3 ms·

I have completely the opposite view. To me, all the "engagement" type arguments just feel like someone telling me that they still insist on using only rotary te

I have completely the opposite view. To me, all the "engagement" type arguments just feel like someone telling me that they still insist on using only rotary telephones, because it makes them feel more "engaged" with the telephone, "closer to the machine", etc. So I don't find anything magical or special about having to manually manage the gears when a computer could do it more efficiently and relieve me of the need to worry about it. When I'm driving I want to be focused on the road and traffic around me, not micromanaging the way the engine is transmitting power. Or maybe to go with a car analogy: what if we took away your accelerator pedal and replaced it with a crank attached to a fuel pump, so you had to constantly turn the crank to get fuel, and turn it faster or slower to manage the throttle and the amount of fuel going to the engine? You'd be much more deeply "connected" to your car that way, but would you rhapsodize about what a wonderful experience it was? Or would you see it for what it is: a task that can be done with more efficiency and less distraction by a different approach?

acuozzo 8y ago
> To me, all the "engagement" type arguments just feel like someone telling me I don't drive stick, but I think it would help me considerably. Even with 8+ hours of sleep, 3 cups of coffee, music blasting in my ears, and the windows open I often find that driving for longer than 30 minutes on the open road (i.e. no traffic) starts to put me to sleep.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
There's nothing magical about it... With a manual, there are two free parameters: Engine speed and its coupling to the wheels. With an automatic transmission, only the engine speed can be controlled by the driver. Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions. This argument basically says that if the computer only does it better in 99.99999999999999999% of cases, the correct solution is to have the computer handle 0% of cases. Which makes no sense. (also, almost all "automatics are terrible at anticipating what needs to happen" arguments are based on decades-old experiences, as if automatic transmissions are fixed in time and incapable of improving)

acuozzo 8y ago

> To me, all the "engagement" type arguments just feel like someone telling me I don't drive stick, but I think it would help me considerably. Even with 8+ hours of sleep, 3 cups of coffee, music blasting in my ears, and the windows open I often find that driving for longer than 30 minutes on the open road (i.e. no traffic) starts to put me to sleep.

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

There's nothing magical about it... With a manual, there are two free parameters: Engine speed and its coupling to the wheels. With an automatic transmission, only the engine speed can be controlled by the driver. Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions.

ubernostrum 8y ago
Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions. This argument basically says that if the computer only does it better in 99.99999999999999999% of cases, the correct solution is to have the computer handle 0% of cases. Which makes no sense. (also, almost all "automatics are terrible at anticipating what needs to happen" arguments are based on decades-old experiences, as if automatic transmissions are fixed in time and incapable of improving)