Robotic Achievement

[dcarrigg]

Re: Robotic Achievement

It's funny you mention that.

I just spent some time with an exceptionally capable network security subject matter expert.

We spent some time discussing the vastly overwhelming economic crime aspect of computer security.

I was far more interested in the far smaller, but potentially far more dangerous geopolitical/warfighting aspects of computer security.

Some of the items discussed were along the lines of what you mentioned, autonomous or human driven vehicles that are killed at traffic choke points based on GPS locations and time windows.

The good old news is that requires a fairly broad and deep skill set as well as considerable operational planning and management. Likely the domain of only a small but growing number of sovereign states, or possibly a few hacker networks(at this stage highly unlikely to shift from economic crime to geopolitical and associated unwanted attention).

Personally, what I'm excited to see is how technology can be applied to assist cities in better unclogging congestion.

Policing and ambulance fleet management has improved thru best maps and big data analysis, I would think unclogging mega cities of the future will be both incredibly interesting and challenging work bringing instantaneous and positive economic impact to the immediate community.

About 10 years ago now, a proto-version of what would become killer bees was released in the wild. At the time, there were several unsecured zigbee protocols running all sorts of major infrastructure (especially energy infrastructure) in the state. Even if all that the network was doing was sending data around, you could conceivably (and trivially) cause catastrophic failure by feeding the sensors readings that automated systems would react to.

You'd think security would rate in these scenarios, but it turns out in bigger industrial applications there more often than not would be more unsecured data flying everywhere and less security than retail/residential applications that use bluetooth, as there's simply a greater focus on the bottom line. So with little more than a low-power laptop and a few parts you could buy at Radio Shack then, or a $50 netbook and a Raspberry Pi now, you could conceivably open dam gates during floods or shut down, overload (or worse) natural gas plants.

Thankfully, most of that stuff has been caught up with and hardened some by now. But for a while, forget traffic choke points, imagine being able to cause a blackout and a massive explosion in a city during a flood downtown with a free download and $200 or less of equipment you could use remotely from your car...

Don't get me wrong...I'm no technophobe...but I also know that more problems can be created by this nonsense than solved a lot of times.

I mean, think of what you would do if you had congestion in a city and self-driving cars were not an option?

Well, you'd have to do a few things:

1. Build out mass transit, add streetcars and busses and subways and walkways and walk bridges.
2. Add lanes to highways and roads and build tunnels and bridges.
3. Add middle and low income housing directly in the city (increase density) to reduce commute times. Do not build exclusively luxury units.

We know this stuff works. Chicago opened the L in 1892. Boston installed a subway in 1897. New York did in 1904. Philly got there in 1907. Then nothing for 60 years. San Francisco gets one in 1964. DC (and Baltimore via Green Line) gets one in 1976. Los Angeles doesn't get one until 1993. San Juan just got one in 2004. I think that's it in the United States.

You know what the problem is? That's 8 cities, and 2 of them barely count. Brazil or France have that many. The US should have more. Of the top 20 cities in the US by population, do you know how many simply have no subway? 15. Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver and El Paso. Sometimes there's geographical reasons for this. Sometimes, it's because the population density is rather low even though they are so populous (spread out). But that's something we also know how to fix. It's ridiculous that it's 2016 and there is no subway line in the South at all and only 2 west of the Mississippi. That's where everyone lives now.

But instead of the obvious solution, we're going to look for the private one. And of course, autonomous cars are and will be too expensive for the everyman, who still doesn't want to cough up the dough for leather seats. But the only way to really get the traffic efficiency out of them is to ban human drivers. Which means punish those who can't/don't want to pay for a massive LIDAR/GPS/Tracking system on their automobile 24/7.

Seems to me the simpler solution is to just go, "Jeez, in 1966 there were only 250,000 people in San Jose. Today 50 years later, there's over a million. Maybe we better act like a big city and put in some big-boy infrastructure..." But instead it's a hail mary pass to self-driving car networks...

I guess because nobody ever became a billionaire off building subways...or maybe we're just easily bored and distracted by new and shiny things.

