Re: Flying cars
Indeed. On bad days Ground vehicles STOP. Flying cars DROP.
2368 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Sep 2017
"The thing about problems with public transport is, that none of them are intrinsic. Not a single one."
That's a bit utopian I think. In fact there are several intrinsic problems with public transit. It's rather slow at best. It's not well suited to bulky loads. And it works poorly in suburban areas and worse in rural areas.
For example, Tokyo has a rail line -- The Yamanote Sen -- that connects all the districts on the periphery of the city. There's a train every 4 minutes (2 at rush hour). Everyone uses it. It carries about 4 million passengers a day. A pretty good answer I think to "How do I get to ..." But its average speed is about 35kph. Faster than walking. But hardly speedy. It takes about half an hour to get to the other side of town on the Yamanote. And you still probably need to walk at a bit at both ends of your ride or maybe wait for a train if you're headed out of Tokyo proper.
Then there's things like grocery shopping. Where I live now, my nearest supermarket is about 3 km away. There's actually a bus occasionally that stops there a few times a day. And there are bus stops. Several. But they are all about a km from my house. Exactly how am I going to get 30 or 40 kg of groceries home from the store? As a one time thing, I could handle that. As a weekly or biweekly thing, I'm pretty sure I'd come to hate it in very little time at all. And I live in the burbs not the boonies.
Longer term, while I agree that mass transit is often the best answer to getting around big cities, I'm not so sure about the long term future of big cities. I don't think most people are terribly fond of megacities. Given the choice, many (most?) folks seem prefer places with a bit more room, a bit fewer annoyances, and some plants. And I think with the slow rise of digital communications and automated manufacturing, I see fewer and fewer reasons for folks to cluster together in endless rows of apartment blocks. I think we may well see the big cities of the world starting to fade away over the course of the next century.
That's 150 miles on a bright, sunny, windless, early June day with a new or nearly new freshly charged battery. Now let's try it again with a battery that's been in service for a decade on a dramatically subfreezing day in January in Canada or Alaska with a refreshing North wind blowing maybe 30 or 40 knots.
Your Mileage May Vary.
"digital money as a store of value and programming logic denoting its use based on programmed conditions." Once those conditions are met, "digital money is released, and it becomes unbounded once again.
Is an English language translation of this available? After struggling with it for a while, I think that it might be proposing some sort of digital escrow. You pay up front. Some unnamed trusted third party holds the cash. The money gets paid out when certain conditions are met. Might be doable. No obvious scam potential other than the "trusted third party" absconding with the cash. But just because it could be done doesn't mean there is any need for this.
Airports need to deal with preventing disastrous conflicts over runway usage. On very rare occasions, they fail to do so. The results are grim.
"Flying cars" will presumably be VTOL (the V is "Vertical") if they plan to be of much use. Nowhere near the groundspace needs of conventional aircraft. A more important question is who controls airspace usage for zillions of vehicles and how do they do it? On top of that there is the problem that we haven't even produced one vehicle capable of Level 5 autonomous driving in 2 dimensions. Exactly who is going to safely navigate these creations in 3 dimensions? To get an idea of what "drivers" -- human or computer -- will be up against, watch The Fifth Element. Does anyone seriously think that most of us could safely "drive" a flying car in that sort of environment?
I haven't driven in either California or Germany for a great many years. But I think a vehicle going only 40mph(60kph) will be a lot more acceptable on the Autobahn than on America's Interstates. My recollection is that a lot of the fuel efficient vehicles in Germany couldn't travel much faster than that going uphill anyway so German drivers are used to a lane of slow traffic. Things could have changed of course. That was a long time ago. I have trouble envisioning a 40mph vehicle being regarded as anything other than a damned nuisance by most Americans.
BTW, the default minimum sustained speed on Interstate highways is 45mph(72 kph). But states can change that.
When will I be able to direct a space microwave to heat up my curry using a phone app?
You can do that today. Of course, nothing will happen. That may be better than Stage 2 when a beam will appear and cook something -- maybe your curry, maybe the picnic table, maybe you.
It never crossed my mind before. But 2GW is a lot of energy. Radio transmitters aren't typically all that efficient. The internet tells me 70% efficiency is considered to be excellent. But let's assume that's negative thinking and that our space borne transmitter is 99% efficient. There's still 10^7 (10 million) watts (every second) of waste heat we will need to get rid of. We almost certainly can't just dump it in the nearest large body of water. How are we going to cool this thing?
