- Member for
- 8 years 34 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 days 6 hours ago||Al Groh left the Jets to||
Al Groh left the Jets to coach UVA. Succeed? Well....temporarily.
|3 days 10 hours ago||I might be a little salty||
I might be a little salty that Miracle Whip cost me a decade or so of eating mayo.
|3 days 18 hours ago||No, there's no mayo in||
No, there's no mayo in Miracle Whip. If there were, it might taste good. Instead it is an eldritch abomination that happens to superficially resemble mayo and tastes like something scooped off the bottom of a dumpster.
I used to think I hated mayo. That was when I was little and thought that Miracle Whip was mayo. Sometime in high school I realized my error.
|3 days 19 hours ago||I went to a chicken and||
I went to a chicken and waffles food truck once and tried a combo of syrup and Texas Pete hot sauce. It was amazing. It was kinda like sweet'n'sour with a slight kick.
|4 days 2 hours ago||I love how people act like||
I love how people act like that would do anything. As if it would not be replaced by an organization run by and for the same exact people.
|4 days 8 hours ago||It's just that when one's||
It's just that when one's hobby is sailboat racing, one picks up on a basic idea of how wind behaves. Or else one loses more often than not. I'm not a meteorologist or anything.
|4 days 23 hours ago||Actually, I'd bet that Yoder||
Actually, I'd bet that Yoder knows exactly what escrow is, and claimed not to in order to make his lie sound credible.
His "anyone can fake emails" demonstration consisted of forwarding a forged email from his own account, but his accusation was that O'Grady sent one from a fake account. Any asshole can type up a fake email that looks like a real one, but his ability to do so had nothing to do with what he was actually claiming.
In short, Yoder is a liar, and not a very good one.
|5 days 3 hours ago||The wind would be bonkers.||
The wind would be bonkers. Simplistically, wind is just air moving from high to low pressure areas. Cold air is denser and therefore higher pressure. Sea breezes form in the afternoon and evening when the land, which has heated up faster during the day, is warmer than the water next to it, and shore breezes will form in the morning because the land has cooled off faster, absent any other weather patterns. On a macro scale, with a tidally locked planet, chances are the wind would blow furiously from the night side to the day side, then rise upwards and blow equally furiously the other way at high altitudes. This depends on the characteristics of the atmosphere, of course. But the "habitable twilight zone" would be forever subject to screaming winds.
|5 days 3 hours ago||Gaslighting is when you lie||
Gaslighting is when you lie to someone that they're imagining things that are actually true, to convince them that they're paranoid, insane, memory is going, etc. Gaslighting in this case would be if the league denied a technical foul was ever called and said we all just imagined it or mistook it for something else.
|5 days 3 hours ago||Seen in this light, their||
Seen in this light, their desire for an early signing period is even more ridiculous and self-serving.
|6 days 4 hours ago||Upvote this comment if||
Upvote this comment if BIGBLUEWORLD is a poopyface. Downvote if BIGBLUEWORLD is a booger brain.
|6 days 7 hours ago||DISRESPEKT||
|6 days 8 hours ago||There's a pretty big||
There's a pretty big difference between "the cars suck" and "I hate the cars." You're not much different from most people in that they think their experience is the defining one. So you had a shitty Mazda - I once drove a great Mazda around for a while. So do Mazdas suck, or did you just have a bad one?
|6 days 9 hours ago||About 1.5 seconds is enough||
About 1.5 seconds is enough time to inbound and shoot, especially from where they would've had the ball. I think there's reward there. You're right, though, the risk is probably not worth it since free throws for the other team are a lot more of a sure bet.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Recently I was watching a||
Recently I was watching a Valentine-reffed game and thinking I hadn't seen a lot of antics and theatrics out of him in a while. TV Teddy was back with a vengeance. Then he managed to swallow his whistle when our guy got knocked over with 1 second to go in regulation. Can't call that, it would've made the crowd all upset.
|1 week 1 day ago||Actually, I think what it||
Actually, I think what it means is that only autistic people buy organic food.
|1 week 1 day ago||The worst part about science||
The worst part about science is that it makes people actually believe statements like that. "Science is true!" ignores how often real, actual scientists have been wrong in the past and how wrong they might actually be right now. And most actual scientists will tell you that. Science is supposed to question things, not leave the whole world at a definitive THIS IS TRUE FOREVER conclusion.
