6 ms·

After working in the industry, I can safely say self-driving is a massively profitable lie. It can work in limited instances, but I don't think we'll have full

After working in the industry, I can safely say self-driving is a massively profitable lie. It can work in limited instances, but I don't think we'll have full self driving aka level 5 in urban environments until infrastructure changes. You simply need 5G/V2X for that. Just relying on cameras will not work. On that page, I have my concerns about EVs in general, who knows what the long-term health effects are for sitting on top of a HV battery and being surrounded by that electro-smog.

gspr 5y ago
> On that page, I have my concerns about EVs in general, who knows what the long-term health effects are for sitting on top of a HV battery and being surrounded by that electro-smog. Say what? Is this some kind of industry joke that I'm not getting?
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  All I'm saying is there's a possibility of discovering the power electronics affecting us in an adverse way. Similarly how we thought lead, asbesthos, radium were harmless at first.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Lead is a bad example, unless you mean long forgotten times. Even Romans knew: > The Romans were aware that lead could cause serious health problems https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic... Asbestos, likewise, was being used 80 years after the discovery of ill effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asbestos_disease_medical_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asbestos_disease_medic... Radium's danger was known 2 years after its discovery according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium#Hazards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium#Hazards I think your examples support the thesis that we're actually decent at discovering harmful effects, but we don't mind them. But they don't support the thesis that we might find something unpleasant about power electronics that we don't yet know about.
    - corin_ 5y ago
      > I think your examples support the thesis that we're actually decent at discovering harmful effects, but we don't mind them. I think it's less that we don't mind them, and more that it unfortunately is a slow process to go from first research realising there's a problem to general scientific consensus to then one or both of public awareness becoming big enough that companies have to respond and stop choosing profit over safety, or government concern needs to become great enough to enforce it through regulation. I think we're seeing it with plastics at the moment, it seems very likely that in 50 years we'll a) know much more about the harm micro-plastics do and b) look back at now and think "there was enough evidence, why didn't they ban it immediately?" Well, because it's really convenient and cheap, companies don't want to give up profits, people like me don't want to give up convenient packaging etc, and governments don't want to piss off consumers and businesses at the same time by banning it too fast. Similar story for the climate crisis.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        We already know that microplastics are dangerous (BPA, leeching of random compounds, plankton overpopulation, animals with stuffed stomachs), there's no need to wait 50 years more. Otherwise I agree with what you say, and I'd say it agrees with what I said: we're pretty good at detecting harmful effects, and good at not taking them into account. But that's not what the parent implied.
        vianneychevalie 5y ago
        I don’t think you’ve followed completely the phases that need to be gone through: the fact that microplastics are still being produced is the most straightforward demonstration that can be had on the fact that companies are still to be forced by the general public to stop producing them
    - ricardobayes 5y ago
      Yeah but we happily painted our walls with it even just 20 years ago.
  - dd36 5y ago
    Worse than inhaled gasoline and diesel exhaust? Doubtful em radiation is worse than particulate matter.
  - quartesixte 5y ago
    I’d be less worried about long term effects and more worried about the fact that lithium-ion is very flammable. It’s bad enough that airlines ban lithium of quantities no more than a single smartphone from entering the cargo bay of a passenger airliner. And then you have an entire car’s worth just strapped to the bottom of your chassis.
