3 ms·

I've got a better idea: ban connected vehicles, completely. All it has to do is move you from a -> b. Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection? It's a threa

I've got a better idea: ban connected vehicles, completely. All it has to do is move you from a -> b. Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection? It's a threat to our economy, security, and continuity of business in the unlikely but unfortunate event of a kinetic attack on the US mainland or one of it's territories.

riggsdk 2y ago
Aside from tonnes of possible security vulnerabilities, I do see some upsides: The interconnceted-ness could make perfect sense when it comes to collision prevention. If there is a collision up further ahead, this information can be quickly propagated between nearby cars to warn and/or automatically slow down. I do not know if this is already in use or if it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G. Would also make sense if ambulances could make their presence known to drivers much earlier so they can get out of the way.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G The problem is that "increased speed" was also "one of those possible future scenarios with 5G". (And with 4G FWIW)
  - az09mugen 2y ago
    I know it's not your point, but interconnected vehicles with ad-hoc wifi connection would be even more efficient and sufficient. No need for 5G.
- LightHugger 2y ago
  This sounds like more of a use case for short range communications, not so much internet connectivity. Tying this tech to the internet makes it less effective as it stops working when you go out of range. And a car's stopping distance is far outranged by what short range comms is capable of.
- exabrial 2y ago
  That's on me for setting the ball too low. Why do you need a cloud connection for two vehicles 10ft feet apart to exchange data?
hulitu 2y ago
> Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection? So we can show you ads, depending on your car position. /s Also it is much easier for law enforcement to locate you.
decafninja 2y ago
Because people want features. Semi-playing devil's advocate since my ideal car is a very simple one. But I can see why the majority of people want various gizmos and doodads in their cars, whether it be a Spotify app or FSD.

riggsdk 2y ago

Aside from tonnes of possible security vulnerabilities, I do see some upsides: The interconnceted-ness could make perfect sense when it comes to collision prevention. If there is a collision up further ahead, this information can be quickly propagated between nearby cars to warn and/or automatically slow down. I do not know if this is already in use or if it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G. Would also make sense if ambulances could make their presence known to drivers much earlier so they can get out of the way.

hulitu 2y ago
> it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G The problem is that "increased speed" was also "one of those possible future scenarios with 5G". (And with 4G FWIW)
- az09mugen 2y ago
  I know it's not your point, but interconnected vehicles with ad-hoc wifi connection would be even more efficient and sufficient. No need for 5G.
LightHugger 2y ago
This sounds like more of a use case for short range communications, not so much internet connectivity. Tying this tech to the internet makes it less effective as it stops working when you go out of range. And a car's stopping distance is far outranged by what short range comms is capable of.
exabrial 2y ago
That's on me for setting the ball too low. Why do you need a cloud connection for two vehicles 10ft feet apart to exchange data?

hulitu 2y ago

> Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection? So we can show you ads, depending on your car position. /s Also it is much easier for law enforcement to locate you.

decafninja 2y ago

Because people want features. Semi-playing devil's advocate since my ideal car is a very simple one. But I can see why the majority of people want various gizmos and doodads in their cars, whether it be a Spotify app or FSD.