I never can be tied to raw, new things,
For I first saw the lights in an old town,
Where from my window huddled roofs sloped down,
To quaint harbor rich with visionings.
Streets with carved doorways where the sunset beams,
Flooded old fanlights and small window panes,
And Georgian steeples topped with gilded vanes--
These were the sights that shaped my childhood dreams.

Such treasures, left from times of cautious leaven,
Cannot but loose the hold of flimsier wraiths
That flit with shifting ways and muddled faiths
Across the changeless walls of earth and heaven.
They cut the moment's thongs and leave me free
To stand before eternity.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Robotic Achievement

About 10 years ago now, a proto-version of what would become killer bees was released in the wild. At the time, there were several unsecured zigbee protocols running all sorts of major infrastructure (especially energy infrastructure) in the state. Even if all that the network was doing was sending data around, you could conceivably (and trivially) cause catastrophic failure by feeding the sensors readings that automated systems would react to.

You'd think security would rate in these scenarios, but it turns out in bigger industrial applications there more often than not would be more unsecured data flying everywhere and less security than retail/residential applications that use bluetooth, as there's simply a greater focus on the bottom line. So with little more than a low-power laptop and a few parts you could buy at Radio Shack then, or a $50 netbook and a Raspberry Pi now, you could conceivably open dam gates during floods or shut down, overload (or worse) natural gas plants.

Thankfully, most of that stuff has been caught up with and hardened some by now. But for a while, forget traffic choke points, imagine being able to cause a blackout and a massive explosion in a city during a flood downtown with a free download and $200 or less of equipment you could use remotely from your car...

Don't get me wrong...I'm no technophobe...but I also know that more problems can be created by this nonsense than solved a lot of times.

I mean, think of what you would do if you had congestion in a city and self-driving cars were not an option?

Well, you'd have to do a few things:

1. Build out mass transit, add streetcars and busses and subways and walkways and walk bridges.
2. Add lanes to highways and roads and build tunnels and bridges.
3. Add middle and low income housing directly in the city (increase density) to reduce commute times. Do not build exclusively luxury units.

We know this stuff works. Chicago opened the L in 1892. Boston installed a subway in 1897. New York did in 1904. Philly got there in 1907. Then nothing for 60 years. San Francisco gets one in 1964. DC (and Baltimore via Green Line) gets one in 1976. Los Angeles doesn't get one until 1993. San Juan just got one in 2004. I think that's it in the United States.

You know what the problem is? That's 8 cities, and 2 of them barely count. Brazil or France have that many. The US should have more. Of the top 20 cities in the US by population, do you know how many simply have no subway? 15. Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver and El Paso. Sometimes there's geographical reasons for this. Sometimes, it's because the population density is rather low even though they are so populous (spread out). But that's something we also know how to fix. It's ridiculous that it's 2016 and there is no subway line in the South at all and only 2 west of the Mississippi. That's where everyone lives now.

But instead of the obvious solution, we're going to look for the private one. And of course, autonomous cars are and will be too expensive for the everyman, who still doesn't want to cough up the dough for leather seats. But the only way to really get the traffic efficiency out of them is to ban human drivers. Which means punish those who can't/don't want to pay for a massive LIDAR/GPS/Tracking system on their automobile 24/7.

Seems to me the simpler solution is to just go, "Jeez, in 1966 there were only 250,000 people in San Jose. Today 50 years later, there's over a million. Maybe we better act like a big city and put in some big-boy infrastructure..." But instead it's a hail mary pass to self-driving car networks...

I guess because nobody ever became a billionaire off building subways...or maybe we're just easily bored and distracted by new and shiny things.

I don't disagree.

But let's compare transportation to telecommunications.

100 years ago we dug subways and erected ELs.

100 years ago we also dug copper underground and above ground.

Fast forward to today and it's incredibly hard to build out mass transport and the above ground easements have been filled(meaning starting over from scratch) and the below ground mega projects as in Seattle and Boston sound like perpetual overtime/budget(if media are credible....I personally don't know).

And in telecom, the majority of the world is building out wireless networks. Many that previously used copper had them ripped out and sold for scrap like the removal of above ground mass transport easements.

Maybe the future is no/less transportation and communication "infrastructure acreage".

