Difference between revisions of "Talk:1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(About the perpetual self driving car)
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
Are there any researchers working on cars that can find a parking space? (Instead of just park in one that the human driver finds?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.145|162.158.111.145]] 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 
Are there any researchers working on cars that can find a parking space? (Instead of just park in one that the human driver finds?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.145|162.158.111.145]] 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 +
: There is a parking space app and parking payment apps.  I don't know if smart cars are allowed to use these without human supervision.  Robert Carnegie [email protected] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.6|141.101.105.6]] 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:11, 7 December 2017


This page is, without offense to the creator, a mess. We're gonna need a table for this. 172.68.47.78 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Or at least a list. I have created one, but it could use fleshing out.WingedCat (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
List is fine. You don't need a table for everything - especially if this table had only one or two columns...
none taken, it's my first time (I only wrote the first three points from a blank page) 162.158.111.61 09:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go with a [citation needed] on that "sex in a self-driving has probably already happened." Are there stats suggesting the amount of coitus per vehicle in the relevant counties?

"This a joke about Boolean satisfiability, as evaluating an arbitrarily complex bumper sticker and determining whether to honk is NP-complete." What? Determining whether to honk has nothing to do with the satisfiability problem; this is more of a joke about getting a computer to evaluate the truth of Boolean expressions that it may have no information about. Checkmate (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Checkmate

I believe the "Autonomous canyon jumping" is related to the self-loathing; a self-loathing is likely to autonomously jump off a cliff. 108.162.212.179 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"As of 2017, self-driving s require a human to be able to take over just in case, but any such trip where the human never actually took control would qualify for this milestone." I seems like not all places require a human backup driver: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous 172.69.22.146 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to start printing "Honk if this statement evaluates as 'do not honk!'" bumper stickers! 162.158.63.28 01:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this related to the Vsauce Mind Field video about self-driving s and the trolley problem the literally released today, or is it just a weird coincidence?162.158.74.225 05:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The likelihood of trolley-like problems is no lower for an autonomous car than a human-driven one, since it depends on external factors. It might be true that if a significant number of the other cars on the road were replaced with self-driving ones, that would reduce the occurrence of conflicts, and therefore the likelihood and severity of these problems would be lower, but it would be lower for self-driven and human-driven cars alike. The real issue with such debates is that they tend to make a false assumption that existing human drivers are good at solving these problems, when the whole thrust of these thought experiments is to demonstrate that there are no generally accepted solutions to these problems.141.101.104.239 09:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Given the nature of human sexuality, it is possible this has already happened, but there has not been a public documentation of this milestone."

Rule 34 applies. --162.158.89.133 12:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"An empty car wandering the highways" - that doesn't seem so ridiculous; a car costs what, $9000/year? That's like an EC2 instance and not even the biggest one. Sabik (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus you have to factor in the potential for the cost of letting the car wander becoming cheaper than paying for a parking space, in which case it may become a deliberate choice.141.101.104.239 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Some stops will provide free electricity so an electric car could keep going that way. Its owner will notice it's missing but they could be sick in hospital or even dead - they may even die in the car from a medical issue if that then counts as an empty car. Why the car's journey never ends is a different question. Maybe it drives the deceased owner to work and back every day. Maybe it's searching for a parking space and charging point but cannot reach the former from the latter before it has to go back and charge again. Robert Carnegie [email protected] 141.101.105.6 16:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Added a bit more to the explanation and formatted everything into a table so it's more organized. --JayRulesXKCD what's up? 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there any researchers working on cars that can find a parking space? (Instead of just park in one that the human driver finds?) 162.158.111.145 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a parking space app and parking payment apps. I don't know if smart cars are allowed to use these without human supervision. Robert Carnegie [email protected] 141.101.105.6 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)