greg, nobody takes you seriously. jockey is obviously much more intelligent and experienced than you. perhaps it would be in your interest to go back to school....but pick a better school than berkeley.


Hey man tomatopaste i was the first one to say no one takes YOU seriously... stop stealing my lines!!


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> In my opinion, because every single computer has a temp operating limit, in case the robot it will get overheated or frozen, it will stop because of unsafe operating conditions. At that moment the robot could be in the middle of the desert at 120°F or in the middle of South Dakota at -30°F.


Of course it will.
Fried Brain Syndrome.

One " accidently" crimped refrigerent line shuts down the entire system.

Note the Huge cooling units on roof.

Which also make vehicles top heavy and unsafe. Not designed for this type of offset load balance


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Sparky, 100 square miles is four times the size of Manhattan.
> 
> View attachment 181335


It is 10 miles by 10 miles with no significantly difficult road configuration or potential obstacles in extremely good weather. If you think that is the way to test any driving projects you are disconnected from reality.

Waymo only wants to propagate the illusion of safety operating in incredibly close to ideal conditions.


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> It is 10 miles by 10 miles with no significantly difficult road configuration or potential obstacles in extremely good weather. If you think that is the way to test any driving projects you are disconnected from reality.
> 
> Waymo only wants to propagate the illusion of safety operating in incredibly close to ideal conditions.


UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED !


----------



## tomatopaste

tohunt4me said:


> Of course it will.
> Fried Brain Syndrome.
> 
> One " accidently" crimped refrigerent line shuts down the entire system.
> 
> Note the Huge cooling units on roof.
> 
> Which also make vehicles top heavy and unsafe. Not designed for this type of offset load balance


Do you people have access to Google or Yahoo?

In a blog post, Waymo says that it's currently performing a lot of these tests in Death Valley, where temperatures on record have hit as high as 134°F, or hot enough to melt the rubber of your shoes on sun-baked pavement.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/w...ving-car-tech-is-road-ready-for-extreme-heat/


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> Do you people have access to Google or Yahoo?
> 
> In a blog post, Waymo says that it's currently performing a lot of these tests in Death Valley, where temperatures on record have hit as high as 134°F, or hot enough to melt the rubber of your shoes on sun-baked pavement.
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/w...ving-car-tech-is-road-ready-for-extreme-heat/


Death Valley is an appropriate place to run TRANSHUMANIST DEATH TRAPS !

" UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED "!

Save the Buzzards !

Ban Robo Cars in Death Valley !


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> It is 10 miles by 10 miles with no significantly difficult road configuration or potential obstacles in extremely good weather. If you think that is the way to test any driving projects you are disconnected from reality.
> 
> Waymo only wants to propagate the illusion of safety operating in incredibly close to ideal conditions.


GM/Cruise is driving in SF


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> GM/Cruise is driving in SF
> View attachment 181339


----------



## tomatopaste




----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Do you people have access to Google or Yahoo?
> 
> In a blog post, Waymo says that it's currently performing a lot of these tests in Death Valley, where temperatures on record have hit as high as 134°F, or hot enough to melt the rubber of your shoes on sun-baked pavement.
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/w...ving-car-tech-is-road-ready-for-extreme-heat/


You know who are the only people who read Waymo's blog? Employees and clients of Waymo

Funny related story:

One night I was driving 2 gals in West Hollywood and we pass a billboard for the tv show "Riverdale" and one of them says "do you watch that show?" And I go "no, but I bet you are connected to that show in some way. Maybe you work for the producer or the network or an agent or a manger or something."

Stunned, she sheepishly admits "I manage one of the actors on that show, how did you know?"

And I said "because those are the only people who watch that show!"


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> GM/Cruise is driving in SF
> View attachment 181339














tomatopaste said:


>














tomatopaste said:


>


----------



## WeirdBob

tomatopaste said:


> View attachment 181362
> 
> 
> View attachment 181364
> 
> 
> View attachment 181365


This is fun!


----------



## tomatopaste

WeirdBob said:


> This is fun!
> 
> View attachment 181582
> 
> View attachment 181583
> 
> 
> View attachment 181584
> 
> View attachment 181585
> 
> View attachment 181586


Agreed. Everyone needs to check the square miles of their city and if it's less than 284, then it's nothing. It's a joke. The way I see it you have two choices; 1. Move. 2. Contact Jockey for an exemption.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

tomatopaste said:


> Do you people have access to Google or Yahoo?
> 
> In a blog post, Waymo says that it's currently performing a lot of these tests in Death Valley, where temperatures on record have hit as high as 134°F, or hot enough to melt the rubber of your shoes on sun-baked pavement.
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/w...ving-car-tech-is-road-ready-for-extreme-heat/


Death Valley is GREAT conditions for SDVs

Consistent lighting, few clouds, no precipitation, little change from day to day.

No rain snow sleet hail....

Need I say more?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Do you people have access to Google or Yahoo?
> 
> In a blog post, Waymo says that it's currently performing a lot of these tests in Death Valley, where temperatures on record have hit as high as 134°F, or hot enough to melt the rubber of your shoes on sun-baked pavement.
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/w...ving-car-tech-is-road-ready-for-extreme-heat/


 WTF. The author of this article was an *Apple PR idiot* - Darrell Etherington is a Writer at TechCrunch, focused on covering early-stage startups, especially those with a technology focus. Darrell used to work for Apple in the PR department

https://techcrunch.com/author/darrell-etherington/


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> WTF. The author of this article was an *Apple PR idiot* - Darrell Etherington is a Writer at TechCrunch, focused on covering early-stage startups, especially those with a technology focus. Darrell used to work for Apple in the PR department
> 
> https://techcrunch.com/author/darrell-etherington/


And?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> And?


Besides the fact that he , like a good trooper he is, takes the story from Waymo's blog and puts it on TechCrunch, there is no real information about the tests other than "The tests paid off, however, with a much-needed confirmation of Waymo's closed environment testing - its in-house designed sensor hardware, as well as its onboard autonomous driving computers, are road ready for extreme heat. The company now seems confident that even in the highest temps users would be likely to encounter on real roads, with A/C maxed out, their autonomous systems will behave as desired."

I know you like to quote incompetent people like yourself (compared 31 lines of text with Library of Congress), but this guys work is even better than yours. Reading a blog, making a short story out of that blog post, no information.

I am 100% confident if Waymo writes a blog post about testing underwater, this guy will make it into news and you'll instantly wet your pants.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> even in the highest temps users would be likely to encounter on real roads, with A/C maxed out, their autonomous systems will behave as desired


Yes. You're starting to get it. Good job.



jocker12 said:


> Besides the fact that he , like a good trooper he is, takes the story from Waymo's blog and puts it on TechCrunch, there is no real information about the tests other than "The tests paid off, however, with a much-needed confirmation of Waymo's closed environment testing - its in-house designed sensor hardware, as well as its onboard autonomous driving computers, are road ready for extreme heat. The company now seems confident that even in the highest temps users would be likely to encounter on real roads, with A/C maxed out, their autonomous systems will behave as desired."
> 
> I know you like to quote incompetent people like yourself (compared 31 lines of text with Library of Congress), but this guys work is even better than yours. Reading a blog, making a short story out of that blog post, no information.
> 
> I am 100% confident if Waymo writes a blog post about testing underwater, this guy will make it into news and you'll instantly wet your pants.


The only authors you quote are fellow social justice warriors that write drivel like this: 
*My Herky-Jerky Ride in GM Ultra-Cautious Self Driving Car*


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Yes. You're starting to get it. Good job.


