Phrazemaster
Well-known member
WOW, clever!JohnRoberts said:
Self driving cars....
- Thread starter Seeker
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Hyperloop test just hit 192 mph....
JR
JR
Just read up on hyperloop. So basically it is a maglev train-like carriage (for passengers or freight) that gets rid of air friction by riding in a vacuum tube. That latest test was in a 500m-long vacuum tube.
Vacuum equivalent to a height of 200,000 feet above ground. That is 60km. For comparison: Jet aircrafts travel at altitudes of 10 to 15km, while the Kármán line, where space begins, is at 100 km.
The targeted speed of 700mph/h (it said in an article) is breathtaking (no pun). Biggest technical problem seems how to maintain vacuum in a tube not of a few hunfred metres but many kilometres in length.
There seem to be several companies working on that idea. For Elon, I guess, building it on earth is just a test, cos he seems to be thinking Mars again. :
Anyway, hyperloop is more of a train or public tranporation idea, while self-driving cars clearly address the idea (and illusion) of (emotional) freedom. Vroum vroum!
Vacuum equivalent to a height of 200,000 feet above ground. That is 60km. For comparison: Jet aircrafts travel at altitudes of 10 to 15km, while the Kármán line, where space begins, is at 100 km.
The targeted speed of 700mph/h (it said in an article) is breathtaking (no pun). Biggest technical problem seems how to maintain vacuum in a tube not of a few hunfred metres but many kilometres in length.
There seem to be several companies working on that idea. For Elon, I guess, building it on earth is just a test, cos he seems to be thinking Mars again. :
Anyway, hyperloop is more of a train or public tranporation idea, while self-driving cars clearly address the idea (and illusion) of (emotional) freedom. Vroum vroum!
Musk is undeniably a brilliant guy but has the classic genius problem of more good ideas than time and energy to pursue. I think he gave the hyperloop idea away rather than try to exploit it himself.Script said:Just read up on hyperloop. So basically it is a maglev train-like carriage (for passengers or freight) that gets rid of air friction by riding in a vacuum tube. That latest test was in a 500m-long vacuum tube.
Vacuum equivalent to a height of 200,000 feet above ground. That is 60km. For comparison: Jet aircrafts travel at altitudes of 10 to 15km, while the Kármán line, where space begins, is at 100 km.
The targeted speed of 700mph/h (it said in an article) is breathtaking (no pun). Biggest technical problem seems how to maintain vacuum in a tube not of a few hunfred metres but many kilometres in length.
There seem to be several companies working on that idea. For Elon, I guess, building it on earth is just a test, cos he seems to be thinking Mars again. :
Anyway, hyperloop is more of a train or public tranporation idea, while self-driving cars clearly address the idea (and illusion) of (emotional) freedom. Vroum vroum!
In the US public transportation makes sense in the densely populated corridors, like east and west coast. I heard 30 minutes mentioned for NYC to Wash DC (but why make it easier to get to DC?). Vast US territory is sparsely populated and ineffective to cover with public transportation.
Individual passenger vehicle ownership is probably already in decline but will not likely go away completely for decades.
Musk is pretty masterful at pursuing business interests that are supported by federal (or state) government incentives. His hyperloop is probably too far ahead of current public thinking for politicians to grasp. They are still trying to copy the high speed railroads already in use in more densely populated countries (and China, but China is probably trying to own that industry too).
JR
PS: I thought working from home would relieve commuting pressure, but the recent trend is to bring workers back in house. GE relocated to Boston to be closer to the kind of workers (millennials) they want to recruit.
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
There’s a new robot that puts together textiles for (?)Adidas. It’s called the Sewbot. No this is not a joke.
http://softwearautomation.com/products/
It will make hundreds of thousands of shirts/day, replacing god knows how many textile workers.
The self-driving cars won’t have any place to take these (former) workers.
http://softwearautomation.com/products/
It will make hundreds of thousands of shirts/day, replacing god knows how many textile workers.
The self-driving cars won’t have any place to take these (former) workers.
nielsk
Well-known member
Hyper-loop will use a boring technology to create straight path routes without disrupting existing infrastructure...
They say the biggest hurdle is state & county governments, getting planning & permits, the tech is ready.
I really liked the idea of a hyper-loop pod that once can drive their car into, then drive out at the destination, fantastic!
They say the biggest hurdle is state & county governments, getting planning & permits, the tech is ready.
I really liked the idea of a hyper-loop pod that once can drive their car into, then drive out at the destination, fantastic!
How about all those thousands of sweatshop workers put out of their jobs by the guy who figured he could just ink jet print a label on underwear?Phrazemaster said:
I am not sure those are jobs to aspire to hold, but AI will replace lots of white collar workers too...
The future is coming faster than we think and it will be different.
JR
PS: 3D printing is already being used for modern sneaker MFG.
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
Agreed these are terrible jobs to begin with.
And yes technology also creates other unseen opportunities. I’m afraid more will be lost than gained when it comes to jobs with this revolution.
