3 ms·

> There is no technical (nor practical) reason you couldn't turn over the whole thing to properly engineered centralized computer control. This is an extraordi

> There is no technical (nor practical) reason you couldn't turn over the whole thing to properly engineered centralized computer control. This is an extraordinary claim for which IMO you must provide extraordinary proof. I see zero evidence that this is technically possible today, regardless of expense or politics. It would be at-minimum a decades-long effort to computerize every car and develop central control for them. Putting aside the tech, we’re talking about a world where many people refuse to get vaccinated due to mistrust of government. How on earth will you talk these people into government-controlled vehicles? From my POV, the answer to “why” is not a mystery: (a) it’s literally not possible, (b) most people would be vehemently against it.

intrepidhero 4y ago
Mythbusters set up radio control for cars all the time. There's a GPS, compass, and accelerometer in your pocket. The FAA seems to be pretty good at directing airplanes through airports. USAF has pilots operating drones on the other side of the world. It seems like all the tech is extant. It'd be hugely expensive like I said.... But that claim wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Pick some other more plausible (but still radical) safety measure we could take with cars. Way more stringent licensing, speed limiters, self-driving, or massive increases in public transport. > (b) most people would be vehemently against it. Why is that? 40,000 people die in the US every year. Why don't we allocate more resources to solving that? That's the question I think is interesting.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  FAA still relies on humans, particularly for super manual areas like takeoff and landing. And ATC is notoriously stressful, overworked and understaffed. We’d need a lot more bodies to manage all road traffic. There is a world of difference between the reliability you need for a one off experiment, and the reliability you need for something expected to operate 24/7/365, in all weather from -40C to 40C, in a complex real world environment, and where legal liability gets involved in the case of an incident.

intrepidhero 4y ago

Mythbusters set up radio control for cars all the time. There's a GPS, compass, and accelerometer in your pocket. The FAA seems to be pretty good at directing airplanes through airports. USAF has pilots operating drones on the other side of the world. It seems like all the tech is extant. It'd be hugely expensive like I said.... But that claim wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Pick some other more plausible (but still radical) safety measure we could take with cars. Way more stringent licensing, speed limiters, self-driving, or massive increases in public transport. > (b) most people would be vehemently against it. Why is that? 40,000 people die in the US every year. Why don't we allocate more resources to solving that? That's the question I think is interesting.

bobthepanda 4y ago
FAA still relies on humans, particularly for super manual areas like takeoff and landing. And ATC is notoriously stressful, overworked and understaffed. We’d need a lot more bodies to manage all road traffic. There is a world of difference between the reliability you need for a one off experiment, and the reliability you need for something expected to operate 24/7/365, in all weather from -40C to 40C, in a complex real world environment, and where legal liability gets involved in the case of an incident.