4 ms·

>No they are not for various, obvious technical reasons that should be apparent to anybody who both understands technology and the real world of driving. Wanna

>No they are not for various, obvious technical reasons that should be apparent to anybody who both understands technology and the real world of driving. Wanna explain to me why? From what I've seen, a driverless cars within the next 10 years is feasible, and a driverless car within the next 20 years seems likely.

yumraj 5y ago
> Wanna explain to me why? From what I've seen, a driverless cars within the next 10 years is feasible, and a driverless car within the next 20 years seems likely. Weren’t they saying the same thing 10 years ago. As an example this Google video is just a little over 10 year old: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04 Driverless cars are a classic example of last 10% taking 90% of the time.
- avmich 5y ago
  > Weren’t they saying the same thing 10 years ago. Doesn't matter. Physicists are often accused that "thermonuclear energy plants are promised soon since 50 years ago". Yet there is steady measurable progress by Lawson criterion, and ITER is being assembled as we speak. Estimations can be wrong, but that doesn't mean progress is impossible.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    >Estimations can be wrong, but that doesn't mean progress is impossible. No but it does mean, when estimations or estimators are consistently wrong, that they should lose credibility. If estimates are wildly wrong what good are they besides gas-lighting malinvestment? Theranos estimated that it could do blood tests on a very small sample. Juicero estimated that it could sell a several thousand dollar juicer... Biggest media farce I forgot: where the heck are Amazon's flying delivery drones? See the fallacy "false dilemma." Estimations can be wrong and progress can be possible. Both can be true.
    - avmich 5y ago
      > No but it does mean, when estimations or estimators are consistently wrong, that they should lose credibility. There could be different points of view regarding Mars expeditions - as well as self-driving cars - and while some groups announce 10 years achievements, others could be more cautious. I remember how just some 15 years ago groups interested in Mars were collecting criteria for what would constitute readiness to fly to Mars - not when we'll fly, but what we'll need to know to estimate when we'll fly. List of items wasn't short. Given that SpaceX was in its infancy, no tools of Starship caliber were given much weight. Now we're in seriously different situation - and that's regarding self-driving cars too, we came a long way from 2005 DARPA challenge. We can estimate better - both Mars advancements and cars autonomy perspectives.

yumraj 5y ago

> Wanna explain to me why? From what I've seen, a driverless cars within the next 10 years is feasible, and a driverless car within the next 20 years seems likely. Weren’t they saying the same thing 10 years ago. As an example this Google video is just a little over 10 year old: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04 Driverless cars are a classic example of last 10% taking 90% of the time.

avmich 5y ago
> Weren’t they saying the same thing 10 years ago. Doesn't matter. Physicists are often accused that "thermonuclear energy plants are promised soon since 50 years ago". Yet there is steady measurable progress by Lawson criterion, and ITER is being assembled as we speak. Estimations can be wrong, but that doesn't mean progress is impossible.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  >Estimations can be wrong, but that doesn't mean progress is impossible. No but it does mean, when estimations or estimators are consistently wrong, that they should lose credibility. If estimates are wildly wrong what good are they besides gas-lighting malinvestment? Theranos estimated that it could do blood tests on a very small sample. Juicero estimated that it could sell a several thousand dollar juicer... Biggest media farce I forgot: where the heck are Amazon's flying delivery drones? See the fallacy "false dilemma." Estimations can be wrong and progress can be possible. Both can be true.
  - avmich 5y ago
    > No but it does mean, when estimations or estimators are consistently wrong, that they should lose credibility. There could be different points of view regarding Mars expeditions - as well as self-driving cars - and while some groups announce 10 years achievements, others could be more cautious. I remember how just some 15 years ago groups interested in Mars were collecting criteria for what would constitute readiness to fly to Mars - not when we'll fly, but what we'll need to know to estimate when we'll fly. List of items wasn't short. Given that SpaceX was in its infancy, no tools of Starship caliber were given much weight. Now we're in seriously different situation - and that's regarding self-driving cars too, we came a long way from 2005 DARPA challenge. We can estimate better - both Mars advancements and cars autonomy perspectives.