And yes technology also creates other unseen opportunities. I’m afraid more will be lost than gained when it comes to jobs with this revolution.
I am repeating myself but from a technology perspective we live in a golden age for designing new products and starting our own small business to sell them. Government regulation has grown to be major friction slowing that new small business formation because the existing large businesses gain a competitive advantage from all that friction (like the trade guilds of older times set up to prevent competition).Phrazemaster said:
People still need basic STEM education, and enough creative juice to come up with some new product or service that other people will pay them for.
This is not trivial, easy, or without risk, but is about the only win-win solution I can imagine.
JR
dmp
Well-known member
Instead of repeating the same old ideological statements, add some substance to make your case. What Government regulation is a major friction to small business formation? I started an engineering business and all the rules I had to deal with (and found frustrating) were at the state level: workers comp, for example.JohnRoberts said:
The US does not have price controls anymore, like it did 50 yrs ago, with the airlines, for instance. Business is de-regulated to a great extent.
The Republican demonetization of regulation is ignored because it seems like so much political hyperbole. The list of regulations Trump targeted (you can find it and read it) were all giveaways to big business. Like coal companies being allowed to pollute streams. It's despicable.
Gov. Regulations should provide an even playing field for the greater good. So all companies have to be responsible when it comes to pollution, for example. The recent series of Diesel emissions cheating demonstrates why companies need to be policed and the why the wasteful spending on compliance is needed - because businesses will readily cheat to save a buck.
Gov. Regulation provides IP protection, which is a benefit for a vibrant business scene.
So, instead of repeating again what your ideology is about it, make an argument to change my mind (as someone who thinks it is Republican nonsense).
Can you justify Trump's deregulation of coal companies allowing them to pollute streams?
https://www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm/streamprotectionrule.shtm
You neglected the part where I mentioned STEM education. Kids should be taught computer programming as their second language.dmp said:
You mention IP, I have interest (and 9 patents). I watched a friend be put out of business by abuse of the patent system and the courts. He has testified before congress but that won't get him his business back.
https://www.facebook.com/patentdocumentary/videos/330875417357951/
There are many ways that big business can take advantage of their size. The government can not level the playing field completely, but they can support small business formation. Sorry I do not feel like discussing old polemics. Speaking of coal W VA's, republican governor (was democratic a week ago), has just petitioned Trump for $4.5B... I like clean water and air too... There is a place for coal in an all of the above energy policy, while they need to follow market economics not expect government handouts.
JR
dmp
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
Not sure I see the connection between government regulation and increased STEM education.
Having an engineering degree I think it's important to realize not everyone is going to be able to do well in STEM and it's not going to be a 1 fit solution. There's already growing debate on equalizing outcomes in programming jobs.
Reducing the government regulation would mean less patent protection. The current method of allowing most anything to be patented and then fighting it out in court is far from ideal and favors deep pockets (and creates a industry of patent trolling). Maybe IP protection should be scrapped as an experiment?
But then how would an innovative new company with a great idea for technology every succeed? As soon as they gained some notoriety, the big corporations would steal the idea and crush the little guy.
I happened to serve jury duty about 10 yrs ago and it was civil case for patent infringement. Was a very interesting experience and evidence that the system can work. (plaintiff was the inventor / patent holder that won the case and was rewarded considerable punitive damages).
I've seen some data that new business formation is down - figuring out why is important.
solutions for a different futuredmp said:
I don't
who said anything about equalizing outcomes?
I am talking about acquiring the tools needed to succeed in the future.
;D
patent reform has been in congress for years but congress is run by lawyers, so pretty much any solution favors lawyers over inventors.
;D
like apple? Who crushes them even with patents
I am always glad to hear an optimistic anecdote... most I know about and have personally experienced were negative. Peavey failed to prevent Behringer from copying one of my patented ideas. I guess they used better lawyers.
It takes a certain tolerance for risk... If people want to be fully dependant on others, they pretty much declare themselves expendable.
This isn't easy and requires some promotion. I am waiting to see what Linda McMahon does in the SBA. I tried to get a SBA loan in the early 80's and was turned down... (maybe because I didn't have a college degree.
) JR
dmp
Well-known member
I did...
If you want more and more people to do well in STEM, sometimes you have to lower your standards to let people succeed that aren't meant for it. I don't think this is the route we should go to get more STEM grads.
My business partner got me to look into small business loans to finance a new hire and try to grow - the SBA assistance basically went to the bank and the bank still would require me to personally guarantee the loan (i.e. my house and savings as collateral). I said thanks but no thanks.
My experience with lenders is they offer plenty of money, but I'd be dumb to take it (being fiscally conservative)
Was probably different before the debt tumor we've been experiencing over the last ~15 yrs. It's going to pop eventually.
