Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick added to Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum
56 replies, posted
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530470]Unfortunately for you, silent cars doesn't seem like a plausible future considering pedestrian safety. Electric cars will, by law, have to emit some kind of vroom-like sound at low speeds.[/QUOTE]
Does it have to be a vroom sound? Why can't I use a Stuka siren?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51530505]Does it have to be a vroom sound? Why can't I use a Stuka siren?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there'll be ways to change the sound file it loops. If there's one thing that I would find neat about having an electric car, it'd be messing with the sound it emits, even if you have to cheat, like removing the GTR's speed restrictor.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530514]I'm sure there'll be ways to change the sound file it loops. If there's one thing that I would find neat about having an electric car, it'd be messing with the sound it emits, even if you have to cheat, like removing the GTR's speed restrictor.[/QUOTE]
That would probably be against regulations though.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51530528]That would probably be against regulations though.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why it should be so long as you're not using something extremely annoying, or offensive. No need to be pessimistic, not everything has to default to authoritarianism... hopefully.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530541]I don't see why it should be so long as you're not using something extremely annoying, or offensive. No need to be pessimistic, not everything has to default to authoritarianism... hopefully.[/QUOTE]
I can see there being preapproved lists and nothing else because some jackass with a YouTube channel will absolutely do that
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51530505]Does it have to be a vroom sound? Why can't I use a Stuka siren?[/QUOTE]
I just want a loop of me yelling "get the fuck out of my way"
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530541]I don't see why it should be so long as you're not using something extremely annoying, or offensive.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, stuff like replacing it with birds chirps, dog barks or other things that blends in the environment or that generally don't inform pedestrians that a vehicle is inbound would basically make the sound requirement useless.
Not to mention the sounds could end up causing more of a disturbance than a standard vroom would, do you think people would be happy about cars going about the streets at nights blaring stuka siren sounds?
It's really a case by case scenario, I think constructors will get a few dozen sounds approved and using other stuff will make you liable to contraventions.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51530606]I don't know, stuff like replacing it with birds chirps, dog barks or other things that blends in the environment or that generally don't inform pedestrians that a vehicle is inbound would basically make the sound requirement useless.
Not to mention the sounds could end up causing more of a disturbance than a standard vroom would, do you think people would be happy about cars going about the streets at nights blaring stuka siren sounds?
It's really a case by case scenario, I think constructors will get a few dozen sounds approved and using other stuff will make you liable to contraventions.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we should overestimate just how many people would be obnoxious like that on purpose. You already don't see many people honking at 3 AM just to be dicks, I don't think this would be any different considering that putting a new sound in your car would be more complicated than just... honking
[QUOTE=Monkah;51530594]I just want a loop of me yelling "get the fuck out of my way"[/QUOTE]
I let Ludicris do my talking on that front.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530672]I don't think we should overestimate just how many people would be obnoxious like that on purpose. You already don't see many people honking at 3 AM just to be dicks, I don't think this would be any different considering that putting a new sound in your car would be more complicated than just... honking[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's really as much about being a dick as it is about not realizing that your specific choice of sample could cause problems.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530514]I'm sure there'll be ways to change the sound file it loops. If there's one thing that I would find neat about having an electric car, it'd be messing with the sound it emits, even if you have to cheat, like removing the GTR's speed restrictor.[/QUOTE]
replace the vroom with a loop of a man yoddeling like a vroom, piss off litterally everyone outside of bavaria.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51529538]Let's hope that he would regulate technology use in the industry. Technology should be used for common life, not to directly replace labor. That is, if he were to fulfill his promise on keeping American jobs.[/QUOTE]
"[I]But the [B]Free Market[/B]!!![/I]"
Honestly I find it strange that people seem to be a-ok with the idea of businesses doing whatever it takes to maximize profit, and then sit around and bitch because all their jobs were out-sourced/replaced by automation.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51531434]"[I]But the [B]Free Market[/B]!!![/I]"
Honestly I find it strange that people seem to be a-ok with the idea of businesses doing whatever it takes to maximize profit, and then sit around and bitch because all their jobs were out-sourced/replaced by automation.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we should totally delay technological progress and innovation just to keep our fragile markets together.
While we're at it, let's ban factories, online stores, and hell, maybe even vending machines. After all, if we ban all of those, we could have [B]so many more jobs![/B]
I don't think people should work for the sake of working. If there's a technology that can make a job easier or more efficient, it should be done. Automation is sticky because it will be the first time in human history where we won't need to work to survive. Making that transition is going to be difficult.
