3 ms·

True, but cars can already navigate traffic autonomously. And there is much more to landing men on the moon than physics. Check out Tesla's live shipping code:

True, but cars can already navigate traffic autonomously. And there is much more to landing men on the moon than physics. Check out Tesla's live shipping code: http://jalopnik.com/teslas-autopilot-system-is-awesome-and-creepy-and-a-sig-1736573089 http://jalopnik.com/teslas-autopilot-system-is-awesome-and-c... Are you predicting that cars will never be fully autonomous?

agumonkey 11y ago
As a website commenter I'm not sure I should predict anything. To explain a bit more my previous message, as complex as going to the moon was, it seems a problem scientists knew how to define. One vehicle, 2 planets, the system is describable. Traffic with lots of agents potentially interacting with every other agent, hence my chaos analogy, lots and lots of variable, ... is blurry. There's successful research to describe multi agents collision avoidance but I've never seen it used on the field yet. ps: reminds me airplanes vs car accident rates. Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Nobody would crash a car alone in the desert.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Good point on air vs car accident rates. By the way, I find that making a prediction causes me to net out the different aspects of an issue quickly, and snaps me out of the mode of enumerating pros and cons. That's why I asked.
- kqr 11y ago
  > Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Different aircraft are by and large keeping to the same standard routes, altitudes and holding patterns, which is why mid-air collisions are a thing. (The reason they keep to standards is to make air traffic control easier.)
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Aight, I pushed it, but how is air density ? and direction, I'm sure routes are designed to avoid blending traffics (incoming) as much as possible.

agumonkey 11y ago

As a website commenter I'm not sure I should predict anything. To explain a bit more my previous message, as complex as going to the moon was, it seems a problem scientists knew how to define. One vehicle, 2 planets, the system is describable. Traffic with lots of agents potentially interacting with every other agent, hence my chaos analogy, lots and lots of variable, ... is blurry. There's successful research to describe multi agents collision avoidance but I've never seen it used on the field yet. ps: reminds me airplanes vs car accident rates. Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Nobody would crash a car alone in the desert.

paulsutter 11y ago
Good point on air vs car accident rates. By the way, I find that making a prediction causes me to net out the different aspects of an issue quickly, and snaps me out of the mode of enumerating pros and cons. That's why I asked.
kqr 11y ago
> Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Different aircraft are by and large keeping to the same standard routes, altitudes and holding patterns, which is why mid-air collisions are a thing. (The reason they keep to standards is to make air traffic control easier.)
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Aight, I pushed it, but how is air density ? and direction, I'm sure routes are designed to avoid blending traffics (incoming) as much as possible.