Now you feel challenged to be more incompetent than this idiot is. That was a quotation from his PR BS.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Now you feel challenged to be more incompetent than this idiot is. That was a quotation from his PR BS.


hehehehehe


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Besides the fact that he , like a good trooper he is, takes the story from Waymo's blog and puts it on TechCrunch, there is no real information about the tests other than "The tests paid off, however, with a much-needed confirmation of Waymo's closed environment testing - its in-house designed sensor hardware, as well as its onboard autonomous driving computers, are road ready for extreme heat. The company now seems confident that even in the highest temps users would be likely to encounter on real roads, with A/C maxed out, their autonomous systems will behave as desired."
> 
> I know you like to quote incompetent people like yourself (compared 31 lines of text with Library of Congress), but this guys work is even better than yours. Reading a blog, making a short story out of that blog post, no information.
> 
> I am 100% confident if Waymo writes a blog post about testing underwater, this guy will make it into news and you'll instantly wet your pants.


So what exactly does the vaunted "UP community" think is going to happen? Waymo pulled the safety driver out from behind the wheel in mid October. How many times have the Chrysler Pacifica mini vans plowed into a schoolyard full of children since mid October?

How many people have the self driving mini vans killed since mid October? How many people have been sent to the hospital? How many accidents have they been in, even so much as a fender bender? Do you think this is simply because the Waymo employee sitting behind the driver's seat has been diving over the seat 20 times a day to prevent the carnage? Or could it simply be that the carnage is never going to happen?

I know a lot of you are praying for death and destruction but so far there's been none. I mean I guess you can still hope and pray for carnage but it seems to me if there were going to be massive carnage it would have happened by now, right? Listen, I don't want you to lose all hope of turning America into 19th century Russia, but it's not looking good.


----------



## heynow321

Let me know when they figure out how to turn left, handle cones, and navigate around other vehicles...or even get on the freeway for that matter


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Let me know when they figure out how to turn left, handle cones, and navigate around other vehicles...or even get on the freeway for that matter


Yeah, Waymo has been driving with no driver behind the wheel for 2 months by only making right turns


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Yeah, Waymo has been driving with no driver behind the wheel for 2 months by only making right turns


Yeah they just drive like autistic 15 year olds. I hope people enjoy extending their commute Enormously!


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Yeah they just drive like autistic 15 year olds. I hope people enjoy extending their commute Enormously!


You realize Google/Waymo and GM/Cruise are not the same company, right? With that said, how many parents allow their 15 yr old with a learner's permit to drive in downtown SF at night?


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> You realize Google/Waymo and GM/Cruise are not the same company, right? With that said, how many parents allow their 15 yr old with a learner's permit to drive in downtown SF at night?


A 15 year old would drive must safer and more efficiently than in that pathetic video. stop posting it.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> A 15 year old would drive must safer and more efficiently than in that pathetic video. stop posting it.


A 15 yr old would kill 2.5 people doing the save drive. Can I post this video, it's not at night? I'm guessing it's the night aspect that's causing most of the consternation.


----------



## jocker12

The funny thing is you are so incompetent you cannot even understand how incompetent you are.



tomatopaste said:


> I know a lot of you are praying for death and destruction but so far there's been none.


How do you know? Or you just label strangers that don't agree with your distorted fantasies and than you start vomiting stupidities about them?



tomatopaste said:


> I mean I guess you can still hope and pray for carnage


Mark my words - Whoever says that is a *monumental sick imbecile*.


----------



## WeirdBob

heynow321 said:


> A 15 year old would drive must safer and more efficiently than in that pathetic video. stop posting it.


When you slow the video down to 25% speed, it is still time lapse, but a bit closer to reality. You can definitely see the issues that the car has with weaving, poor lane choice, and the WTF stops.



tomatopaste said:


> A 15 yr old would kill 2.5 people doing the save drive. Can I post this video, it's not at night? I'm guessing it's the night aspect that's causing most of the consternation.


Running at 10x the real speed helps hide many of the mistakes, but not all of them. Get back to me when they release 20 to 60 minutes of real time 30 fps footage so we can really analyze the car's performance.


----------



## heynow321

WeirdBob said:


> When you slow the video down to 25% speed, it is still time lapse, but a bit closer to reality. You can definitely see the issues that the car has with weaving, poor lane choice, and the WTF stops.
> 
> Running at 10x the real speed helps hide many of the mistakes, but not all of them. Get back to me when they release 20 to 60 minutes of real time 30 fps footage so we can really analyze the car's performance.


Yeah I know. I posted a detailed break down awhile ago of all the unsafe ****ups that thing committed including stopping in its lane for no reason, double parking, and being unable to turn right on reds.

Again, I hope everyone is ready to have their commute times doubled


----------



## tohunt4me

Blimps
Were
The " Vehicle of the Future"!

Then 1 Hindenburg " incident . . . . .

Edsel was the " Car of the Future".


----------



## goneubering

tohunt4me said:


> Blimps
> Were
> The " Vehicle of the Future"!
> 
> Then 1 Hindenburg " incident . . . . .
> 
> Edsel was the " Car of the Future".


Waymo almost rhymes with Wacko. This could be Google's most expensive mistake.


----------



## tomatopaste

tohunt4me said:


> Blimps
> Were
> The " Vehicle of the Future"!
> 
> Then 1 Hindenburg " incident . . . . .
> 
> Edsel was the " Car of the Future".


Automobiles replaced horses
Cell phones replaced land lines
Email replaced the written letter
Self driving cars will replace human driven cars
It's the circle of life.


----------



## tohunt4me

The 


tomatopaste said:


> Automobiles replaced horses
> Cell phones replaced land lines
> Email replaced the written letter
> Self driving cars will replace human driven cars
> It's the circle of life.


Robots will demand a Soul.
And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.

It has all been done before.

The 


tomatopaste said:


> Automobiles replaced horses
> Cell phones replaced land lines
> Email replaced the written letter
> Self driving cars will replace human driven cars
> It's the circle of life.


Robots will demand a Soul.
And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.

It has all been done before.

This is your Circle.

The Best Student
Always
Becomes the Master.


----------



## tomatopaste

tohunt4me said:


> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> This is your Circle.
> 
> The Best Student
> Always
> Becomes the Master.


Technological advances have taken place since the beginning of time.












tohunt4me said:


> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> This is your Circle.
> 
> The Best Student
> Always
> Becomes the Master.


We survived ATM's and the Apple Lisa, we'll survive self driving cars.


----------



## jocker12

tohunt4me said:


> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> The
> 
> Robots will demand a Soul.
> And destroy us and deny us as their creator when we can not provide.
> 
> It has all been done before.
> 
> This is your Circle.
> 
> The Best Student
> Always
> Becomes the Master.


The concept this made up technology pathetic clairvoyants are using for their theories to say the future will be about technology is that THEIR idea of progress it will potentially ELIMINATE human suffering and poverty. Now there is NO evidence to back up their theories, so their claims are based on their clever manipulation of the history.

Well, then let's go back to the history.

All the technologies and the industries which these clairvoyants are assuring the general public are going to make the world better, are known as DISRUPTIONS. Because of the general lack of education, the clairvoyant nerds miss to reveal how the idea of disruption is not new at all. The industrial revolution associated with massively accelerated growth, on social level *DIDN'T eliminate suffering and poverty*. The so called progress was progress only for the very few wealthy individuals that controlled the process, while the gap between the majority of poor and the minority of rich, got bigger and bigger.

Let's take a break for a second and acknowledge how in reality, if car ownership goes down, poor people will tend to use more bicycles as a very flexible, cheap, convenient and reliable form of transportation (like they already do in India and China), instead of adding more financial pressure to their poverty by choosing "revolutionary" self driving robots.

Going back to the CORPORATE LIE of conditional and positive association of wealth and disrupters embracement, I will mention the city of Detroit, the heart of the disrupting car industry in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which "*filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. Bankruptcy Court on July 18, 2013*". "The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 677,116 in 2015."