"Mars cannot be terraformed ..."
A not unreasonable conjecture. But probably wrong. For one thing, we're pretty sure that Mars retained a lot of its original atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. No reason that a manmade atmosphere wouldn't last as long. Longer than mankind most likely.
The most probable decay model for Mars atmosphere looks to be exponential decay. If we assume an Earthlike atmosphere (or as close as we can come given the weaker gravity), let's a assume an atmospheric pressure of 100,000 pascals (just a smidge less than Earth today). We find that after one half life the pressure will be 50,000, two halflives = 25000, 3=12500, 4=6250, 5=3125,6=1562,7=781,8=390. The actual current Mars pressure is 610 pascals which is roughly consistent with exponential decay with seven or eight halvings
Mars is most likely about the same age as the Earth -- 4.5 billion years (give or take). 8 halvings would be a halflife around 500,000 million years. Even if mankind were to hang out on Mars for a few million years, the loss of atmosphere over that timespan would seem to be hardly detectable.
(Would an atmosphere with a partial pressure of 20,000 Pa of Oxygen and Mars gravity be OK for humans? My GUESS is yes. But I sure could be wrong).
"In any case, return from Mars is a pretty moot point since we're still very far from getting there in the first place, in part because of all the other issues you correctly list with radiation and travel time."
I'm an optimist. So I think our great,great, ever so great grandchildren MIGHT eventually terraform Mars and settle there. But if it happens at all, it will be centuries from now, not decades. And it'll involve technologies far beyond our current capabilities.
"Question: Which spacecraft would be capable ON EARTH to sit for 2 years in it's launch cradle, with fuel in the tanks, and still be able to take off?"
Not saying you're wrong. But here on Earth, liquid fuel ICBMs have largely been replaced with solid fuel missiles. For exactly the reasons you cite I believe.
So maybe Mars spacecraft have two sets of engines -- liquid fuel for landing and solid fuel for return?
Maybe -- however the Earth's magnetic field swaps poles every half million years or so and one imagines that there is probably a point in those transitions where the magnetic field is pretty weak for a while. If radiation is that much of a problem, wouldn't we expect some extinctions every time the magnetic pole swaps? Doesn't seem to happen. So MAYBE the radiation thing is less of a problem than it seems. Now the fact that Mars is cold -- mean temperature -65C apparently. Makes Winnipeg or Novosibirsk look balmy. That might be a bit of a problem.
Downvoted because I'm past being tired of this "yellow Peril" nonsense. Had my fill of it decades ago.
If you want criticize the C919 as you apparently do, try citing some meaningful criticisms instead of whining that they stole it all from us. Sure large part of the aircraft are foreign built. So what? Large parts of your car, computer, and appliances are almost certainly foreign built. Most sensible people. Even most Americans figured out that wasn't necessarily a problem when they discovered in the 1970s that not only were Japanese cars a bit cheaper than American cars of the time. But (thanks largely to C Edwards Deming) they were far better built. When Ford finally managed to put together an automobile comparable in quality to Toyota and Honda (the Taurus) in the mid 1980s, it quickly became the best selling car in America.
What do I mean by meaningful criticism. The C919 is many years late and much more costly than original estimates. $100M or so vs maybe $65M (original $50M adjusted for inflation). That's almost as much as purportedly comparable Airbus and Boeing offerings. Why would anybody other than a Chinese carrier buy one? Maybe they can get costs down. And maybe they can't.
And short term -- for the next five years or so -- there are two other issues. First, while the aircraft hasn't killed or injured anyone so far, it doesn't have all that many flight hours. It'll be a while before it has a meaningful safety record. Second. Even if you wanted one, Comac probably couldn't deliver it any time soon. They don't really have significant production capacity. And they won't for a while. They are said to hope to be shipping 150 units a year by 2028.
I think that at best, the C919 demonstrates that China might have or be building the infrastructure to design, qualify and produce decent airliners, Comac might be an Airbus/Boeing competitor in the (late?) 2030s or 2040s. Or not. Time will tell.
As Richard12 points out above, the problem is probably that the test should not be whether the certificate has expired but whether the certificate has been revoked and if it hasn't been revoked whether the driver was signed while the certificate was valid. Thing is that I at least wouldn't know that without a lot of educating on proper digital security implementation. And I wouldn't really expect others to know that either.
