Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Have you never seen the traffic jams caused by these things getting confused and not being able to figure a way out?.... the drivers there so people don't get stuck behind them for an hour while someone from fuckyoutech comes out to fix it.
No, but I have sat in a traffic jam caused by a human driver who caused a multiple car pile up because they wanted to be slightly ahead.
It's almost like more than one thing can be bad. Autonomous cars are just a shitty bandaid solution that doesn't fix the problem.
Exactly. We should instead get autonomous trains, and fix our cities to be train friendly.
Ban all cars. bus, tram and trains need to be so great that you can actually stand driving in them. But they’re only important for winter or when it rains mostly anyway. Otherwise you take the bike, ebike or scooter. We would need to find a solution for carrying lots of groceries obviously. Remember when people hat little trollies behind them when grocery shopping?
(Obviously in summer a disabled person would still ride them. Not trying to be ableist here)
Hard disagree here. Mass transit should win because it's more convenient, not because it's the only option.
I'm in favor of car-free zones, rerouting cars around city centers, tolls in busy areas, and in general making car transit less convenient, but it should still be feasible to get where you're going in a car. The problem is that we've made our cities car-centric so mass transit is forced to be inconvenient, and that should be reversed.
But I will never accept banning cars, because that's how you get the worst of both worlds.
Okay. I agree that i was a bit far with my phrasing. I should have said „in city centers“. I live in a city and I don’t see a reason to use or even own a car 9/10 times (if the transit is good, which it isnt in my city).
But I‘d like to address something else here. If we had no cars, we would take a lot longer to do things and become much less productive and less stressed, which is becoming a big problem rn.
So, maybe a conpromise between both our ideas would be good. I‘d like to achive throwing a wrench in our capitalist steam machine turning our planet to a pile of shit.
I like how Amsterdam does it, check out this video (whole video and channel are worth watching) that discusses how they force cars to go around the city center instead of through it to avoid a lot of conflict with pedestrians.
However, that kind of thinking shouldn't be exclusive to "city centers," it should be the default way we plan cities. Make mass transit super effective in the core of the city or town, connect everyone to those hubs, and provide a way to get around and into (but not through) city and town centers via cars so people are encouraged (but not forced) to use mass transit.
Ideally, anyone living in a reasonably densely populated area should be able to get everything they need w/o a car. That should be the goal, and a lot of the solution is to use mixed zoning around transit hubs (i.e. businesses on the ground level, apartments above) and feed into that with roads that connect lower-density areas. The vast majority of your businesses should be close to transit hubs, and the vast majority of your busy roads should be away from city centers.
I don't think that's true, and I think you're looking at things with rose-colored glasses.
200 years ago, most people were subsistence farmers, and that's around the time that started to end. See this Wikipedia article:
This got worse as the US industrialized in the late 1800s, and people adapted:
These days, starvation isn't really a thing in the US, and it has been replaced with "food insecurity," which is more about consistency and quality of food, not whether someone can survive on the amount of food they're getting. So the stress related to food has improved due to productivity and has been replaced with an economic/distribution issue instead of a production issue.
I could go on about different types of stressors, like risk of death, dangers from natural disasters, etc, but I think I've made my point. Increased productivity has made a ton of things better, and we're now at a life expectancy of >80 years old, compared to leading the world at 51 years old some 250 years ago.
If we look at life 100 years ago, life was hard, and certainly full of stress.
Here are some other interesting links to look at:
These are obviously extreme examples, but my point is that innovations in productivity generally improve peoples' lifestyles. Even the poorest Americans can travel to the other side of the country and back if they wanted, and most people own smartphones. If we look at today, the stressors are very different from even 50 years ago.
So, would you like to go back to how things used to work? I'm guessing no, but I obviously can't speak for you.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
check out this video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I‘m a little surprised by the sheer size of your comment. Thank you for your effort.
I agree that there are many good ideas and nuances to use in this situation. I really like how much thought you‘ve put into it.
Where I don’t agree is the 100 yrs ago theme. You‘re taking what I said and interpret it in a way I didn’t intend. I meant we as people should become less productive and neither we as a population nor living like 100 yrs ago.
Example: being less productive as in not being on the phone with a customer while driving to work alone in your own car so as to be there early, able to pick something up your boss demands and making sales for the company but instead waiting for the bus, not being on the phone and not slaving for your boss while on unpaid time.
Does this example make more sense?