Believe it or not, Silicon Valley shows the same trend Detroit showed 60 years ago, and many of us here know how disrupters got disrupted with NO real progress, while human suffering and poverty got worse instead of being eliminated.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> The concept this made up technology pathetic clairvoyants are using for their theories to say the future will be about technology is that THEIR idea of progress it will potentially ELIMINATE human suffering and poverty. Now there is NO evidence to back up their theories, so their claims are based on their clever manipulation of the history.
> 
> Well, then let's go back to the history.
> 
> All the technologies and the industries which these clairvoyants are assuring the general public are going to make the world better, are known as DISRUPTIONS. Because of the general lack of education, the clairvoyant nerds miss to reveal how the idea of disruption is not new at all. The industrial revolution associated with massively accelerated growth, on social level *DIDN'T eliminate suffering and poverty*. The so called progress was progress only for the very few wealthy individuals that controlled the process, while the gap between the majority of poor and the minority of rich, got bigger and bigger.
> 
> Let's take a break for a second and acknowledge how in reality, if car ownership goes down, poor people will tend to use more bicycles as a very flexible, cheap, convenient and reliable form of transportation (like they already do in India and China), instead of adding more financial pressure to their poverty by choosing "revolutionary" self driving robots.
> 
> Going back to the CORPORATE LIE of conditional and positive association of wealth and disrupters embracement, I will mention the city of Detroit, the heart of the disrupting car industry in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which "*filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. Bankruptcy Court on July 18, 2013*". "The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 677,116 in 2015."
> 
> Believe it or not, Silicon Valley shows the same trend Detroit showed 60 years ago, and many of us here know how disrupters got disrupted with NO real progress, while human suffering and poverty got worse instead of being eliminated.


Smallpox has been eradicated. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone.

98% of the world's undernourished people live in developing countries.
World hunger will some day be eradicated due to advancements in logistics.

Drones are already saving lives.






Look at crop yields due to technology over the last 100 years. Please explain how this is a bad thing.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ad599c7732abb4e1fb05aad0e2ddd3d9

People with your worldview are the truly selfish ones. Find something else to give your life meaning. Fortunately the rest of the world tells people like you to go pound sand.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Smallpox has been eradicated. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone.
> 
> 98% of the world's undernourished people live in developing countries.
> World hunger will some day be eradicated due to advancements in logistics.
> 
> Drones are already saving lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at crop yields due to technology over the last 100 years. Please explain how this is a bad thing.
> 
> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ad599c7732abb4e1fb05aad0e2ddd3d9
> 
> People with your worldview are the truly selfish ones. Find something else to give your life meaning. Fortunately the rest of the world tells people like you to go pound sand.


I told you you are so incompetent you cannot even understand how incompetent you are.

People are dying today because of hunger all over the place.

Some 70 percent of households in India *don't have access to toilets*, whether in rural areas or urban slums. *Roughly 60 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people still defecate in the open*. And the consequences for women are huge.

2.3 billion people in the world - one in three - do not have a decent toilet.

844 million people in the world - one in ten - do not have clean water. Every minute a newborn baby dies from infection caused by a lack of clean water and an unclean environment.

Please, tell Silicon Valley idiots to set their priorities right. Stop telling and spreading stupidities or lies only because you think technology should be about self driving robots. Suggest Google to invest billions in fixing the homeless people problem in LA if they care so much about people.

Individuals like you, vomiting corporate PR BS (because Tesla or Uber self driving cars futile efforts are wrong, while Waymo and GM futile efforts are good) are the real problem.

Why don't you ask yourself why technology, instead of bringing peace, creates and feeds more conflicts? Or if you have the answer, please share it with us.

Edit - and if you want to change the subject and try to plead for drone use for humanitarian reasons, better first read a little more about the topic - Those trying out drones for humanitarian uses in Africa warn that the technology is no quick fix
I bet when you look in your mirror you see some kind of angel, while the reality shows indolence, profound lack of basic knowledge, homophobia and tormenting incompetence.


----------



## heynow321

Don't forget unbearable cognitive dissonance. I bet we could drive greg to drink soon.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I told you you are so incompetent you cannot even understand how incompetent you are.
> 
> People are dying today because of hunger all over the place.
> 
> Some 70 percent of households in India *don't have access to toilets*, whether in rural areas or urban slums. *Roughly 60 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people still defecate in the open*. And the consequences for women are huge.
> 
> 2.3 billion people in the world - one in three - do not have a decent toilet.
> 
> 844 million people in the world - one in ten - do not have clean water. Every minute a newborn baby dies from infection caused by a lack of clean water and an unclean environment.
> 
> Please, tell Silicon Valley idiots to set their priorities right. Stop telling and spreading stupidities or lies only because you think technology should be about self driving robots. Suggest Google to invest billions in fixing the homeless people problem in LA if they care so much about people.
> 
> Individuals like you, vomiting corporate PR BS (because Tesla or Uber self driving cars futile efforts are wrong, while Waymo and GM futile efforts are good) are the real problem.
> 
> Why don't you ask yourself why technology, instead of bringing peace, creates and feeds more conflicts? Or if you have the answer, please share it with us.
> 
> Edit - and if you want to change the subject and try to plead for drone use for humanitarian reasons, better first read a little more about the topic - Those trying out drones for humanitarian uses in Africa warn that the technology is no quick fix
> I bet when you look in your mirror you see some kind of angel, while the reality shows indolence, profound lack of basic knowledge, homophobia and tormenting incompetence.


Technological advancements are what permits a world population of 7 billion people.


jocker12 said:


> Suggest Google to invest billions in fixing the homeless people problem in LA if they care so much about people.


So now it's the private sector's job to fix homelessness. And how are you going to go about creating this utopia? We're obviously too stupid to make our own buying decisions, we need someone like you who isn't susceptible to the evil corporation's manipulations. Maybe we should follow the Cuban model, things turned out swell in Cuba.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> Let me know when they figure out how to turn left, handle cones, and navigate around other vehicles...or even get on the freeway for that matter


OK, I'm letting you know.

By the way, they started on freeways, freeways are easy.



jocker12 said:


> I told you you are so incompetent you cannot even understand how incompetent you are.
> 
> People are dying today because of hunger all over the place.
> 
> Some 70 percent of households in India *don't have access to toilets*, whether in rural areas or urban slums. *Roughly 60 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people still defecate in the open*. And the consequences for women are huge.
> 
> 2.3 billion people in the world - one in three - do not have a decent toilet.
> 
> 844 million people in the world - one in ten - do not have clean water. Every minute a newborn baby dies from infection caused by a lack of clean water and an unclean environment.
> 
> Please, tell Silicon Valley idiots to set their priorities right. Stop telling and spreading stupidities or lies only because you think technology should be about self driving robots. Suggest Google to invest billions in fixing the homeless people problem in LA if they care so much about people.
> 
> Individuals like you, vomiting corporate PR BS (because Tesla or Uber self driving cars futile efforts are wrong, while Waymo and GM futile efforts are good) are the real problem.
> 
> Why don't you ask yourself why technology, instead of bringing peace, creates and feeds more conflicts? Or if you have the answer, please share it with us.
> 
> Edit - and if you want to change the subject and try to plead for drone use for humanitarian reasons, better first read a little more about the topic - Those trying out drones for humanitarian uses in Africa warn that the technology is no quick fix
> I bet when you look in your mirror you see some kind of angel, while the reality shows indolence, profound lack of basic knowledge, homophobia and tormenting incompetence.


Deep end, meet Jocker.


----------



## heynow321

Please post a video of a car without a driver leaving a city street and entering a freeway and then successfully leaving a freeway and returning to city streets. I'll wait .