The US government has about 8 decades of serious experience with securing tech. And they have found that security is very complicated and therefore quite expensive. Time perhaps that the rest of us learned that.
"I look forward to seeing how quickly the Management can strip all of the profits and a large amount of the assets"
Profits? Assets? This is cryptocurrency. You are applying 19th century concepts to 21st century finance.
(Which is not to say that the management won't likely end up with a lot of physical assets that have somehow been acquired at the expense of those managed)
Downvoted because there are situations where sort of OK is not a responsible goal. Safety in cars, nuclear reactors and air travel are among them. Even if you aim for perfection, you'll end up with a flawed system because you'll make mistakes. If you aim for less, You'll likely end up with a system that unnecessarily endangers others.
"AM is no longer used in many parts of the world."
OTOH, there are many parts of the world where AM radio is the only radio signal available. The medium-wave frequencies used by AM (530-1700KHz) tend to hug the Earth in daylight and reflect off the ionosphere at night. The highest powered stations can be heard 100s of km distant in daytime, and over much of North America at night. Higher frequency broadcasts, including FM, usually go more or less directly off into space. As a result, travelers in the US west, and along much of the US Canadian border have little or no radio option other than weak noisy signals from AM transmitters hundreds of km away. Same is true of cell phones BTW. Don't assume that just because it's the 21st Century you'll have a cell phone signal everywhere in Vermont or Northern New York -- at least not without climbing a hill and holding the phone just right.
You're likely right that AI is the next big fad. The trouble is that unlike bitcoin/blockchain, AI has at least one obvious application. It can and almost certainly will be used by large corporations to cheaply provide a new low in "customer service". What do you think your chances are of convincing a chatbot that you did not order 27 large anchovy and pineapple pizzas at 8:30 am on July 16th and the charge for same should be rescinded?
At one point not too long ago, Musk was living in a 300 square foot pre-fab house in Texas -- furniture looks to be two stools, a sofa, a cabinet, a refrigerator and table. https://buyasmallhouse.com/elon-musks-tiny-home-casita/ If he's still there I find it hard to come up with a snarky comment. But Musk being Musk, I'm sure he'll give lots of opportunity with other aspects of his life and works.
"He claimed it was "morally wrong" that some people get the luxury of holing up at home all day on their computers"
This from a dude who apparently spends many of his waking hours posting stuff on social media instead of paying bills or doing other useful work like tightening steering wheel bolts on Teslas.
Consolidate all the suits against Twitter in a poor state? That's a great idea.
We could give Mississippi all the Lawsuits against Twitter.
And Arkansas gets all the lawsuits against Trump
And New Mexico gets all the lawsuits against Chat-GPT
And so on ....
And we could further mandate that the CEOs involved must attend 80% of the hearings. And that the hearings be held outdoors in the hottest (coldest for Northern states) months of the year.
Not only is old software adequate for many purposes. People have workflows. Often they have spent years or decades developing them. Why on earth would they want to alter their workflow and debug the changes every time some programmer/designer comes up with and rolls out yet another peculiar idea? Tools are tools. Do I need to buy a new hammer or pair of pliers every 18 months? Of course not. I frequently use hand tools I inherited from my dad. He bought them at estate sales in the 1920s. They still work. Just as well as their modern equivalents as far as I can see.
"You're going to jail and, Oh yes, you owe Rupert Murdock and his buddies half a billion dollars" Now that's a bad day.
I can't see that I feel all that badly for Ms Holmes. But there is some good news. She apparently doesn't have the money she's supposed to send to Murdoch and friends.
One (potential) problem would appear to be counterfitting. Governments go to rather extreme lengths to make their paper currencies hard to fake. Special fabrics and dyes, hidden signatures, etc. And even then a small (but tolerable) number of fakes are created. It may be that there is simply no way to prevent folks from "printing" and somehow circulating their own digital "coinage". Unlike fake paper money, imanufacturing fake digital notes probably won't take any special skills beyond pressing/clicking ENTER on the right app. Getting the fake money into circulation without getting caught looks to be a lot harder. But we won't know for sure until we have some hands on experience with the stuff.