And being less productive does not mean we have no modern medicine, cutting edge computers but less luxury. The vast majority of our surplus productivity goes into the 1% and luxury items. Yachts, Jewelry, etc. part of this surplus happens because both people in a 2 person household work and still get along the same or less than 1 earner households did back in the 70s.
Yeah, I can be a bit wordy. If it's too much, you can skip everything up to the last quotation where I talk about income in the 70s vs now.
My point is, the thing that got us from subsistence farming 200 years ago to almost nobody being farmers today is productivity. With a tractor and combine harvester, a single farmer can do the work of dozens, if not more. That farmer's life is more complicated because equipment failing has a lot more impact, but they also get to benefit from the labor of others.
Stress is very different between then and now. In the past, stressing about how to feed yourself was just part of life. Today, stress is largely due to artificial deadlines with generally lower stakes (e.g. you won't starve, you'll just lose possessions or a position of influence).
I believe stress is an internal motivator to be more productive. If we reduce the requirement to be productive, we'll just stress about other things, like how much more productive we could be. If you want proof of that, visit an elder care facility or something where literally all needs and many wants are taken care of, and you'll find the residents still experiencing stress (e.g. if the nurse is later than usual, or they don't have appealing items on the menu).
So stress is a relative thing, not some kind of absolute we can "fix" (generally) by changing workload or something. So I don't think "we" collectively need to slow down (that just reduces progress we make), but there's certainly a level of relative stress that's too much for an individual, so individuals may need to slow down.
And who makes those yachts, jewelry, etc? Those are specialized jobs, so that luxury spending creates high quality jobs that would otherwise not exist.
100 years ago cars were a thing only the rich could afford. If you compare then to now:
If you don't believe me, here's an inflation calculator that largely matches the article's numbers.
That's just not true. Here's a graph of real personal income since the mid 70s (real means after taking inflation into account). In 1974, the average worker made ~$27k in 2021 dollars, and in 2021, the average person made $40.6k. That means the average person makes ~50% more than they did 47 years ago.
People work more not because they have to (things are cheaper and we earn more), but because they want to spend more. There are just more things to spend money on today than in the 70s, and finding those things is easier than ever with the Internet. We compare ourselves to influencers, not to what we actually need.
The problem imo isn't with productivity, but with lifestyle expectations. For example, these days everyone needs a smart phone, yet my sister's family has never had one. They're not poor (my BIL is a professor, and they have a newly 4k+ sq ft home), and they have teenagers at home, they just never felt the need to own one (though their 16yo is getting pretty adamant about needing one). They also have one car (BIL bikes several miles to work, and they live on a steep hill). The money they save goes to other lifestyle choices, like spending the entire summer living abroad with the whole family (they have a large family, so airfare alone is super expensive). That's obviously an extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point well that many of our "needs" are just justifications given the expectations of others.
I have to disagree here.
You‘re making a lot of assumptions here that are not easily connected imo.
Stress being a good motivator is correct but on relative terms. Too much stress destroys you and people have been a lot more productive back then comparing labor that they are today. Most people move away from grueling manual labor which you can see in the ongoing shortages in labor intensive jobs such as carpentry (which I have worked in in the past btw). There is no evidence that reducing stress would be a bad thing.
Also, it feels to me as if you‘re trying to apply the things I‘ve said to your model of thinking instead of trying to understand my way of thinking, experience and therefore why I come to the conclusions I do. A typical problem of our stressed times.
What I‘m trying to say is that the stress level has been a lot lower in all past times and you can see psychiatric medication and stress diseases skyrocketing for a couple years if not decades.
We are playing a dangerous shell game of distracting each other and ourselves from the facts that we can’t become more productive without sacrificing our freedom and our sanity.
And stuff has not become cheaper and we are not earning more. That is complete and utter bs. Buying a cell phone (which you now need for work whatsapp groups) is becoming more and more expensive, tvs tripled in price. There even are lists you can look at. The average inflation has been nearly 2 digits for the past couple of years.
There are interesting charts showing the comparison of wages to inflation and they‘re shocking.
So frankly, I find it a little upsetting that you would say the extreme opposite. I would call this disinformation.
Source for european real wages falling: https://www.ft.com/content/ed477fe9-46fa-43d0-b315-4170763261c2
Source for us real wages stagnating for 50 yrs: https://www.aei.org/articles/have-wages-stagnated-for-decades-in-the-us/
No, buying a top end cell phone is becoming more and more expensive. There are plenty of options at the lower end that are more than capable.
