3 ms·

Over the last five years prominent self-driving companies have consistently over promised and under-delivered. I was quite optimistic for the approach that Star

by m3at 6y ago

Over the last five years prominent self-driving companies have consistently over promised and under-delivered. I was quite optimistic for the approach that Starsky chose (but unfortunately couldn't bring to market [1]) with autonomous segments combined with occasional remote assistance. It might not be as sexy as FSD but that's tech we can use now. That said, if this team can make it work, power to them! Edit: I realize this might sound dismissive. I worked on perception tasks for autonomous driving, and believe FSD can be done. I just don't feel that it's a year away, but I'd love to be wrong! [1] https://www.therobotreport.com/starsky-robotics-co-founder-on-self-driving-truck-shutdown/ https://www.therobotreport.com/starsky-robotics-co-founder-o...

ljlolel 6y ago
if any of them actually get on the road, then they would be endangering lives https://jperla.medium.com/tesla-saves-lives-waymo-gambles-passenger-lives-3ee2d0e55f5f https://jperla.medium.com/tesla-saves-lives-waymo-gambles-pa...
- njarboe 6y ago
  Yes. Nothing new can ever be produced that can endanger lives. And people wonder why living standards have not gone up since this idea grabbed a hold in society in the 1970's
  - xnyan 6y ago
    What are some examples of risk not taken that have lead to falling living standards? My understanding of the data is that living standards have fallen because wages for most workers have been fairly stagnate since the 70s while the price things like housing and healthcare has skyrocketed.
    - njarboe 6y ago
      Nuclear power was set to decrease the cost of power by an order of magnitude. It was stopped due to perceived risks while coal was allowed to continue to be used at known high death toll of millions of people per year. You cannot legally build a nuclear reactor in a normal way. You have to design it completely and then get it approved before you build it. This costs around $500 million dollars, as NuPower has shown. If you change the design much at all you have to get it approved all over again. Thus only one new reactor design in the US has been approved for 50 years and it still has not been built yet.

by m3at 6y ago

ljlolel 6y ago

if any of them actually get on the road, then they would be endangering lives https://jperla.medium.com/tesla-saves-lives-waymo-gambles-passenger-lives-3ee2d0e55f5f https://jperla.medium.com/tesla-saves-lives-waymo-gambles-pa...

njarboe 6y ago
Yes. Nothing new can ever be produced that can endanger lives. And people wonder why living standards have not gone up since this idea grabbed a hold in society in the 1970's
- xnyan 6y ago
  What are some examples of risk not taken that have lead to falling living standards? My understanding of the data is that living standards have fallen because wages for most workers have been fairly stagnate since the 70s while the price things like housing and healthcare has skyrocketed.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    Nuclear power was set to decrease the cost of power by an order of magnitude. It was stopped due to perceived risks while coal was allowed to continue to be used at known high death toll of millions of people per year. You cannot legally build a nuclear reactor in a normal way. You have to design it completely and then get it approved before you build it. This costs around $500 million dollars, as NuPower has shown. If you change the design much at all you have to get it approved all over again. Thus only one new reactor design in the US has been approved for 50 years and it still has not been built yet.