There may be some other problems. Does your digital paycheck vanish forever if your cellphone battery dies? How do I pay for an ice cream cone or a beer in an areas with no digital services? If the Central bank finds 27 copies of the same digital note, how does it know which, if any, is the original? Are there common, necessary, activities that allow easy injection of fake currency into the financial system. Or that allow theft of someone else's money?
Probably dozens of other things. Maybe all are tractable. Maybe not. Time will tell.
I would imagine that the EUs control of its citizenry will probably be done with mind control chips in your breakfast cereal or something in the drinking water.
It's not at all clear that CBDCs are going to work. Most everyone is looking at them, but not that many have actually been rolled out and its not clear that merchants in places where they are available are all that keen on accepting them. My guess is that they might be subject to many of the problems of credit cards and probably a few other glitches that no one has thought of but will be obvious once they are encountered. Time will tell if they are actually practical.
Even if they are a success, they will probably operate in parallel with physical currency and other financial media for many, many decades. Maybe forever.
Not THAT amazing I think. The US and USSR were launching surviellence satellites in the early 1960s. That was six decades ago. Basically all you need is a BIG rocket. They've got that. A ground station or two. They can build those. And a bunch of stuff you can buy on Amazon or eBay. Or, more likely their Chinese equivalents (Alibaba and Taobao?). I imagine their first attempts won't work very well or at all. The first US and Soviet attempts probably didn't work all that well either. You wouldn't be all that surprised if the NKs built a truck or car. Which they do. A few tens of thousands every year. Satellites are the next logical step for their rocket program. Personally, I'd be a lot more worried about their building cruise missiles and selling them to folks we westerners don't like (and vice versa).
"Launch an ion drive module that can attach to the socket that the Shuttle used to hold/move Hubble. ..." That sounds like an idea worth considering. Could work. Might be cheap. (by space exploration standards)
"Clearing an orbit of debris is much harder...." No kidding I think it would require finding and disposing of every bit of debris capable of reaching 540km altitude between 28.5 degrees North latitude and 28.5 degrees South Latitude at any point in its orbit. Keep in mind that even a tiny fragment weighting ten grams or so can have a closing velocity 10 or 20 times that of a high powered rifle bullet. (That's 100 to 400 times the kinetic energy). I'm guessing that punching random holes in a telescope might not be good for it.
Then there's the question of whether Hubble needs salvation. I don't follow these things that closely and don't have time this morning for hours of research. But my impression is that Hubble covers some wavelengths that the JWST doesn't. And there's also the hopefully small possibility that the JSWT will quit working. And there are large telescope arrays on line and under development down here on Earth that have impressive capabilities. Do they obviate any need for Hubble?
Indeed. Aside from the problem that allowing folks to print their own money would probably eventually destroy the world's economic systems, cryptocurrency has had a fair trial and has proved to have no beneficial uses whatsoever. However, it might be a good idea to look closely at China which banned crypto exchanges in 2017 and cryptocurrency in 2021 to see if they experienced any avoidable problems when they shut the stuff down. By all means, ban crypto. But shut it down with as little disruption as possible.
"if you look at it from 10km above, Python and Ruby and Perl are exactly the same language". Guido Van Rossum
Python and Perl really are quite similar. Perl may be marginally easier to code, For some people anyway. But I think that most of us -- me for sure -- find Python a lot easier to read than Perl. I actually did learn Perl and used it for a while before I switched to Python.
I think Python's real strength is that it seems to be the easiest full strength coding language for non programmers and beginning programmers to learn. So it tends to be what folks are taught when they start off. And unless they drift off into some specialized field, they never see much reason to change, Not that Python is perfect. Far from it. But it seems to be the least awful way to talk to a computer here in the early 21st century.
"Automatic updates - while good in theory - are rarely as good in application."
As someone who did a lot of software system testing and a lot of development, let me say that testing is by far the more difficult of the two worlds. It's no surprise to me that updates often don't work right. Lots of reasons, but one big one is that it is often quite impractical to test patches against all the possible user configurations. So yeah, sometimes "they" didn't really test against your use case. The other big one is that developers and testers often don't actually know what users are using their software to do or exactly how it is being used. In my experience users are astonishingly good at finding ways to use software that may be quite different than the developers have in mind. When that happens it's really easy to break the user's workflow. Users generally don't like that.
Two opposing world views: "What could possibly go wrong (WCPGW) with this simple fix?" on one hand. "Whatever can go wrong will" (WCGWW) on the other.