For example, the phone I've had for the past 3 years retailed at $250 (Moto G Power, 8 core and 4GB RAM IIRC), and I got it for $50 through a cell plan deal ($200 off if I used Google Fi for 3 months). My phone plan (Tello) is $10/month for 1GB data and unlimited talk and text. When I got my first phone ~15 years ago, the phone itself cost $50-100 after discount, and the plan was $50/month with no data and limits on minutes.
Just because you can pay >$1k on a phone and >$50/month on a plan doesn't mean that's necessary but any stretch of the imagination.
And TVs have actually gotten cheaper pretty much every year since they were introduced. I can get a bigger, nicer TV today for the same money as I did a few years ago, and that has been true for decades. I bought a 55" 4k LG TV almost 7 years ago for ~$400 (Black Friday deal), and the price o see today for similar specs (55" 4k LG TV) is ~$360. There are also options for 40" TVs under $200, and 20 years ago I bought a 20" CRT TV for $200-250 (not inflation adjusted).
In the US, it was 7% and 6.5% respectively for the past couple of years, and if you'll look, it has been <2% almost every year since 2010, and under 1% for some of those years. So the recent runup in inflation is absolutely an anomaly, and over a longer term it averages out to the normal 2-3%. At least in the US, we're pretty much back to normal now (between 3-4%, normal is 2-3%).
The causes for recent inflation figures are:
Basically, more people had money (partially from labor shortage, partially from stimulus packages), and since most people needed to stay home, they tended to want similar things that they didn't before. If you can't go out to shows and restaurants, you turn to things you can do at home (TVs, game consoles, etc), and that increased demand happened just as supply dropped.
People also seemed to want to buy houses at that time more than ever because:
And supply for new construction was limited due to COVID-19 supply chain issues (lumber and steel became much less available), and thus nrw construction became much more expensive. The result was a rapid runup in housing costs (my house nearly doubled over those two years).
If you'll note, prices on things have generally stabilized or gone down since. New cars just didn't exist in 2020 and 2021 due to semiconductor shortages, and now you can find more new cars at original MSRP (used market still sucks, but that'll improve). Gaming consoles were hard to find, and now they're quite plentiful. Housing is still expensive, but that's because it has a much slower replacement cycle (i.e. now that materials are more plentiful, we're having trouble catching up in supply).
From your second article about wage stagnation:
That was the period of stagflation in the 80s, and it isn't particularly relevant to today's situation. This Wikipedia article on stagflation is interesting, and the issues seem to have started with a supply constraint much like COVID (in the case, the Six Day War and later Yom Kippur War ended in oil supply reduction to the West), and when paired with inflationary monetary policy, we ended up with reduced economic capacity and devaluation of currency.
So I don't think it's fair to compare the height of the 70s to today, just as the author in that second post argues. But even if we do, that article shows we are a little higher than the peak in the 70s, despite a huge reduction in the 80s. That's pretty incredible, especially since most of the increase starts just 30-ish years ago.
I can't say much about the rest of the world though, and I'm sure inflation is worse in Europe due to the war in Ukraine, but at least in the US, the average person is better off today than 50 years ago.
The main issue I think is perception. Median wages seem to have increased, but people seem to focus on income inequality, which has also increased. So people are better of today, but they're further away from the wealthy. I don't think that's a particularly useful metric, we should be focusing on the welfare of the average person and the poor, not the relative welfare vs the wealthy.
I‘m really sorry but I don’t have the time to sift through walls of text all the time. I appreciate your effort though.
Have a good one.
That's fair. Have a good one too. :)
Autonomous cars are the only viable solution in the near to mid term. Human drivers are awful. Building out mass-transit and transport infrastructure is a generations-long process and very politically unpopular. Autonomous vehicles will have issues that can only be ironed out in live testing. Which sucks but that's how all innovations go.
Autonomous cars are decades away from hitting any level of meaningful saturation. Might as well work on the more practical solutions....
What's more practical? Redesigning all of US's cities to work without cars? High-speed cross-country rail? Mass transit in every town?
That's more practical than passing regulations that allow the few companies even attempting automation to test it? This is just a "if it's not perfect don't do it" mentality that stops any attempts at progress.
You're just an angry douche putting words in my mouth. Never said they can't roll out automated cars. Just said they might as well work on the more practical long term solutions.