I want more people to succeed, but everybody can't win. Many things in life behave following a gaussian distribution, giving everybody a trophy does not prepare them for the real world. Many will fail, even provided ample opportunity. That is life.dmp said:
Yes SBA is just a loan guarantee that protects the bank for a fraction of the total loan. Banks don't make equity investments. They lend money and expect to always get their money back. They still make lots of bad loans. Bankers aren't the smartest sticks in the bunch, that is why they have such strict rules based lending.
not my experience in the 80's but that was a different time... I had borrowed bank working capital several times for my kit business with a successful business model (kit on cover of popular electronics) and track record of paying back previous bank loans. The manufacturing business was different with me only 1/4 owner, and we had already consumed our personal credit lines. (I couldn't get a house loan back then either. Not exactly the free wheeling, "sign here", housing bubble mentality.)
I had preliminary discussions with investment bankers about an equity infusion and there was interest (the brand was growing and had a good reputation). I discussed it with my three other equal partners (I was president/CEO) and they didn't want to dilute their ownership... My operating partner said he could bootstrap business growth from the checking acct cash flow. He was so weak about finance (math) that he bounced checks to put money in an overnight sweeps account because he misunderstood how much interest he wasn't earning until I explained how interest works to him (vendors were calling me personally about corporate checks bouncing). :
I sold them back my 25% for a modest few thousand dollars (that they paid me off in TS-1 test sets). I got my name taken off the corporate loans and I resigned. They were briefly happy with their increased share of ownership, but went out of business in less than 2 years. I am convinced that Loft could be a major brand today if they were willing to own 10% of a success instead of 33% of nothing. Note to self: never own less than 51% of your own business when possible.
Yes, the easy money regime has distorted many things. Start up business valuations are crazy lately with pre-IPO valuations being higher than after the IPO. Snap chat IPO'd and then dropped, blue apron almost couldn't book their IPO and is sagging bad. A lot of smart money hasn't been very smart. But that is the nature of economic distortions, chasing return any where they can find it, typically moving out the risk curve.
Today I bought some old school (intel) stock with a nice 3% dividend... The stock market was on sale today (because of all the chicken little arm waving). Only thing I own that went up today is gold, but people will probably buy bitcoin instead of gold in the future so it may never recover to previous highs. of course if we all go up in a nuclear holocaust the dividend return won't matter, Maybe the gold will. 8)
JR
midwayfair
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
It's coming back. This is used in classrooms:
https://scratch.mit.edu/
When I went to school, we were taught some basics of programming. I remember doing turtle graphics in elementary school (which requires actual math-based programming to draw specific shapes and involves loops), though we also did typing games and -- I'm giving away my age here -- Oregon Trail. My school wasn't an outlier, either. It wasn't terribly rare at the time because other people my age remember learning it in elementary school.
My dad also taught me a little. I knew enough basic in middle school to write text games with sound and ancii graphics with my cousin on weekends and remembered it well enough to write visual basic scripts for my science editing job -- so I must have learned it somewhere.
There was a drought between the mid-late 90s and maybe 5 years ago where it was very hard to find programming in public schools, but I've heard more and more people mention that they had it as part of their curriculum in the last few years.
I can hypothesize a reason for this: computers at that point had become a complex enough machine that it was far more useful to teach people how to use a word processor and spreadsheet program than to teach them useful programming skills, and by the time I was at the end of high school you could probably expect people to own a computer. Learning text-based console output is really unimpressive for kids who by that time had 3D graphics in their games. But you also could not expect your average teacher in my parent's generation to be able to teach programming -- it's still an esoteric skill. However, I can say that my university started requiring the first comp sci course for every STEM degree starting maybe 10 years ago, and that means that anyone getting a degree in the sciences will have the knowledge base to teach basic topics. (For clarity, this includes anyone getting e.g. a math or physics teaching certificate.)
What I'm saying is, there's been a skill gap among teachers for a while to accomplish what you're suggesting, but things are improving from both ends.
Whether or not it's the right call is hard to say, though. Programming can devolve to a type of problem solving where you tackle a problem once and then either remember how to do it or look it up later, rather than learning how to craft a solution. In other words, the fact that someone knows from a young age how to write a for loop that sums some numbers or does their math homework for them isn't the same as learning the underlying skills. We teach children comprehensively how to do arithmetic but many people barely understand it and often can't solve problems that require math they already know. In other words, simply adding programming to the curriculum like a foreign language doesn't guarantee computer literacy much less programming literacy and it's likely to be one more thing for someone to learn once and forget.
EDIT Took out some negative stuff at the end of my post that was pretty much pointless.
I only learned Fortran IV as a freshman in college.
There are now children's toys that teach them basic programming.
Alternately AI and voice recognition technology are making programming skill less necessary for many occupations.
JR
There are now children's toys that teach them basic programming.
Alternately AI and voice recognition technology are making programming skill less necessary for many occupations.
JR
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
Yes, advances in technology are simultaneously and ironically making programming both more, and less important than ever.JohnRoberts said:
I have been following this for a long time and one concern about so much technology manufacturing moving offshore is imagine some future where computer programming must be done in Chinese (while my initial concern was Japanese which tells you how long I have been thinking about this).Phrazemaster said:
JR
Similar threads