I don't see a future of 100% driverless personal vehicles.

I see a future of competing hardware and transport service providers.

Imagine a highly personalised transport subscription service with guaranteed Departure/Arrival times for work, possibly including minimal wait time transfers all managed via real time AI big data analysis.

I think we would be far more likely to see human driver banning in ultra dense, ultra congested urban environments, but hopefully still electric bicycle friendly(they will continue to go big).

Which would be a "needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" situation.

What % of human drivers negates the autonomous fleet performance benefits?

The FAA control all US airspace except for Military stuff.

DoT have had the RITA(Research and Innovation Technology Administration) ITS JPO(Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office) for 25 years.

They need to be driving this autonomous next generation bus/van network standards system, get out of the way of innovation, and trust but verify.

Light rail without the need for rails.

Next gen buses/vans I reckon.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Robotic Achievement

I don't disagree.

But let's compare transportation to telecommunications.

100 years ago we dug subways and erected ELs.

100 years ago we also dug copper underground and above ground.

Fast forward to today and it's incredibly hard to build out mass transport and the above ground easements have been filled(meaning starting over from scratch) and the below ground mega projects as in Seattle and Boston sound like perpetual overtime/budget(if media are credible....I personally don't know).

And in telecom, the majority of the world is building out wireless networks. Many that previously used copper had them ripped out and sold for scrap like the removal of above ground mass transport easements.

Maybe the future is no/less transportation and communication "infrastructure acreage".

I don't see a future of 100% driverless personal vehicles.

I see a future of competing hardware and transport service providers.

Imagine a highly personalised transport subscription service with guaranteed Departure/Arrival times for work, possibly including minimal wait time transfers all managed via real time AI big data analysis.

I think we would be far more likely to see human driver banning in ultra dense, ultra congested urban environments, but hopefully still electric bicycle friendly(they will continue to go big).

Which would be a "needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" situation.

What % of human drivers negates the autonomous fleet performance benefits?

The FAA control all US airspace except for Military stuff.

DoT have had the RITA(Research and Innovation Technology Administration) ITS JPO(Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office) for 25 years.

They need to be driving this autonomous next generation bus/van network standards system, get out of the way of innovation, and trust but verify.

Light rail without the need for rails.

Next gen buses/vans I reckon.

Don't get me wrong. I can totally see it happening. Ban on use of cars. Forced into a subscription service monopoly. Multi-year contract. Not unlike Verizon or AT&T or Comcast. Lots of getting jerked around & worrying about which network you can be on. It'll be great for the pampered yuppie with platinum service on multiple providers. Sort of hellish for everyone else. The nice thing is that where there are subways, they're not going anywhere. In fact, they're being built-out. So there will at least be a competing model where you're free from being forced to sign some awful private contract to use public infrastructure to get around a city.

I mean, this is the way everything's going. Rahm Emmanuel gets in, first thing he does, sell off all the public parking meters to a private company, and lets them charge up to $7 per hour. They, of course, jack up the rate right to the top immediately. Wealthy people are in heaven...if you make $150/hr, now you get open parking with no congestion anywhere downtown 24/7. If you make $15/hr, you can't afford park and go to work any more like you could when it was $1 per hour...

Basically, they can't price it right. You can either price it low enough to keep congestion, or high enough to force the middle class and working class from using the infrastructure. So inevitably, since they all promise no congestion, they all go high. But nearly all have a ceiling, say $15 per mile or $7 per toll, in the contract. So they can never charge enough to really milk the very rich. In the end, that means they are in that weird demographic--catering to the top end of the upper-middle-professional class--and that's always the first stuff to die off when it's belt tightening time. I mean, of the hundreds of proposed congestion pricing projects in the US in the last decade, only a dozen or so actually went through, and nearly all went bankrupt or sold back to the state.

So my questions are:

1. Say the networks happen. Who pays for the roads? Do I still have to use my tax money to pay for roads that Google Cars run on if I'm an Apple Car subscriber and not allowed to travel on Google Car routes? What if I don't want to subscribe at all? You're going to tax me for a road I'm banned from using with my own automobile? Doesn't seem right...