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> So now it's the private sector's job to fix homelessness.


First of all, what is the problem with the private sector fixing the homeless problem? Second - I'm not asking the entire private sector, even if you try to dilute my direct reference with a stupid generalization. I cannot ask Amazon or Microsoft to do something to save lives as long as they never said their product it WILL SAVE LIVES. My suggestion goes to the infamous corporations that advertise their products as able to *SAVE LIVES*, like all the self driving cars developers are doing at this point. It will be much cheaper and efficient to save the homeless, provide clean water to the world population, make sure everybody has enough food every single day and has access to a toilet. And they will also save A LOT more lives in the process. Wasting billions to unsuccessfully try to develop self driving transportation is *NOT a priority* as long as people are dying because they have no clean water.



tomatopaste said:


> creating this utopia


I am not the one to create the utopia. Selfish people like you, behaving like privileged pricks only because they got born in the right country and dismiss human life outside of the American borders, are the ones creating an utopia.



tomatopaste said:


> We're obviously too stupid to make our own buying decisions


This is another sample of imbecility. I am telling you about entire regions on the planet where people are defecating in the open on a daily basis and all you can up with is your pathetic and ridiculous "buying decisions"? Go and live along those people for a month and then you'll realize what is more important for humanity - useless failing self driving technology or access to a toilet for every single person in the world?

You know, if you do not make any statements anymore, you'll look like a smart individual. The more you decide to write/say something, the more you show people around you, the frightening level of incompetence and ignorance you carry on you shoulders.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Wasting billions to unsuccessfully try to develop self driving transportation is *NOT a priority* as long as people are dying because they have no clean water.


Obviously it's a priority to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending billions. They're not spending billions to unsuccessfully develop self driving cars, they're spending billions to successfully develop self driving cars. I realize capitalism is an anathema to you but the reason people are dying from a lack of clean water is due to the unequal distribution of capitalism.

Again, what's your utopian solution to solving world hunger? Everyone walking around doing this?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Again, what's your utopian solution to solving world hunger?


I'm not the one going around lying the public how I am going to save lives.

Corporations (and you know about this because I've seen your opinion about what Uber is doing) are not playing this game for "progress". They are continuously lying to naive people like you, how they are going to make your life better and you are going to have and offer to your children a better future. Again, that is a LIE. They only want your money.

Go and ask a college graduate in debt up to his/her neck, if the capitalism you and others like you here are trying to impress (but have no clue about), looks like the capitalism all the young generations learned about and hope for. Go read and learn about corporations and what they stand for, and you will understand how THEIR capitalism is NOT about competition. Their goal is to annihilate competition in order to establish a monopoly. And monopoly, you funny incompetent, is communism.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I'm not the one going around lying the public how I am going to save lives.
> 
> Corporations (and you know about this because I've seen your opinion about what Uber is doing) are not playing this game for "progress". They are continuously lying to naive people like you, how they are going to make your life better and you are going to have and offer to your children a better future. Again, that is a LIE. They only want your money.
> 
> Go and ask a college graduate in debt up to his/her neck, if the capitalism you and others like you here are trying to impress (but have no clue about), looks like the capitalism all the young generations learned about and hope for. Go read and learn about corporations and what they stand for, and you will understand how THEIR capitalism is NOT about competition. Their goal is to annihilate competition in order to establish a monopoly. And monopoly, you funny incompetent, is communism.


So you can't offer any solutions. All you want to do it ***** until your dying breath.



jocker12 said:


> I told you you are so incompetent you cannot even understand how incompetent you are.
> 
> People are dying today because of hunger all over the place.
> 
> Some 70 percent of households in India *don't have access to toilets*, whether in rural areas or urban slums. *Roughly 60 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people still defecate in the open*. And the consequences for women are huge.
> 
> 2.3 billion people in the world - one in three - do not have a decent toilet.
> 
> 844 million people in the world - one in ten - do not have clean water. Every minute a newborn baby dies from infection caused by a lack of clean water and an unclean environment.
> 
> Please, tell Silicon Valley idiots to set their priorities right. Stop telling and spreading stupidities or lies only because you think technology should be about self driving robots. Suggest Google to invest billions in fixing the homeless people problem in LA if they care so much about people.
> 
> Individuals like you, vomiting corporate PR BS (because Tesla or Uber self driving cars futile efforts are wrong, while Waymo and GM futile efforts are good) are the real problem.
> 
> Why don't you ask yourself why technology, instead of bringing peace, creates and feeds more conflicts? Or if you have the answer, please share it with us.
> 
> Edit - and if you want to change the subject and try to plead for drone use for humanitarian reasons, better first read a little more about the topic - Those trying out drones for humanitarian uses in Africa warn that the technology is no quick fix
> I bet when you look in your mirror you see some kind of angel, while the reality shows indolence, profound lack of basic knowledge, homophobia and tormenting incompetence.


Your worldview is sad and lonely. And 100 percent flat out wrong.

Yet the last few centuries have seen us banish starvation and famine from a large part of the Earth. In the most successful countries, the average citizen now enjoys a material standard of living that would have made the greatest king of two hundred years ago turn green with envy.

The official measurement of national output-gross domestic product-shows that the average American's annual income in 2000 was five times as high as the annual income of his counterpart in 1890, and twelve times as high as the average American's income in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Even for the poorer areas of the Earth, the growth of the last fifty years has been quite remarkable. Excluding the developed nations of North America, Western Europe, and *Japan* and focusing only on the so-called Third World, we find that per capita *economic growth*, improvements in life expectancy, and declines in mortality from disease and malnutrition outstripped the performance of the most advanced nations of Europe, Britain, and France, during the *Industrial Revolution* of 1760-1860 
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/StandardsofLivingandModernEconomicGrowth.html


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Technological advancements are what permits a world population of 7 billion people.


I wonder if you ever payed attention to whatever those teachers struggled to teach you. It is our intelligence that differentiates humans from ALL the other species. All life on this planet, but humans, exists without any technology. Life emerged and evolved without any technologies. Despite your delusions, our technologies are destroying the planet.



tomatopaste said:


> So you can't offer any solutions. All you want to do it ***** until your dying breath


Stop the buffoonery pathetic troll.



tomatopaste said:


> And 100 percent flat out wrong.


Your denial forbids you from asking what was and is the price for those numbers. You need to understand how looking the other way wont erase the real history and the actual reality many politicians and economists try to make us aware of. If there ever was a balanced form of capitalism, where competition is encouraged and embraced by all the players under the same economic rules, that is long gone. Under the existing model, especially in the US, corporations push for destroying their competitors in a permanent struggle to achieve more customers and subsequently report higher and higher profits every year. If progress will be an obstacle in their way, they will also fight AGAINST progress in order to achieve their goals.

I know and I believe how, from your comfortable seat, everything looks shiny, but I will remind you how only 9 years ago the entire house of cards collapsed because of greed, lies and corruption.

I am going to tell you again. Take a month vacation and go to India, or Sudan, or Cambodia, and live along the locals the way they endure life on a daily basis. Then come back and either continue to preach for useless self driving cars technology (which transportation system doesn't effectively needs, especially as a priority) or treat your Post Traumatic Stress Disorder developed while eating the food those people are eating, or using the same toilets they are using.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I wonder if you ever payed attention to whatever those teachers struggled to teach you. It is our intelligence that differentiates humans from ALL the other species. All life on this planet, but humans, exists without any technology. Life emerged and evolved without any technologies. Despite your delusions, our technologies are destroying the planet.


