h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Self-driving cars available to the consumer are believed to be
about ten years away, largely because they have to work
safely even when they are not maintained to the high
standards of current prototypes. They will (like current
prototypes) require a competent driver to be available behind
the
wheel.
Fully autonomous cars (such as "driverless taxis") are even
further away. Even when an autonomous car can navigate
99.9% of the roads, that's not good enough - who wants to be
in a driverless taxi when it says "Sorry, I don't know how to
respond to this situation, I will stop here"? Getting that last
0.1% of situations taken care of will be difficult.
One solution, potentially, is to have an autonomous car that
can communicate with a human driver (specifically, a
monitoring centre with multiple people) on the rare occasions
that it needs to. The car stops when it encounters a situation
it doesn't understand and, within a few seconds, a human can
intervene via the car's onboard cameras and sensors. Dead
sheep in the road? No problem, the human can decide that it
can safely edge up onto the pavement to get past it, and that
it doesn't matter if it runs over the tail. Graffitied road sign
that the car can't make sense of? The human can assess the
situation.
To be clear, this isn't about safety per se - obviously that has
to be handled autonomously and quickly. It's about remotely
helping driverless cars to deal with the rare situations they
don't understand. Based on the current performance of
"supervised" autonomous cars, intervention would be needed
only very rarely and you might only need one human per
thousand driverless cars.
How this would work
https://xkcd.com/1897/
[hippo, Nov 11 2019]
The Ig Nobel Prize goes to...
https://homeandfurn...-for-study.html?m=1
The rheology of cats. Solid? Liquid? Shapeshifter? Non-Newtonian fluid? [RayfordSteele, Nov 13 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
// helping driverless cars to deal with the rare situations they don't understand. // |
|
| |
"You don't need to see his identification ...." |
|
| |
[MB] -- this is in fact going to be one of the results of 5G
penetration. The publicized case often is "robotic surgery",
but remote truck driving (perhaps with autonomous highway
driving" is actually a killer app for 5G, as an example. Or for
instance someone mowing your lawn remotely without
killing the neighbor's dog. |
|
| |
What about mowing your own lawn remotely while "accidentally" killing the neighbour's cat ... ? |
|
| |
Regarding 5G in the UK, there was recently an outcry over the
decision to allow Chinese company Huawei provide much of
the infrastructure. Such a move would open the door to cyber
espionage and state-sponsored hacking on an immense scale.
Personally, I'm all in favour of it - if we can use the Huawei
network to hack into China, it can only be to the good. |
|
| |
// cyber espionage and state-sponsored hacking on an immense scale // |
|
| |
... like the UK and US governments do already ? Sure, go ahead ... |
|
| |
yes, the Huawei questions are a major factor in the US as
well. |
|
| |
yes, they've been telling us we'll die from cellphones, and
then funny enough we use them all the time, but actually
never talk on them with the phone to the ear. |
|
| |
Doubtful on anything that would outweigh the benefit,
though rooting for Musk and his Starlink for universal
satellite connectivity (despite the protestations of
astronomers) |
|
| |
How ? They said George Stephenson was mad. They said Brunel was mad. They said the Wright brothers were mad. They said Werner von Braun was mad. They said Howard Hughes was mad*. They said Frank Whittle was mad. |
|
| |
But in retrospect, some of their ideas were not mad at all, but visionary - and ultimately successful ... |
|
| |
*Well, yes, actually Howard Hughes was mad; but the Spruce Goose did actually fly, albeit briefly. |
|
| |
A great idea. I recently drove through a wildly
confusing construction zone - cones all over, ignore
the lines, drive on the wrong side of the road when
the man in flouro waves. I wondered if any self-
driving car could EVER manage that situation. This
is a viable solution. |
|
| |
Obligatory pun: Need to get past dead sheep? You
need a Dodge Ram. |
|
| |
....... @ ...... @ ...... @ ...... |
|
| |
<Wind whistles, bell clangs in abandoned adobe church/> |
|
| |
...... @ ......@ ......@ ...... |
|
| |
//They said Brunel was mad.// Technically speaking, he was.
He had bipolar, and also Tourette's (not identified as such, at
that time). He also had only four toes on each foot
(congenitally, not as a result of dropping a ship on his feet or
anything). |
|
| |
Mad maybe, but only mad north-north-west. When the wind was southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw*. Howard Hughes, despite being madder than a box of frogs, was also very rich, and therefore could not be officially classified as "mad", only "eccentric ". |
|
| |
* Academics disagree about the exact origin and meaning of this, but a "hawk" is a flat board with a handle, used by plasterers along with a board or steel for their trade of plastering walls, and a handsaw is, well, a saw worked by a hand (even in Tudor times there were water-powered sawmills). So Hamlet could tell the difference between two commonplace craftsman's implements (given the right weather conditions ), an analogy that would have made perfect sense to his audience, unlike his "jokes" which even then had the groundlings giggling in nervous incomprehension. |
|
| |
Hard to kill a cat by running over it when they are
technically classified as liquid. Which when they're
sleeping, they are. I think you have to dilute them in a
hot liquid like on Terminator 2. See link. |
|
| |