    - eatbitseveryday 5y ago
      > more worried about the fact that lithium-ion is very flammable As is standard fuel used in combustion engines (which you know) so how does the argument of flammability hold stronger here? Ford Pinto blew up due to tank puncture during an accident.
      - kortex 5y ago
        Metal fires (class D) are much harder to fight than petroleum fires (class B). They can burn way hotter, reignite after seemingly going out, and of course react to water to produce hydrogen. Current fire fighter directives for putting out BEVs is either dump a loader bucket of sand on it (which most don't have yet), or drag it some place safe and let it burn out. Also gasoline just sits there until ignited. Lithium battery packs can have various failure modes which send them into thermal runaway. Chevy Bolt EVs are being recalled en masse and owners told not to charge overnight or in a garage, least it go off unattended. I'm very pro EV but lithium is spicy.
        ricardobayes 5y ago
        I'm also very pro EV. Working in self-driving and hybrids/EVs driving around in prototype vehicles I often found the on-board GPS jammed. I just found it unnerving to drive around in a vehicle emitting such strong EMF even on-board devices go haywire. That made me think.
      - ricardobayes 5y ago
        I'd argue those issues are very well researched and material science fixed these.
  - gspr 5y ago
    This line of reasoning makes littke sense. The fact that certain things were incorrectly labeled as harmless should definitely inform how we go about determining id something is harmful. But the leap that we should expect harmless-seeming things to be harmful is unhelpful. It's not far removed from flatearthers/qanon/911-truthers/moonhoax people defending theie stance by naming conspiracies thought false at the time but later revealed as true. Such events, and your speculations, are merely examples of the fact that we're sometimes wrong. Not that we should live our lives expecting that every accepted fact is wrong.
bradleyjg 5y ago
> Just relying on cameras will not work. If it’s good enough for us (two small cameras and two microphones all mounted right next to each other) why is it inherently infeasible for a computer?
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  Those cameras are backed by processing that's so far ahead of anything silicon can do it's not even funny. It's not inherently infeasible, but it seems computers will need a huge leap in certain capabilities before they will be able to act as a drop-in replacement for human drivers.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  I find that argument being thrown around once in a while, but let me ask you this. Why are we spending billions of dollars in research that we can vaguely hope to reach human perception levels in one distant day. This whole thing is just not worth it. That's why I said especially for dense urban traffic driving, we need extra sensing, and need from the environment so it can help the car. Imagine if the car knew there is nothing coming from a junction we don't need to stop all the way etc.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    I don’t object to providing extra data to self driving cars, I’m just a teeny bit confused (as I think many people outside of ML are) about why certain problems are much harder than others for AI.
- kxrm 5y ago
  I think there is more senses being used in driving then just eyes and ears. I am not the best driver in the world, but I use a lot of senses while driving, abnormal vibrations that are felt cause me to be more alert. Constant awareness of hills and road conditions are felt. Saying it's just cameras and microphones vastly over simplifies what driving involves for a human.
  - 5y ago
CamperBob2 5y ago
who knows what the long-term health effects are for sitting on top of a HV battery and being surrounded by that electro-smog. A fellow named Planck knew, when he used the expression E=hv to describe the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. You just missed class that day, I imagine. Fortunately it's never too late to learn.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23337237/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23337237/ I will accept an apology.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Ah, the ubiquitous rebuttal, "Here's a link to an unreproducible result with pubmed in the URL. You lose, sir." I know when I'm beat!
    - ricardobayes 5y ago
      You are right, the study is inconclusive.