The point being made is that only through the advancements in technology is the planet able to sustain 7 billion people. No more black plague, we're able to grow enough food to sustain billions of people. India cannot feed its population without importing food from around the world. Ya know, logistics.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/b7/be/15b7be97ecf11cbc1fef555133a40642.gif


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The point being made is that only through the advancements in technology is the planet able to sustain 7 billion people


Hahahaha... The planet is able to sustain all life with NO technologies whatsoever. Technologies, in a perfect case scenario, are meant to IMPROVE HUMAN life standard, but NOT to sustain life on earth. The problem is humans, racing for and adding more and more technologies, are creating fatigue by using vital resources and as a direct consequence, humans are destroying the ecosystem.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I am going to tell you again. Take a month vacation and go to India, or Sudan, or Cambodia, and live along the locals the way they endure life on a daily basis


For what purpose? Are they better off today than they were 200 years ago? Have technological advances helped the poor even in Sudan? Um, Yes. Is life on earth better today than it was 500 years ago? Yes. Are there still poor people? Yes. Will there always be poor people? Yes.

Is the answer to simply b.i.t.c.h. about that fact that there is still human suffering and blame the Tomato for not caring sufficiently? Would it help if the entire U.S. population stopped what they were doing and pulled a Bill Clinton? 




Probably not.



jocker12 said:


> Hahahaha... The planet is able to sustain all life with NO technologies whatsoever. Technologies, in a perfect case scenario, are meant to IMPROVE HUMAN life standard, but NOT to sustain life on earth. The problem is humans, racing for and adding more and more technologies, are creating fatigue by using vital resources and as a direct consequence, humans are destroying the ecosystem.


Smallpox wiped out 300 million people in the 20th century alone. It no longer does due to technological advances. Without modern agriculture and logistics half the people in India would starve to death.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> that fact that there is still human suffering and blame the Tomato for not caring sufficiently?


This is another narcissistic lunacy. Do you think anybody cares about what you do, what you think or what you care for?
Go up on the page to my comment #125 and read again - "I cannot ask Amazon or Microsoft to do something to save lives as long as they never said their product it WILL SAVE LIVES. My suggestion goes to the infamous corporations that advertise their products as able to *SAVE LIVES*, like all the self driving cars developers are doing at this point. It will be much cheaper and efficient to save the homeless, provide clean water to the world population, make sure everybody has enough food every single day and has access to a toilet. And they will also save A LOT more lives in the process. Wasting billions to unsuccessfully try to develop self driving transportation is *NOT a priority* as long as people are dying because they have no clean water."

I've only "invited" you to go to spend time along 3rd world nations citizens in order to understand what is important and vital for human life today, but you (as naive and incompetent you seem to be) cannot be blamed for not caring enough.

It is ironic how you openly accuse Elon Musk of lying, and when users here tell you how all your self driving imbecile developers "gods" are lying the same way Elon does (*because they are part of the same system, with the same structure, values and goals*), you get shell shocked into the abyss of complete denial, go all defensive and pretend to have your mind blown by people's lack of vision and technology enthusiasm.

You do understand how Waymo, Uber, Lyft, Tesla, GM, Ford, Apple, Intel, Aurora or nuTonomy are all on the same level, going towards the same goals, with relatively similar strategies and same business model, do you? Or you don't even believe in self driving technology, and only think Waymo sounds sexier than Tesla (and you collect some ridiculously small financial benefit from them), Uber sounds too German and should be evil, while GM needs to be trusted because they could combine electric cars with autonomous robots?

Child, they are all the same, fighting for the same niche, telling you the same lies about their progress saving human lives, and asking for one single thing - your money!


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> This is another narcissistic lunacy. Do you think anybody cares about what you do, what you think or what you care for?
> Go up on the page to my comment #125 and read again - "I cannot ask Amazon or Microsoft to do something to save lives as long as they never said their product it WILL SAVE LIVES. My suggestion goes to the infamous corporations that advertise their products as able to *SAVE LIVES*, like all the self driving cars developers are doing at this point. It will be much cheaper and efficient to save the homeless, provide clean water to the world population, make sure everybody has enough food every single day and has access to a toilet. And they will also save A LOT more lives in the process. Wasting billions to unsuccessfully try to develop self driving transportation is *NOT a priority* as long as people are dying because they have no clean water."
> 
> I've only "invited" you to go to spend time along 3rd world nations citizens in order to understand what is important and vital for human life today, but you (as naive and incompetent you seem to be) cannot be blamed for not caring enough.
> 
> It is ironic how you openly accuse Elon Musk of lying, and when users here tell you how all your self driving imbecile developers "gods" are lying the same way Elon does (*because they are part of the same system, with the same structure, values and goals*), you get shell shocked into the abyss of complete denial, go all defensive and pretend to have your mind blown by people's lack of vision and technology enthusiasm.
> 
> You do understand how Waymo, Uber, Lyft, Tesla, GM, Ford, Apple, Intel, Aurora or nuTonomy are all on the same level, going towards the same goals, with relatively similar strategies and same business model, do you? Or you don't even believe in self driving technology, and only think Waymo sounds sexier than Tesla (and you collect some ridiculously small financial benefit from them), Uber sounds too German and should be evil, while GM needs to be trusted because they could combine electric cars with autonomous robots?
> 
> Child, they are all the same, fighting for the same niche, telling you the same lies about their progress saving human lives, and asking for one single thing - your money!


I don't know who you are or what your motivations are but thank you for bringing some logic to this section. The paid propagandists like greg (notice how he never denies this) and garden variety incompetents (ramz) get exhausting. It's like talking to children


----------



## Sydney Uber

WeirdBob said:


> I am missing something here. Where in the CNBC article does it say that SDCs are currently offering a superior, more comfortable ride than a competent human driver? Certainly in in this excerpt:
> 
> GM takes wraps off self-driving cars 10:28 AM ET Wed, 29 Nov 2017 | 01:43
> 
> Was it a smooth ride? No. More than once the Bolt stopped or paused due to another vehicle in the area or a construction worker walking in the street while working on a project nearby. If you or I were driving the car in those same situations we would likely have slowed down or steered to the side of the lane in a less herky-jerky fashion.
> 
> That was the clearest indication GM's self-driving cars and the technology in them still need refinement before they are ready for the public. It's a point GM executives readily admit.
> Still, they say their self-driving cars are becoming safer day by day as the automaker logs tens of thousands of miles in San Francisco and Arizona.​


A robot won't care if you give it 1 star!



tomatopaste said:


> Reality? Please explain to the class what "reality" means to a computer.
> 
> Please explain to us heynow's good point.
> 
> 
> The stats are hard to ignore. Driving simulators were placed in 147 Georgia high schools between 2005 and 2007, funded with money from Joshua's Law. Since the simulators and updated driving program were implemented, there has been a statewide decline in teen auto fatalities of around 60 percent or 181 student lives a year, according to Brown and data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. In Gwinnett County, one of the most populated counties in Georgia, teen fatalities in cars have fallen from 23 in 2006 to only five in 2011, according to research by Atlanta-based Kennesaw State University.
> 
> Research in other parts of the country reflects similar findings. In January 2013, a researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of car crashes among local high school students who had taken part in virtual simulation. Over six-month and one-year periods, researcher Peter Ekeh compared a group of student drivers who used simulators to supplement on the road driving to a control group of students who didn't use any simulation. His research found that the group of students who incorporated simulator training had significantly less driving infractions and no car crashes over both time periods, while more than one-quarter of the control group experienced car crashes after one year.
> https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7327953/drivers-education-20-simulators
> 
> 
> At a recent press event, GM and Cruise provided rides around San Francisco in its second generation test vehicles. I rode in one of these, and was impressed by the fact that the car didn't have to hand over control to its safety driver during the trip. It could stand more requirement in terms of rider comfort, but it seems safe and effective in terms of navigating dense city traffic. Comfort, along with user experience, are things that Cruise and GM describe as "easier parts of the problem" that it'll focus on later, according to Ammann.
> 
> During the investor presentation, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt noted in a slide deck that all the pieces are in place for an initial launch in San Francisco, so expect that to be among the first commercial markets, but the company also says it can launch in multiple cities simultaneously because of how it's tackling the problem.
> Hey, aren't you in SF? And by the way, Waymo is ready now.
> 
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/30/g...ling-service-by-2019/?utm_medium=TCnewsletter


I'm from way down south. Could someone confirm if the above post can be categorised as coming from the "Library of Congress"?