I live in the land of bad drivers, and long haul truckers almost NEVER cause accidents. The cause is almost always a passenger vehicle, even if a truck is involved. Truckers get trained.
That's fair, but I was more concerned about an accident being caused where the "driver" has seconds to react to a mistake the car is making. After sitting doing nothing for hours there's no way they'd be attentive until it's too late.
They would be more likely to stop the accident from happening if they were there as opposed to not being there.
"More likely" is not likely. Autonomous vehicles shouldn't be allowed on the road at all.
At the current level of autonomous vehicle abilities, I agree with you, in a broad sense. Vehicles will need to still be able to differentiate between shapes, even during bad weather. Weather like blizzards, sudden downpours, heavy fog, dust storms, and the like. You still have to be able to see to safely pull off of the road.
Until we can guarantee with 100% certainty that they can truly drive without aid, I completely agree that these vehicles would not be safe on their own. Weather is very well known for being unpredictable at times. Life in general is also known for being unpredictable at times.
What happens if the sensors are unknowingly damaged? What happens if someone is wearing a costume that makes them look like a giant cereal box instead of human-shaped? What happens if there's a software glitch at a bad time? What protections are there to guarantee that it doesn't happen? Are those protections temporary? How often should they be reviewed?
It should be OK to acknowledge that we aren't quite there yet. Yes, it seems cool and all, but it's silly to risk lives over impatience. If it will happen, it will happen. Forcing it to happen sooner than it should could very well lead to it being banned altogether, especially if enough people die or get injured as a result.
IMO, anyone who causes serious crashes from using these things in "fully autonomous" mode should be charged as if the vehicle wasn't autonomous. As if the accident was caused by sleeping behind the wheel or texting while driving. The company should be charged similarly in that scenario, as their programming and marketing would also play a part in the crash.
Hey, if they're truly safe, none of these charges would actually happen. If there isn't an "oops" death in the first place, there won't be an "oops" death to investigate.
We could just not allow autonomous vehicles.
Ever? What kinda conservative bullshit lol
Not until they're safe. The tech isn't there yet.
There's no reason to bother with autonomous vehicles if we're just going to have human drivers anyway.
Testing?
I don't want companies to test drive on public roads, I did not sign up to be one of their test subjects.
There will be testing on public roads whether you like it or not, it's inherent to how any new thing works.
We have ways to test new technologies before unleashing them onto the public, what are you talking about? Even if it's necessary to test them on public roads, they could be limited to only certain roads so people who don't want to be part of he experiment don't have to risk their lives.
No matter how much testing they get beforehand, at some point they'll be on public roads. And when they first get access to public roads, that will be a test. That's just the only possible way for any new technology to come into being.
Okay, think about medication.
They test it before it gets regulatory approval. Once the testing is done it goes to the broad public because they're found to be safe when used as directed. At no point do they experiment on people without their consent.
Obviously data is still collected after that, but that's not the same as testing - are you conflating those two things? Because by your definition, testing never ends.
Semantics. It's literally the same thing, just called something different.
It's not, because data is collected forever. By that definition testing never ends and we talk past each other about the meaning of words.
There's a review process. Drugs go through stages of steadily growing numbers of volunteers, but after that the test is over.
That's what I'd want. Phase 1, these vehicles are tested on private land by highly skilled voluneers. Stage 2, they're tested on private land by laypersons. Phase 3, they're tested on a wide (but limited!) scale across selected public roads and highways.
And then testing is done. At no point is someone subjected to being tested against their will, they always have the ability to opt out. After that they'll still collect data, but it's not an experiment anymore because they're already generally recognized as safe by regulators.
Sure, if that makes you feel better
I'll only feel better if we build rail. This stupid car shit is killing us.
Anyone who uses FSD on their Tesla would happily tell you it’s not even close to being safe yet. Hell if anything I’m MORE attentive when using the autopilot because it can be so sketch sometimes.
I doubt you're more attentive than someone who is literally driving lol
I drive 150-200 miles/day. I’m definitely zoned out for the most of it lol
And zoning out would be much worse with computer assistance!
Actually cars should be abolished for this very reason - humans can never be truly safe drivers, they always get bored and zone out.
Self-driving trucks will never be 100% autonomous. They will need a reliable data connection to a control center so humans can figure out how to deal with exceptional situations.
There will probably be occasional stupid traffic jams until the technology is perfected. As long as they avoid murderous rampages, we should be okay.