gspr 5y ago

> On that page, I have my concerns about EVs in general, who knows what the long-term health effects are for sitting on top of a HV battery and being surrounded by that electro-smog. Say what? Is this some kind of industry joke that I'm not getting?

ricardobayes 5y ago
All I'm saying is there's a possibility of discovering the power electronics affecting us in an adverse way. Similarly how we thought lead, asbesthos, radium were harmless at first.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  Lead is a bad example, unless you mean long forgotten times. Even Romans knew: > The Romans were aware that lead could cause serious health problems https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic... Asbestos, likewise, was being used 80 years after the discovery of ill effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asbestos_disease_medical_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asbestos_disease_medic... Radium's danger was known 2 years after its discovery according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium#Hazards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium#Hazards I think your examples support the thesis that we're actually decent at discovering harmful effects, but we don't mind them. But they don't support the thesis that we might find something unpleasant about power electronics that we don't yet know about.
  - corin_ 5y ago
    > I think your examples support the thesis that we're actually decent at discovering harmful effects, but we don't mind them. I think it's less that we don't mind them, and more that it unfortunately is a slow process to go from first research realising there's a problem to general scientific consensus to then one or both of public awareness becoming big enough that companies have to respond and stop choosing profit over safety, or government concern needs to become great enough to enforce it through regulation. I think we're seeing it with plastics at the moment, it seems very likely that in 50 years we'll a) know much more about the harm micro-plastics do and b) look back at now and think "there was enough evidence, why didn't they ban it immediately?" Well, because it's really convenient and cheap, companies don't want to give up profits, people like me don't want to give up convenient packaging etc, and governments don't want to piss off consumers and businesses at the same time by banning it too fast. Similar story for the climate crisis.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      We already know that microplastics are dangerous (BPA, leeching of random compounds, plankton overpopulation, animals with stuffed stomachs), there's no need to wait 50 years more. Otherwise I agree with what you say, and I'd say it agrees with what I said: we're pretty good at detecting harmful effects, and good at not taking them into account. But that's not what the parent implied.
      - vianneychevalie 5y ago
        I don’t think you’ve followed completely the phases that need to be gone through: the fact that microplastics are still being produced is the most straightforward demonstration that can be had on the fact that companies are still to be forced by the general public to stop producing them
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    Yeah but we happily painted our walls with it even just 20 years ago.
- dd36 5y ago
  Worse than inhaled gasoline and diesel exhaust? Doubtful em radiation is worse than particulate matter.
- quartesixte 5y ago
  I’d be less worried about long term effects and more worried about the fact that lithium-ion is very flammable. It’s bad enough that airlines ban lithium of quantities no more than a single smartphone from entering the cargo bay of a passenger airliner. And then you have an entire car’s worth just strapped to the bottom of your chassis.
  - eatbitseveryday 5y ago
    > more worried about the fact that lithium-ion is very flammable As is standard fuel used in combustion engines (which you know) so how does the argument of flammability hold stronger here? Ford Pinto blew up due to tank puncture during an accident.
    - kortex 5y ago
      Metal fires (class D) are much harder to fight than petroleum fires (class B). They can burn way hotter, reignite after seemingly going out, and of course react to water to produce hydrogen. Current fire fighter directives for putting out BEVs is either dump a loader bucket of sand on it (which most don't have yet), or drag it some place safe and let it burn out. Also gasoline just sits there until ignited. Lithium battery packs can have various failure modes which send them into thermal runaway. Chevy Bolt EVs are being recalled en masse and owners told not to charge overnight or in a garage, least it go off unattended. I'm very pro EV but lithium is spicy.
      - ricardobayes 5y ago
        I'm also very pro EV. Working in self-driving and hybrids/EVs driving around in prototype vehicles I often found the on-board GPS jammed. I just found it unnerving to drive around in a vehicle emitting such strong EMF even on-board devices go haywire. That made me think.
    - ricardobayes 5y ago
      I'd argue those issues are very well researched and material science fixed these.
- gspr 5y ago
  This line of reasoning makes littke sense. The fact that certain things were incorrectly labeled as harmless should definitely inform how we go about determining id something is harmful. But the leap that we should expect harmless-seeming things to be harmful is unhelpful. It's not far removed from flatearthers/qanon/911-truthers/moonhoax people defending theie stance by naming conspiracies thought false at the time but later revealed as true. Such events, and your speculations, are merely examples of the fact that we're sometimes wrong. Not that we should live our lives expecting that every accepted fact is wrong.

bradleyjg 5y ago

> Just relying on cameras will not work. If it’s good enough for us (two small cameras and two microphones all mounted right next to each other) why is it inherently infeasible for a computer?

dividedbyzero 5y ago
Those cameras are backed by processing that's so far ahead of anything silicon can do it's not even funny. It's not inherently infeasible, but it seems computers will need a huge leap in certain capabilities before they will be able to act as a drop-in replacement for human drivers.
ricardobayes 5y ago
I find that argument being thrown around once in a while, but let me ask you this. Why are we spending billions of dollars in research that we can vaguely hope to reach human perception levels in one distant day. This whole thing is just not worth it. That's why I said especially for dense urban traffic driving, we need extra sensing, and need from the environment so it can help the car. Imagine if the car knew there is nothing coming from a junction we don't need to stop all the way etc.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  I don’t object to providing extra data to self driving cars, I’m just a teeny bit confused (as I think many people outside of ML are) about why certain problems are much harder than others for AI.
kxrm 5y ago
I think there is more senses being used in driving then just eyes and ears. I am not the best driver in the world, but I use a lot of senses while driving, abnormal vibrations that are felt cause me to be more alert. Constant awareness of hills and road conditions are felt. Saying it's just cameras and microphones vastly over simplifies what driving involves for a human.
- 5y ago

CamperBob2 5y ago

who knows what the long-term health effects are for sitting on top of a HV battery and being surrounded by that electro-smog. A fellow named Planck knew, when he used the expression E=hv to describe the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. You just missed class that day, I imagine. Fortunately it's never too late to learn.

ricardobayes 5y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23337237/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23337237/ I will accept an apology.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Ah, the ubiquitous rebuttal, "Here's a link to an unreproducible result with pubmed in the URL. You lose, sir." I know when I'm beat!
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    You are right, the study is inconclusive.