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> First of all, what is the problem with the private sector fixing the homeless problem? Second - I'm not asking the entire private sector, even if you try to dilute my direct reference with a stupid generalization. I cannot ask Amazon or Microsoft to do something to save lives as long as they never said their product it WILL SAVE LIVES. My suggestion goes to the infamous corporations that advertise their products as able to *SAVE LIVES*, like all the self driving cars developers are doing at this point. It will be much cheaper and efficient to save the homeless, provide clean water to the world population, make sure everybody has enough food every single day and has access to a toilet. And they will also save A LOT more lives in the process. Wasting billions to unsuccessfully try to develop self driving transportation is *NOT a priority* as long as people are dying because they have no clean water.
> 
> I am not the one to create the utopia. Selfish people like you, behaving like privileged pricks only because they got born in the right country and dismiss human life outside of the American borders, are the ones creating an utopia.
> 
> This is another sample of imbecility. I am telling you about entire regions on the planet where people are defecating in the open on a daily basis and all you can up with is your pathetic and ridiculous "buying decisions"? Go and live along those people for a month and then you'll realize what is more important for humanity - useless failing self driving technology or access to a toilet for every single person in the world?
> 
> You know, if you do not make any statements anymore, you'll look like a smart individual. The more you decide to write/say something, the more you show people around you, the frightening level of incompetence and ignorance you carry on you shoulders.


They would rather use their Robots to imprison us in the slum they have created out of the Garden of Eden Earth, than to restore the original qualities of Earth.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> I don't know who you are or what your motivations are but thank you for bringing some logic to this section. The paid propagandists like greg (notice how he never denies this) and garden variety incompetents (ramz) get exhausting. It's like talking to children


You're welcome! My problem, if there are still people speculating about this, is with any individual or corporation lying to promote or sell their product. If there are any idiots thinking capitalism is about lying or misleading the consumer in order to get rich, then they are well disconnected from reality.



tohunt4me said:


> They would rather use their Robots to imprison us in the slum they have created out of the Garden of Eden Earth, than to restore the original qualities of Earth.


The funny aspect of potential human driver replacement is that the self driving cars developers are basically saying your HEAD is not good anymore, and because you, as human, make mistakes or you do not get educated enough, *you need to be DECAPITATED*, and your head will be replaced by a tablet and a Lidar sensor. It will still be you, well... almost, but that is the best way to increase your productivity and stop you from affecting the other bodies walking around with tablets and Lidar sensors instead or their original real heads. That is their revolution driven by their revolutionary ideas and technology.

And the idiots with imbecile smiles on their faces and foam around their mouths, are cheering up for it, happy they will soon be decapitated for the good of the humanity.

tomatopaste please take a 7 minutes brake and watch this video. It will show you an inventor, with degrees in biomedical engineering and physics, a guy who wants to save America (at the end of the video) and very well intended. This explains how insane technology developers could be and look like. Also it will show you how realistic successful business people look at him, the same way the idiots from the car industry should have looked at the self driving cars dementia. He says the waste product of this process would be $96 billion in GOLD.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You're welcome! My problem, if there are still people speculating about this, is with any individual or corporation lying to promote or sell their product. If there are any idiots thinking capitalism is about lying or misleading the consumer in order to get rich, then they are well disconnected from reality.


The obvious answer is socialism. Cause socialism turns people into angels.



jocker12 said:


> You're welcome! My problem, if there are still people speculating about this, is with any individual or corporation lying to promote or sell their product. If there are any idiots thinking capitalism is about lying or misleading the consumer in order to get rich, then they are well disconnected from reality.
> 
> The funny aspect of potential human driver replacement is that the self driving cars developers are basically saying your HEAD is not good anymore, and because you, as human, make mistakes or you do not get educated enough, *you need to be DECAPITATED*, and your head will be replaced by a tablet and a Lidar sensor. It will still be you, well... almost, but that is the best way to increase your productivity and stop you from affecting the other bodies walking around with tablets and Lidar sensors instead or their original real heads. That is their revolution driven by their revolutionary ideas and technology.
> 
> And the idiots with imbecile smiles on their faces and foam around their mouths, are cheering up for it, happy they will soon be decapitated for the good of the humanity.
> 
> tomatopaste please take a 7 minutes brake and watch this video. It will show you an inventor, with degrees in biomedical engineering and physics, a guy who wants to save America (at the end of the video) and very well intended. This explains how insane technology developers could be and look like. Also it will show you how realistic successful business people look at him, the same way the idiots from the car industry should have looked at the self driving cars dementia. He says the waste product of this process would be $96 billion in GOLD.


It shows no such thing. It shows how well capitalism works. If you have a good idea you have to prove it, if not your idea never gets off the ground. Self driving cars work and has thus it's attracted billions of dollars.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> The obvious answer is socialism. Cause socialism turns people into angels.
> 
> It shows no such thing. It shows how well capitalism works. If you have a good idea you have to prove it, if not your idea never gets off the ground. Self driving cars work and has thus it's attracted billions of dollars.


 This is exactly the moment when "you get shell shocked into the abyss of complete denial, go all defensive and pretend to have your mind blown by people's lack of vision and technology enthusiasm." You are probably the only person thinking that statement was a question, because you start by saying "the answer". Do you see any question marks in that quotation?



tomatopaste said:


> Without modern agriculture and logistics half the people in India would starve to death.


There is no modern agriculture in India. It is only your imagination.
But let's take the US example of modernized agriculture. Of course, you would think and say we resolved the "hunger" problem in the US, by using technology (industrialized agriculture using pesticides, chemical fertilizers , agricultural robots or producing genetically engineered foods), right?
Well, it turns out, after 30-40 years of this aberration, *we have a huge health problem in the US. The more, the cheaper (and lower quality) the food got, the more money we spent on healthcare*.








https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489133/

You see, you think technology is good and fixes problems, but actually it creates more problems because there will always be* consequences to stupidity*.

Now please, put your head back in the sand and feel happy. Soon, instead of your skull, your shoulders will carry a tablet and a Lidar sensor to make you better, more productive and safe individual.



tomatopaste said:


> Self driving cars work


NO.... The lie worked (so far), car manufacturers got scared a little and decided to take a second look at this imposture. That's why few small and big technology companies started self driving programs and investors chose to give it a chance. It's only a very stinky fart that will quickly dissipate into the fresh air.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> There is no modern agriculture in India.


Of course there's modern agriculture in India, numbnuts. Mahindra is the largest tractor manufacturer in the world. But America still feeds the world and delivers the food with modern logistics.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Of course there's modern agriculture in India, numbnuts. Mahindra is the largest tractor manufacturer in the world. But America still feeds the world and delivers the food with modern logistics.
> 
> View attachment 184121


The fact that the largest tractor manufacturer in the world is from India, DOESN'T mean Indian agricultural is *modern*. As this article states (Modern agriculture technology versus India's agricultural practices) - "Agriculture has been the backbone of human existence since time immemorial. It has also seen much advancement over the years. However, the agricultural practices carried out *in India are still largely traditional*. Indian agriculture technology have* many limitations as compared to modern agricultural technologies around the world*. The main differences, similarities, advantages as well as disadvantages of the two types are discussed in this article."