WCPGW folks tend to feel that updates are out there for a reason and that failing to install them promptly is incredibly risky. WCGWW folk on the other hand feel that blindly installing updates is asking for trouble. Not a lot of middle ground there.
I tend toward WCGWW myself.
Jeezum. Here El Twit Supemo moved his undertaking from California to Texas in order to get away from regulation. And the environmentalists turn up with a battalion of lawyers just because of dumping a bit of dust and a few itsy chunks of concrete on a few birds and aquatic reptiles. Obviously Texas is not the answer. I suspect we can look forward to Musk moving on to friendlier climes -- maybe Wyoming or Paraguay.
I have no problem with using AI to generate ideas, or look for unexpected correlations in data. Of course the lying and just making things up is likely to by a problem. But that's hopefully going to be mostly a problem for the AI user not the rest of us.
And, of course, there is the potential of AIs screwing up almost all forms of testing and certification.
And, I imagine we will have to deal with all sorts of dysfunctional tools that will try to separate AIs from real humans. Think CAPTCHAs on steroids. And probably even more erratic and buggy if that's possible. (Actually, I think AIs might be rather better than real humans at solving CAPTCHAs.)
Also I'd like to know if there is any way to prevent companies from replacing their already obtuse and more or less useless "customer service" folks with cheaper and even more obtuse/useless AI agents? If nothing is done, this will happen. I guarantee it.
For whatever reason, this article and moreso the comments seemed to me not to be fully reality based. For one thing, the Chinese seem quite sophisticated about money, and a blockchain based digital currency using current technolkogy would seem likely to be quite unwieldy, slow to process transactions, and vulnerable to system failures. So I did some quick fact checking. Lots of facts out there. Maybe some more reality based than others. Anyway, what I came up with was.
1. Yes china has a Central Bank Digital Currency
2. No, it's not blockchained. Blockchaining is a separate effort that will perhaps be incorporated later. (Maybe ... Someday ...) (Shortly before or after Hell freezes over would be my guess as to the likely timeframe).
3. The eCNY sounds to me pretty much like a digital debit card issued by and backed by the central government.
4. The advantages to the user? It's a credit card (sort of). Sometimes credit cards are more convenient than cash. And, If anyone steals your digital wallet and tries to spend your eCNY, they are committing a federal crime not just a local one? And in theory (but not in practice?) merchants HAVE to accept CNY if one offers it in payment.
5. The advantage to the government. Long term, it can potentially be used to control dissent by limiting the ability of those who hold unpopular views to travel and buy stuff. On the other hand it can also potentially be used to detect and control some forms of corruption -- a substantial problem in China I'm told.
6. In theory, small transactions can be anonymous. (Sort of like the US -- many payments over $10000 are reported to the feds?)
7. Is the eCNY popular? Not especially.
See https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-launches-digital-yuan-app-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=No.,not%20operate%20on%20the%20blockchain. Google or any other search engine will turn up tons of other references.
Downvoted because the OP clearly thinks there is virtually no chance of this thing being anything other than an additional problem in a domain that already has more problems than any of us can cope with. I agree with him. At best, it'll probably be an obtuse storage device that resists reformatting or repartitioning, won't work properly with many OSes and is prone to mysterious hangs. At worse, it'll do something truly horrible.
At very best it probably doesn't need AI. Just some routine logic. And a LOT of OS/driver support because the operator needs to be able to talk to it and find out why it is balking or that it's OK to overwrite everything (because sometimes it is).
This gizmo sounds to me like an ideal device for those who believe in the powers of magic. For the rest of us? Probably not so much
Operative principle: If it sounds too good to be true it is probably too good to be true.
Let me see if I have this straight. Chatbots generate code that compiles and they do so cheaply. They speak excellent English (or any other language they have been trained in?), do not test their work product very well (if at all), and lie a lot.
I'm not sure what makes using them different from hiring an offshore programmer.
Or an onshore programmer for that matter.
Seems to me like we can tell purchasing to find us a chatbot. Then tell HR to fire the programming staff.
Then we'll train the chatbot a bit then fire HR and purchasing.
It's almost like we've automated Elon Musk... or most any other tech CEO for that matter. We can fire them too?
This looks to be more entertaining than Devops or Cryptocurrency. I love technology. It's way more fun to watch than football. Or wrestling. Pass me another beer.