[QUOTE=OvB;51531563]I don't think people should work for the sake of working. If there's a technology that can make a job easier or more efficient, it should be done. Automation is sticky because it will be the first time in human history where we won't need to work to survive. Making that transition is going to be difficult.[/QUOTE]
Aye. But that transition would be made WAY easier if corporations actually paid their fucking taxes so that governments could actually afford some form of welfare that people can actually live on. Corporations need to be legitimately AFRAID to dodge taxes, like if they don't pay what they owe, they get fucking ROBBED by some Information Age Robin Hood, some sort of expert grey hat "tax collector" who never leaves a paper trail and makes sure that the big names pay what they owe, while taking a little for themselves. Something that for all intents and purposes is practically unstoppable, and can only be appeased by not incurring its wrath.
I also very much have my doubts that self-driving technology will suddenly mean that the many millions of people out who drive for a job will suddenly not have a job anymore. Self-driving may get you through the motorway and most roads, but there'll always be situations where human input is needed, for either complex manouvers, or driving in places without clear markings where human judgement is needed, or parking in a specific place, etc. In that regard, I believe it'll be like aviation is now. Autopilot in planes does not account for 100% of the flight, pilots and co-pilots are still critical and it's generally a less complex environment compared to the ground, for a computer at least.
It might make the jobs of truckers more bearable, they don't have to sit there for 10 hours straight just driving on a monotonous motorway.
I think it depends on the task. Taxis and simple deliveries will be ready for mass automation in probably 5 years for those that can afford it. The technology is already here.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
I think Ships will be the last transport industry to go automatic simply because the size of the ships and navigating harbors.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51531697]It might make the jobs of truckers more bearable, they don't have to sit there for 10 hours straight just driving on a monotonous motorway.[/QUOTE]
Aye, it'd mean they'd be able to move around a bit (within reason), maybe actually DO something on their journey beyond just looking around at the horizon. Hell, if the "autodriver" is competent enough, the trucker could watch a bloody in-drive movie or play slots on their tablet.
Just imagine that, a traditional trucker behind the wheel, typing out his memoirs on a laptop while the autodriver does the wheelwork. It'd be like "Maximum Homerdrive", in a way. ...yet another thing that the Simpsons did, and is drawing closer towards reality. While I generally prefer Star Trek being future-predictive over The Simpsons, I don't think Star Trek ever predicted self-driving trucks. You never really saw Riker reading a romance novel behind the controls of a ten-wheeler set on autodriver, rolling across the planes of some alien desert.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530418]I absolutely don't agree with bullying people in cities into getting an electric car instead of their diesel or whatever, like some people on here disgustingly seem to support.[/QUOTE]
I gotta wonder how not wanting cities choked in smog with puffs of exhaust in your face is the "disgusting" viewpoint here.
Electric car sounds can be directional rather than it being a massive speaker that just makes a ton of noise. I also agree with diesel cars being banned from cities since the emissions put other peoples lives at risk. Just like how I agree with a smoking ban in public places. You can use regular gasoline if you really want to.
[QUOTE=ironman17;51531749]Aye, it'd mean they'd be able to move around a bit (within reason), maybe actually DO something on their journey beyond just looking around at the horizon. Hell, if the "autodriver" is competent enough, the trucker could watch a bloody in-drive movie or play slots on their tablet.
Just imagine that, a traditional trucker behind the wheel, typing out his memoirs on a laptop while the autodriver does the wheelwork. It'd be like "Maximum Homerdrive", in a way. ...yet another thing that the Simpsons did, and is drawing closer towards reality. While I generally prefer Star Trek being future-predictive over The Simpsons, I don't think Star Trek ever predicted self-driving trucks. You never really saw Riker reading a romance novel behind the controls of a ten-wheeler set on autodriver, rolling across the planes of some alien desert.[/QUOTE]
Already have it
[Media]https://youtu.be/Qb0Kzb3haK8[/media]
Well there you go then. Though I was talking more of the tech becoming more widespread and commonplace, not just the original pioneers in these current early days where it hasn't exploded yet.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51531763]I gotta wonder how not wanting cities choked in smog with puffs of exhaust in your face is the "disgusting" viewpoint here.[/QUOTE]
I'll always defend making an affordable (~12k) electric car, advertising it a ton and watch as it starts dominating the city market.