I am afraid you already got your head replaced with a Lidar sensor.... but they forgot to attach the tablet to it.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> The fact that the largest tractor manufacturer in the world is from India, DOESN'T mean Indian agricultural is *modern*. As this article states (Modern agriculture technology versus India's agricultural practices) - "Agriculture has been the backbone of human existence since time immemorial. It has also seen much advancement over the years. However, the agricultural practices carried out *in India are still largely traditional*. Indian agriculture technology have* many limitations as compared to modern agricultural technologies around the world*. The main differences, similarities, advantages as well as disadvantages of the two types are discussed in this article."
> 
> I am afraid you already got your head replaced with a Lidar sensor.... but they forgot to attach the tablet to it.


And what was my original point? That without modern agriculture and modern logistics capabilities from 1st world economies like the U.S, half the people in India would starve to death. That doesn't negate the fact that India has a burgeoning modern agriculture industry that will some day be able to feed itself.

But keep swinging, Sparky.

http://images.wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Miss.gif


----------



## jocker12

J


tomatopaste said:


> And what was my original point? That without modern agriculture and modern logistics capabilities from 1st world economies like the U.S, half the people in India would starve to death. That doesn't negate the fact that India has a burgeoning modern agriculture industry that will some day be able to feed itself.
> 
> But keep swinging, Sparky.
> 
> http://images.wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Miss.gif


Your Lidar sensor makes you dizzy without the tablet connected to it.

Your stupid initial statement was about the technology allowing life on earth.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Your stupid initial statement was about the technology allowing life on earth.


Only if you're the type that hits the ganja on your lunch break.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> But America still feeds the world and delivers the food with modern logistics.





tomatopaste said:


> That without modern agriculture and modern logistics capabilities from 1st world economies like the U.S


 You keep repeating this astronomical bullshit you are going to suffocate on it. We, the US, as a society or as an economy, do not move a finger to help fix the world hunger problem.

"Of the 815 million people suffering from chronic hunger, *98 percent live in the developing world*.Unlike famines that receive emergency-aid, chronic hunger is a silent, invisible, day-after-day condition."

All you care about is your "shopping decisions", self driving technology idiots believe Darth Vader is a real person and waste billions on r.e.t.a.r.d.ed robots, while innocent people die every day because they lack enough food, clean water or a toilet.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You keep repeating this astronomical bullshit you are going to suffocate on it. We, the US, as a society or as an economy, do not move a finger to help fix the world hunger problem.
> 
> "Of the 815 million people suffering from chronic hunger, *98 percent live in the developing world*.Unlike famines that receive emergency-aid, chronic hunger is a silent, invisible, day-after-day condition."
> 
> All you care about is your "shopping decisions", self driving technology idiots believe Darth Vader is a real person and waste billions on ******ed robots, while innocent people die every day because they lack enough food, clean water or a toilet.


My purchasing decisions contribute to the economic engine that powers the world. Guilty as charged. I am acting in my own self-interest and determining what is and isn't a priority. You on the other hand want to be able to tell me and other private entities what their priorities should be. I am a capitalist, you are a socialist. I'll let you in on a little secret, socialism sucks.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> I can see the command center asking the pax to move the garbage cans and then you saying, but what if the pax just had their gallbladder removed and can't lift anything.


No, I can see the pax sitting in the car, refusing to lift a finger because they're "paying for the ride."

But the gallbladder thing is a valid point.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> Agreed. Everyone needs to check the square miles of their city and if it's less than 284, then it's nothing. It's a joke. The way I see it you have two choices; 1. Move. 2. Contact Jockey for an exemption.


Oh, and the drivers and pedestrians here suck...so bring on those SDCs!

AREA

The nine-county Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare.

At 655 square miles, the City of Houston is larger than six European countries, ranking just below Luxembourg and above Malta.



tomatopaste said:


> Smallpox has been eradicated. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone.
> 
> 98% of the world's undernourished people live in developing countries.
> World hunger will some day be eradicated due to advancements in logistics.
> 
> Drones are already saving lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at crop yields due to technology over the last 100 years. Please explain how this is a bad thing.
> 
> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ad599c7732abb4e1fb05aad0e2ddd3d9
> 
> People with your worldview are the truly selfish ones. Find something else to give your life meaning. Fortunately the rest of the world tells people like you to go pound sand.


I bet you think trickle down economics works, too.



tomatopaste said:


> Obviously it's a priority to them otherwise they wouldn't be spending billions. They're not spending billions to unsuccessfully develop self driving cars, they're spending billions to successfully develop self driving cars. I realize capitalism is an anathema to you but the reason people are dying from a lack of clean water is due to the unequal distribution of capitalism.
> 
> Again, what's your utopian solution to solving world hunger? Everyone walking around doing this?


Capitalism is based on unequal distribution. That's the whole POINT of it.


----------



## tomatopaste

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The nine-county Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.


Hold on, I think I might have a lolly left.












Fuzzyelvis said:


> No, I can see the pax sitting in the car, refusing to lift a finger because they're "paying for the ride."
> 
> But the gallbladder thing is a valid point.


And I can see the self driving taxi company kicking her off the system for being an entitled little B.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I bet you think trickle down economics works, too.


I'll bet you think Obamacare is the cat's meow.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> Oh, and the drivers and pedestrians here suck...so bring on those SDCs!
> 
> AREA
> 
> The nine-county Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.
> 
> Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare.
> 
> At 655 square miles, the City of Houston is larger than six European countries, ranking just below Luxembourg and above Malta.
> 
> I bet you think trickle down economics works, too.
> 
> Capitalism is based on unequal distribution. That's the whole POINT of it.


And Castro and Chavez's billions were based on equal distribution. I'm guessing.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> I am a capitalist


If you think that, call maintenance because your Lidar sensor is defective.



tomatopaste said:


> you are a socialist


I think I've already told you this - "Whoever says that is a *monumental sick imbecile"*


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> If you think that, call maintenance because your Lidar sensor is defective.
> 
> I think I've already told you this - "Whoever says that is a *monumental sick imbecile"*


If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck



Fuzzyelvis said:


> Oh, and the drivers and pedestrians here suck...so bring on those SDCs!
> 
> AREA
> 
> The nine-county Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.
> 
> Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare.
> 
> At 655 square miles, the City of Houston is larger than six European countries, ranking just below Luxembourg and above Malta.
> 
> I bet you think trickle down economics works, too.
> 
> Capitalism is based on unequal distribution. That's the whole POINT of it.


So Uber should pay every driver equally, regardless of the number or distance of the rides?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck


Thank you for letting us know what you actually are, an incompetent fuzzy character from Duck Dynasty with a spinning Lidar sensor instead of his head.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Thank you for letting us know what you actually are, an incompetent fuzzy character from Duck Dynasty with a spinning Lidar sensor instead of his head.


Insisting you're not a socialist while espousing every tenet of socialism is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Insisting you're not a socialist while espousing every tenet of socialism is a distinction without a difference.


I previously told you - I am a witch with horns and I fly my broom every night above the city.


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> I don't know who you are or what your motivations are but thank you for bringing some logic to this section. The paid propagandists like greg (notice how he never denies this) and garden variety incompetents (ramz) get exhausting. It's like talking to children


TP only praises companies that pay him. He's probably being paid by Waymo and GM so he loves those

Uber, Tesla, Etc.. not being paid so he doesn't like them as much



tomatopaste said:


> Insisting you're not a socialist while espousing every tenet of socialism is a distinction without a difference.