2. Say the roads are tax funded and they all have to compete on the same roads. This pretty much makes them the equivalent of glorified busses. They are not going to go from point A to point B. They are going to stop several times along the route to pick everyone up, presumably. This slows things down. It also means I can't do things I can with my car, like bring back lumber from Home Depot. Or hide a Christmas present in the trunk, or keep a change of clothes in the back seat for after work, or run through the drive thru and grab a coffee in the morning, or keep a deck of cards and a cribbage board around in case I end up somewhere relaxing--or anything like that. All of the freedom of having a car is gone. You're forced to be a bus person. Again, not a huge deal in a city. But there I'd rather pay for a public subway or bus ride than make some far off California billionaire rich by subscribing to a yuppie/gimmicky driverless bus service.

3. Which brings me to my next point. Once cell-phones became a life-necessity and a job-necessity, they became welfare items. At least cheap, crap versions of them. I imagine the current bus system is going nowhere, because at least the bottom 20% will never be able to afford the $500/mo or whatever a base GoogleCar travel plan (no nights or weekends, limited to 10 miles per day) would cost. Now, either they will have to be welfare busses that are driverless that you need to be poor enough to qualify for (this would be a nightmare for the working class, who already can't catch a break and would be forced to pay Google full price), or you leave the system as it is now, and they're just subsidized and cheap for everyone, but they have a driver, in which case, they wouldn't be allowed on the special Google Roads. Again, why am I being taxed to pay for the special Google Road if I don't want to and cannot afford to use it?

4. Even worse? The interstate commerce clause--the early decisions of the Supreme Court negating monopoly ownership of waterways granted by the king--the early lighthouse system and post roads--all of America was set up to help people and information get from point A to point B as freely and cheaply as possible, because we know it is good for commerce and business. Now there's another middle man and an ultra-expensive subscription system? Already, there's a toll on a bridge near my house they jacked up to $4. I stopped going that way. So did most people in town. The few stores on the other side of the bridge lost all the business from this side. What's going to happen when people start reaching near the end of their monthly mileage limit on their plan? They're going to stay home instead of go out. And every time that happens, it's going to depress commerce. The more we charge for transit, the more we punish people's wallets to put a price on congestion, the more we punish the businesses and workplaces those people are headed to, and the less business everyone does.

I seriously could see this implemented on a fairly grand scale and jammed through congress. And I could see a brand new explosion of inequality, unrest, and a massive recession being the result. And that's without any labor displacement. That's just for jacking up the price of doing business and letting a few more monopoly rentiers stick their hands in people's wallets. It really has the potential to be a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that it is a solution looking for a problem (lots of people like enjoy driving, and for those that don't, it's probably not up there with laundry and the dishes on their list of most hated activities). But it's shiny and new. And the billionaires see an opportunity to leech even more out of us. So odds are their will be done.

After all, it's their world. We just live in it.

[jk]

Re: Robotic Achievement

i am currently visiting family in the los angeles area, and i can tell you that anything that reduces congestion will be a slam dunk here. driverless google multi-passenger vans? bring 'em on. i think your $500/mo silver plan will include limits on the number of passengers and/or stops between origin and destination. in fact that is likely to be a big feature discriminating among levels of service. platinum = only 1 passenger or party, non-stop.

you've got to get multiple people in one vehicle or there's virtually no reduction in congestion. the model is just "smart" ad hoc car-pooling. it should be cheaper than maintaining and driving a private vehicle, and still allow for plenty of profit.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Robotic Achievement

Don't get me wrong. I can totally see it happening. Ban on use of cars. Forced into a subscription service monopoly. Multi-year contract. Not unlike Verizon or AT&T or Comcast. Lots of getting jerked around & worrying about which network you can be on. It'll be great for the pampered yuppie with platinum service on multiple providers. Sort of hellish for everyone else. The nice thing is that where there are subways, they're not going anywhere. In fact, they're being built-out. So there will at least be a competing model where you're free from being forced to sign some awful private contract to use public infrastructure to get around a city.