I will never defend ban mentality; forbidding someone from travelling to a major city because "sorry, you drive the wrong kind of car :^)" I already don't support the rule here in Lisbon that states you can't travel to a bunch of parts downtown with a pre-1991 car unless it's registered as a Classic (to be fair it's pretty easy to register your car as a classic, but still, it's a dumb scapegoat.)
If you want clean cities, then what you should be doing is improving public transport, learn through Tokyo. And make desireable, cheap electric cars that people will buy because they want that car for its city-driving merits.
I will always firmly disagree against ban mentality since it always sets bad precedents. People shouldn't be buying new cars, which are always expensive because it's a damn car, simply because the city bullied them out of being able to drive their current car. And if there was a place that for some reason banned electric cars but not diesels, I'd say the exact same thing.
[QUOTE=Monkah;51531558]Yes, we should totally delay technological progress and innovation just to keep our fragile markets together.
While we're at it, let's ban factories, online stores, and hell, maybe even vending machines. After all, if we ban all of those, we could have [B]so many more jobs![/B][/QUOTE]
I'm all for technological progress, I just don't understand how people support it and then bitch about lack of jobs. It's the natural progression of things.
If I can get my future electronic car to have Gilbert Gottfried making vroom noises then this is the bold new future I am ready for.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51531859]I'll always defend making an affordable (~12k) electric car, advertising it a ton and watch as it starts dominating the city market.
I will never defend ban mentality; forbidding someone from travelling to a major city because "sorry, you drive the wrong kind of car :^)" I already don't support the rule here in Lisbon that states you can't travel to a bunch of parts downtown with a pre-1991 car unless it's registered as a Classic (to be fair it's pretty easy to register your car as a classic, but still, it's a dumb scapegoat.)
If you want clean cities, then what you should be doing is improving public transport, learn through Tokyo. And make desireable, cheap electric cars that people will buy because they want that car for its city-driving merits.
I will always firmly disagree against ban mentality since it always sets bad precedents. People shouldn't be buying new cars, which are always expensive because it's a damn car, simply because the city bullied them out of being able to drive their current car. And if there was a place that for some reason banned electric cars but not diesels, I'd say the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]
Right now, here in reality we have a situation where people driving fossil fuel cars are causing damage to the environment and therefore other people without paying for it. You're suggesting we ignore this factor and simply make people switch by their own accord, owing to a *hope* (though a likely hope at least for EVs) that public transport and EVs far undercut fossil fuel car costs without outside intervention, naturally and slowly pushing people off them. I take issue with your idea that it's the "city" bullying people out of their current car, rather than a global crisis forcing severe action. As if a parent is bullying you by giving you a painfull vaccine to save you potential crisis later.
I don't see an absolute ban as the only way, but taking what i just said into account would you accept a severe carbon tax that forces fossil fuel cars to "pay" for the damage they do and people they kill?
All that said car pollution is the lesser portion of what causes pollution and smog in cities, it's mostly industry and power generation that's responsible. Cars are just one piece of the puzzle.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51532199]Right now, here in reality we have a situation where people driving fossil fuel cars are causing damage to the environment and therefore other people without paying for it. You're suggesting we ignore this factor and simply make people switch by their own accord, owing to a *hope* (though a likely hope at least for EVs) that public transport and EVs far undercut fossil fuel car costs without outside intervention, naturally and slowly pushing people off them. I take issue with your idea that it's the "city" bullying people out of their current car, rather than a global crisis forcing severe action. As if a parent is bullying you by giving you a painfull vaccine to save you potential crisis later.
I don't see an absolute ban as the only way, but taking what i just said into account would you accept a severe carbon tax that forces fossil fuel cars to "pay" for the damage they do and people they kill?
All that said car pollution is the lesser portion of what causes pollution and smog in cities, it's mostly industry and power generation that's responsible. Cars are just one piece of the puzzle.[/QUOTE]
Here in "reality" we have a situation where the crushing majority of people drive a fossil fuel car because it's the only choice given to them since the good electric cars are still unaffordable. And therein lies the problem.
You are absolutely right when you say that cars are the lesser portion of what causes smog in cities, and that's all the more reason as to why I believe what I do, and I don't believe in punishing people for their choice of car, like they're the ones personally responsible for plopping a diesel engine in the front of their cars. If you wanna apply a carbon tax, take that out of the pockets of the automakers, not the person who simply chose the car that they thought better suited their needs and/or their pocket.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.