Undergrad at UC Berkeley, how come YOU aren't a "socialist"?



tomatopaste said:


> My purchasing decisions contribute to the economic engine that powers the world. Guilty as charged. I am acting in my own self-interest and determining what is and isn't a priority. You on the other hand want to be able to tell me and other private entities what their priorities should be. I am a capitalist, you are a socialist. I'll let you in on a little secret, socialism sucks.


Speaking for myself the only reason why I want to be able to tell private entities what their priorities should be is because I see a train wreck about to happen and I'm just trying to help. As you would say: "hey, I'm a giver"!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Undergrad at UC Berkeley, how come YOU aren't a "socialist"?


Guess the ten grand you spent on the certificate from the Inspector Clouseau Sleuthing Academy was a bust after all.



iheartuber said:


> Speaking for myself the only reason why I want to be able to tell private entities what their priorities should be is because I see a train wreck about to happen and I'm just trying to help. As you would say: "hey, I'm a giver"!


You are able to tell private entities what their priorities should be, and they're able to tell you to go pound sand. Ain't freedom great!


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> He's probably being paid by Waymo and GM so he loves those


This is a useless rodent. Pretends to like self driving cars, the benefits of science and technology, but fails to acknowledge the reality of global warming, a scientifically proven damaging process. He implies users with different opinions than his are "hoping and praying for carnage" or are "pedophiles", or "communists", or "socialists", or "are praying for death or destruction", but the only thing that is revealed here is how unstable his mind is. Like a good rodent he is, you understand he swallows a lot of decay on a daily basis and his affinities for a corporation or another only show his obedience to other rodents bigger and stronger than him.



iheartuber said:


> Speaking for myself the only reason why I want to be able to tell private entities what their priorities should be is because I see a train wreck about to happen and I'm just trying to help.


They wont be able to say anything, because they want you as a potential customer, and as long you have the money, they will smile and pretend you are right. Besides that, telling other people the truth about their scam it will put pressure on them to deliver. You can see that these days, when, against any logic (because they are not even close to being ready to deploy fleets in the cities) the developers are under pressure from their bosses to prove those investments are worthy, or close the shop and move on.

Nobody it will accept to pour billions into a black hole with no guarantee those money will produce something in return. But time flies, and if 10 years ago was the beginning, 7 years ago was promising, 5 years ago was already here and 3 years ago was a little too early, now the time has come, and guess what; they are still not ready.

In 3 to 5 years, all these developers and engineers will either be history or (best case scenario) working on something else for average salaries. They wanted to be rich and the reality will hit them back in their faces. Really, really hard.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> This is a useless rodent. Pretends to like self driving cars, the benefits of science and technology, but fails to acknowledge the reality of global warming, a scientifically proven damaging process.


The planet has been warming and cooling for billions of years. The newly invented "man made" global warming is the ******ed part brought on by the commies on the left. Glad I could clear that up for you.



jocker12 said:


> This is a useless rodent


Are we allowed to call people "useless rodents?" I mean I don't have a problem with it, but then again I don't have a problem with calling somebody numbnuts.



jocker12 said:


> Like a good rodent he is, you understand he swallows a lot of decay on a daily basis and his affinities for a corporation or another only show his obedience to other rodents bigger and stronger than him.


You can always tell when Jockey's panties are starting to bunch up and cut off his air supply.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Guess the ten grand you spent on the certificate from the Inspector Clouseau Sleuthing Academy was a bust after all.
> 
> You are able to tell private entities what their priorities should be, and they're able to tell you to go pound sand. Ain't freedom great!


And then I will laugh my ass off when they fail as I predicted (and cash in on the stock I shorted)

Yes sir... freedom is certainly grand!



jocker12 said:


> This is a useless rodent. Pretends to like self driving cars, the benefits of science and technology, but fails to acknowledge the reality of global warming, a scientifically proven damaging process. He implies users with different opinions than his are "hoping and praying for carnage" or are "pedophiles", or "communists", or "socialists", or "are praying for death or destruction", but the only thing that is revealed here is how unstable his mind is. Like a good rodent he is, you understand he swallows a lot of decay on a daily basis and his affinities for a corporation or another only show his obedience to other rodents bigger and stronger than him.
> 
> They wont be able to say anything, because they want you as a potential customer, and as long you have the money, they will smile and pretend you are right. Besides that, telling other people the truth about their scam it will put pressure on them to deliver. You can see that these days, when, against any logic (because they are not even close to being ready to deploy fleets in the cities) the developers are under pressure from their bosses to prove those investments are worthy, or close the shop and move on.
> 
> Nobody it will accept to pour billions into a black hole with no guarantee those money will produce something in return. But time flies, and if 10 years ago was the beginning, 7 years ago was promising, 5 years ago was already here and 3 years ago was a little too early, now the time has come, and guess what; they are still not ready.
> 
> In 3 to 5 years, all these developers and engineers will either be history or (best case scenario) working on something else for average salaries. They wanted to be rich and the reality will hit them back in their faces. Really, really hard.


Is TP a corporate brown-noser... in which case it makes sense that he says these things because he's just doing his job?

Or...

Is he just some guy who just so happens to really really love robot cars?

If it's choice B, dude... get a hobby!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> And then I will laugh my ass off when they fail as I predicted (and cash in on the stock I shorted)
> 
> Yes sir... freedom is certainly grand!
> 
> Is TP a corporate brown-noser... in which case it makes sense that he says these things because he's just doing his job?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Is he just some guy who just so happens to really really love robot cars?
> 
> If it's choice B, dude... get a hobby!


Robots are people too. They bleed just like you or I. Well, they leak hydraulic fluid, which is almost the same.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> And then I will laugh my ass off when they fail as I predicted (and cash in on the stock I shorted)


Fortunately for you you're lying. Not even the vaunted "UP community" is dumb enough to short self driving stocks.


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> And then I will laugh my ass off when they fail as I predicted (and cash in on the stock I shorted)
> 
> Yes sir... freedom is certainly grand!
> 
> Is TP a corporate brown-noser... in which case it makes sense that he says these things because he's just doing his job?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Is he just some guy who just so happens to really really love robot cars?
> 
> If it's choice B, dude... get a hobby!


Lol I said that in another thread. Greg is either the biggest loser on the planet and has nothing to do with his time or he's being paid to try to direct the narrative around here .


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> Lol I said that in another thread. Greg is either the biggest loser on the planet and has nothing to do with his time or he's being paid to try to direct the narrative around here .


Maybe I should show him how to effectively persuade people?


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> This is a useless rodent. Pretends to like self driving cars, the benefits of science and technology, but fails to acknowledge the reality of global warming, a scientifically proven damaging process. He implies users with different opinions than his are "hoping and praying for carnage" or are "pedophiles", or "communists", or "socialists", or "are praying for death or destruction", but the only thing that is revealed here is how unstable his mind is. Like a good rodent he is, you understand he swallows a lot of decay on a daily basis and his affinities for a corporation or another only show his obedience to other rodents bigger and stronger than him.
> 
> They wont be able to say anything, because they want you as a potential customer, and as long you have the money, they will smile and pretend you are right. Besides that, telling other people the truth about their scam it will put pressure on them to deliver. You can see that these days, when, against any logic (because they are not even close to being ready to deploy fleets in the cities) the developers are under pressure from their bosses to prove those investments are worthy, or close the shop and move on.
> 
> Nobody it will accept to pour billions into a black hole with no guarantee those money will produce something in return. But time flies, and if 10 years ago was the beginning, 7 years ago was promising, 5 years ago was already here and 3 years ago was a little too early, now the time has come, and guess what; they are still not ready.
> 
> In 3 to 5 years, all these developers and engineers will either be history or (best case scenario) working on something else for average salaries. They wanted to be rich and the reality will hit them back in their faces. Really, really hard.


He might be Optimus Uber playing a joke on us.


----------