I mean, this is the way everything's going. Rahm Emmanuel gets in, first thing he does, sell off all the public parking meters to a private company, and lets them charge up to $7 per hour. They, of course, jack up the rate right to the top immediately. Wealthy people are in heaven...if you make $150/hr, now you get open parking with no congestion anywhere downtown 24/7. If you make $15/hr, you can't afford park and go to work any more like you could when it was $1 per hour...

Basically, they can't price it right. You can either price it low enough to keep congestion, or high enough to force the middle class and working class from using the infrastructure. So inevitably, since they all promise no congestion, they all go high. But nearly all have a ceiling, say $15 per mile or $7 per toll, in the contract. So they can never charge enough to really milk the very rich. In the end, that means they are in that weird demographic--catering to the top end of the upper-middle-professional class--and that's always the first stuff to die off when it's belt tightening time. I mean, of the hundreds of proposed congestion pricing projects in the US in the last decade, only a dozen or so actually went through, and nearly all went bankrupt or sold back to the state

Personally, I'm no fan of public assets/infrastructure being sold to private corporations.

Individual buildings? Sure.

Monopoly or near monopoly control? Heck no

So my questions are:

1. Say the networks happen. Who pays for the roads? Do I still have to use my tax money to pay for roads that Google Cars run on if I'm an Apple Car subscriber and not allowed to travel on Google Car routes? What if I don't want to subscribe at all? You're going to tax me for a road I'm banned from using with my own automobile? Doesn't seem right...

Well we seem to be heading down the road of road user charges. Insurance companies are keen to insure based on distance and driving habits. Maybe charge per mile for each vehicle with different classes that cause different wear and tear.

2. Say the roads are tax funded and they all have to compete on the same roads. This pretty much makes them the equivalent of glorified busses. They are not going to go from point A to point B. They are going to stop several times along the route to pick everyone up, presumably. This slows things down. It also means I can't do things I can with my car, like bring back lumber from Home Depot. Or hide a Christmas present in the trunk, or keep a change of clothes in the back seat for after work, or run through the drive thru and grab a coffee in the morning, or keep a deck of cards and a cribbage board around in case I end up somewhere relaxing--or anything like that. All of the freedom of having a car is gone. You're forced to be a bus person. Again, not a huge deal in a city. But there I'd rather pay for a public subway or bus ride than make some far off California billionaire rich by subscribing to a yuppie/gimmicky driverless bus service.

I've used Uber where we have shared rides as well as used multiple vehicles, while my rental car has been sitting today, but used tomorrow.

I think options would quickly develop. At Stanford we had a bunch of handy ultra short term rental cars available to be accessed via smart phone.

But I don't see personal human driven cars going away anytime soon. But I could easily imagine certain high density/congestion zones having lockout periods, some possibly 24/7. But I think the majority wouldn't. At least not for an extended period of time.

I think competition would keep costs reasonable. Think a 3rd world tuk tuk. BUT tied into a transportation API and multisided marketplace for drivers and passengers. A better, faster, cheaper decentralised version of airline scheduling and deconfliction.

Surely there will be big players and specialised players, and niche players.

Sitting in one of Google's very own fleet on Google buses(comfy biz class type seats, drinks, coffee, high speed internet) was interesting. They're doing it because even 3-4 well paid kids are struggling to share a place 1 hour away while saving for a house. It's not the why, but the how...which will get cheaper and trickle down to us commoners.

Young Gen Y/Z are already living without cars and traveling via Uber and Lyft as main form of transport.

3. Which brings me to my next point. Once cell-phones became a life-necessity and a job-necessity, they became welfare items. At least cheap, crap versions of them. I imagine the current bus system is going nowhere, because at least the bottom 20% will never be able to afford the $500/mo or whatever a base GoogleCar travel plan (no nights or weekends, limited to 10 miles per day) would cost. Now, either they will have to be welfare busses that are driverless that you need to be poor enough to qualify for (this would be a nightmare for the working class, who already can't catch a break and would be forced to pay Google full price), or you leave the system as it is now, and they're just subsidized and cheap for everyone, but they have a driver, in which case, they wouldn't be allowed on the special Google Roads. Again, why am I being taxed to pay for the special Google Road if I don't want to and cannot afford to use it?

As stated previously, I reckon user pays by vehicle per mile per vehicle class with that passed on to passenger fares if fare paying use.