|1 week 3 days ago||No, no it's not. What good||
No, no it's not. What good is a community if it can't offer support and assistance every once in a while? The only way it would be distasteful is if boliver is lying. I very much doubt he is.
|1 week 4 days ago||He was handed the Harbaugh||
He was handed the Harbaugh opportunity, but that would've been an easy one to botch. Harbaugh would've sniffed out phoniness quickly.
|1 week 4 days ago||Sam Bradford? Ryan||
Sam Bradford? Ryan Tannehill? Is this some kind of bizarre joke?
|1 week 4 days ago||You do realize that he has||
You do realize that he has practically nothing to do with how many points his team gives up. "Maintaining leads" is the job of the defense.
|1 week 5 days ago||Couple of points: If people||
Couple of points:
If people wanted to car-pool, they'd do that now. All the advantages of it - less need for parking, less money spent on gas - already exist. For individuals, they would actually exist less with driverless Uber carpools. Convenience is why they don't. Being required to leave work at a specific time is very difficult for a lot of people. Flexibility to leave when they want is important. For people like shift workers, they're likely to prefer going straight home instead of picking up the rest of that day's carpool and then dropping them off all in different places.
So carpooling is not likely to greatly increase in a driverless Uber world - which means that the number of vehicles sitting idle doesn't decrease and miles driven actually goes way up, since those vehicles sit idle somewhere other than the office or factory parking lot. At best, those cars can go pick up people who aren't at work and run their errands, but there had better be enough to take everyone home when they want to go home, otherwise people will just keep having their own cars.
For things like football games and concerts, people do all show up at different times, but they all leave at once. It's bad enough when all the traffic flows one way. With a driverless Uber service, they have to come in and out. You would either be waiting an hour or more for your car, as all 100,000 people at the game try to find the one they ordered, or the cars would show up during the game ready to take people home - in which case the benefit of not having parking lots is totally lost.
The final question: Who actually owns all these vehicles? The biggest fleets in the country are rental companies like Hertz, and they have roughly a couple thousand cars in any given metro area. The driverless Uber fleet you're talking about has to comprise millions of cars in any given metro area. The only companies with the size, cash flow, revenue, infrastructure, etc. to own all these cars are the manufacturers themselves. For anyone else to pick up the slack, there would have to be hundreds of these companies. And in order for that business model to work, they recognize revenue for a car when it rolls out of the plant. Changing to a model where they get that revenue $5 at a time does not suffice to pay for building those cars.
|1 week 5 days ago||I'm not convinced of that.||
I'm not convinced of that. For one thing, there's no "will happen" with autonomous cars, only "might happen" or "could happen."
Second, the idea that cars sit unused 95% of the time, I'm not even convinced that's a problem. This is true for many things we own. Pots and pans, for example. We don't think of renting on demand pots and pans, and we wouldn't even if it cost a penny each time. Why? Convenience, obviously. No on-demand vehicle service can beat the convenience of having your car right there whenever you want it.
How does this work at shift change at unionized plants and shops? Do 500 people all order an Uber at once and wait in line for them all to show up? How does the network handle that? There are obviously more cars on the road at rush hour than at noon, because they're all parked. All these cars still have to exist because they have to take everyone home, so where do they go? A central depot, so that it takes longer for them to show up? As you say, parking is eliminated, so do they just drive around in circles? And at the end of the shift, it's WAY more efficient for everyone to head out to the parking lot to their own car than for everyone to sit around waiting for everyone else to get in their own Uber.
Even worse: Movies. Concerts. Football games. 100,000 people all ordering Ubers at once????? Sure, the getting-out-of-the-parking-lot situation is always a huge pain in the ass. That's only one way. You're telling me we're going to complicate that by having 50,000 cars all show up AND leave at once?? How do you propose to solve that one?
|1 week 5 days ago||You even made the point that||
I assume you mean here that I said that it takes hundreds of thousands of hours to train a human driver, in which case, no I didn't. I made the point that it takes thousands of hours to teach a computer to do things that humans can figure out almost instinctively.
Neither was the point that "it takes too long, so we shouldn't do it." The whole time I was pointing out advantages human drivers have over computers. As in, a teenaged driver can be taught how to drive in a few weeks of instruction. OK, so in a fully autonomous world, there'll be no need for traffic cops - but in the meantime, autonomous cars will have to operate in a human-driving world, so they'll need to figure that out. And certain things will never go away no matter how autonomous the car. Like snow. Human drivers often have either terrible discipline or way too much discipline in the snow, but human brains are still amazingly good at adapting to snowy conditions.
|1 week 6 days ago||I hate to go here because||
I hate to go here because obviously, but there's no inherent right to an abortion, either, but they found one in the Constitution anyway so there you go. The point is not to start that debate, but that freedoms not explicitly found in the Constitution can still be implied from it. And mobility, I would think, is a tremendously important one, the limits of which have never been litigated but probably would be if mandatory autonomous cars became a thing.
If you say "there will be driverless Uber so you don't need a car" then you're making the very large mistake of thinking in terms of average usage. Can I go camping in a driverless Uber car? (Do you think people will just want to be left in the wilderness without the ability to leave?) Can I haul a boat across state lines? Can driverless Uber double as a daily work vehicle? If the wife is having a baby, do you think she'll wait patiently while you order up a driverless Uber to take you on a nice slow and sedate ride to the hospital? People will own vehicles. I'm sorry, but the idea that everything will be replaced with some company's driverless car is pie-in-the-sky hyper-futurism - and only one of a whole bunch of possible outcomes.
Yes, traffic deaths did increase in 2015. So did miles traveled. Fatalities per one hundred million miles traveled zoomed upwards from 1.08 to 1.12. That would be the third such year-over-year increase in the last 29 years. Every other year that number has gone down. Down 27% since 2000. Population has risen, miles traveled has risen, fatalities have decreased. Humans are much better drivers than you give them credit for, and safety improvements in cars have helped too.
|1 week 6 days ago||It might. It's a lot to talk||
It might. It's a lot to talk through. Another issue is that you'll pile up miles on the car far faster than you would if it sat in the parking lot during your workday. So, would you really save money if you need to buy a new car twice as often? And, while this is often proposed as a solution to the "problem" of a car sitting unused all day, is it actually better if a car is driving all those empty miles with no passengers? That's exactly what trucks try like hell to avoid. And, autonomous electric cars sound great - but they would demand a wireless charging infrastructure, because if they're tooling around all day on their own, they need to be charged and can't do it on their own at a traditional plug station.
Lots of issues, even with the solutions.
|1 week 6 days ago||Au contraire - humans are||
Au contraire - humans are actually very good at driving. We can process complex rules and situations and don't need millions of miles of testing over and over and over to get it just right. We can understand that even though the light is red, we can go because the man in blue says we can. We instinctively know that it's our turn to go at a four-way stop even though the other three cars haven't come to a complete stop. Computers need hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of programming and testing to realize that.
Humans drive 3.1 trillion miles a year. Roughly one death per one hundred million miles traveled is not bad. It could be improved, yes. Computers don't get complacent, or distracted, and they never forget their programming, and that programming can be instantly transferred to any new vehicle (as opposed to having to teach new human drivers.)
A moral case against being allowed to drive is a bridge too far. You could make the same moral case for a police state in the inner city. You would absolutely save lives. But we don't do that because freedom matters. "Oh, you can just go drive on a track" misses the point.
And lastly, the benefits you propose are overblown. For example, if 90% of deaths could be avoided, there still would be accidents and deaths, and therefore still the need for insurance beyond a tree falling on the car.
|1 week 6 days ago||If Juwan Bushell-Beatty makes||
If Juwan Bushell-Beatty makes a nice block so that Dorian Thompson-Robinson can complete a pass to Donovan Peoples-Jones, announcers are going to hate us.
|1 week 6 days ago||Except, as pointed out below,||
Except, as pointed out below, it will take decades for full autonomy to appear in a critical mass of cars and even longer for them to work through the market. Something like 70% of American adults have smartphones. This is a technology that turns over every couple years or so and costs half a percent the price of a new car.
Until the very distant future, autonomous cars have to drive in a human-driving world, which means the speed limits will stay put for a long time.
|1 week 6 days ago||Great for the "average" use.||
Great for the "average" use. That's the problem with nearly every starry vision of the future. Oh, the average commute is X miles, so an electric car with a certain range is fine for everyone. Elon Musk is a big one for doing this. Oh, our Teslas will take you so many miles from San Francisco, then you can stop, charge up, have a coffee, a nice little rest, and then you're in Los Angeles. He likes to act as if everyone's trip is from SF to LA and back.
Unless you need to do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. 300 million people in the country, 300 million possible uses for a car. Uber shuttles would be fine for commutes - not so much for camping in the backwoods or hauling a boat.