I've had contact with 2 Estonians. A guy who led the civilian internet security response to the Russian based cyber attacks in 2007 as well as a young brilliant girl in the StartUp space here in NZ.

Estonia is the most digital centric country in the world. Maybe we should look to Estonia as to how internet access can evolve as a basic need and even a right.

But yeah, connectivity will become even more essential than it is now. Those not connected do run the risk of being unseen or conveniently ignored. Maybe homelessness evolves into not connected?


4. Even worse? The interstate commerce clause--the early decisions of the Supreme Court negating monopoly ownership of waterways granted by the king--the early lighthouse system and post roads--all of America was set up to help people and information get from point A to point B as freely and cheaply as possible, because we know it is good for commerce and business. Now there's another middle man and an ultra-expensive subscription system? Already, there's a toll on a bridge near my house they jacked up to $4. I stopped going that way. So did most people in town. The few stores on the other side of the bridge lost all the business from this side. What's going to happen when people start reaching near the end of their monthly mileage limit on their plan? They're going to stay home instead of go out. And every time that happens, it's going to depress commerce. The more we charge for transit, the more we punish people's wallets to put a price on congestion, the more we punish the businesses and workplaces those people are headed to, and the less business everyone does.

I seriously could see this implemented on a fairly grand scale and jammed through congress. And I could see a brand new explosion of inequality, unrest, and a massive recession being the result. And that's without any labor displacement. That's just for jacking up the price of doing business and letting a few more monopoly rentiers stick their hands in people's wallets. It really has the potential to be a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that it is a solution looking for a problem (lots of people like enjoy driving, and for those that don't, it's probably not up there with laundry and the dishes on their list of most hated activities). But it's shiny and new. And the billionaires see an opportunity to leech even more out of us. So odds are their will be done.

After all, it's their world. We just live in it.

In short, I think it will be desperately needed in our key high density urban environments. London commuting speeds are pretty shocking.

But I think in rural USA I don't see this much beyond long haul trucking and Ubers for boozers. Unless people do not enjoy driving. Not everyone does. Many would prefer being connected or productive. Again, maybe we should be checking with what Gen Y/Z want within their budgets.

Drugs and alcohol consumption is down for their cohort, with excess funds going to connectivity....and also relevant...drivers license issuance in youth cohorts is dropping noticeably.

How did we survive before cheap airfares, fax machines, email, and mobile phones?

In 10-20 years I think it may be: how did we survive without connected autonomous vehicle networks that can effortlessly and cooperatively squeeze 30 cars thru a green light instead of just 10 human driven cars.

Me? I'm enamoured with augmented reality potential.....which may reduce my need to travel so much in some distant time in the future.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Robotic Achievement

In short, I think it will be desperately needed in our key high density urban environments. London commuting speeds are pretty shocking.

But I think in rural USA I don't see this much beyond long haul trucking and Ubers for boozers. Unless people do not enjoy driving. Not everyone does. Many would prefer being connected or productive. Again, maybe we should be checking with what Gen Y/Z want within their budgets.

Drugs and alcohol consumption is down for their cohort, with excess funds going to connectivity....and also relevant...drivers license issuance in youth cohorts is dropping noticeably.

How did we survive before cheap airfares, fax machines, email, and mobile phones?

In 10-20 years I think it may be: how did we survive without connected autonomous vehicle networks that can effortlessly and cooperatively squeeze 30 cars thru a green light instead of just 10 human driven cars.

Me? I'm enamoured with augmented reality potential.....which may reduce my need to travel so much in some distant time in the future.

The thing about millenials and taking ubers instead of owning cars is really class based. I mean, if you want to drive an old rust bucket you bought in cash 15 or 20,000 miles per year, that might cost you $5,000 in gas, maintenance, tickets, insurance, repairs and whatnot. If you want to take Uber everywhere, even the cheap ones, even if you miraculously manage to never get hit with surge pricing, you're still talking closer to $20,000 for the privilege. For the median family in the US making about $54,000 before taxes, throwing half of what your household earns at Uber is just not an option. And the median millennial household earns far less than that. Besides which, since the bottom of the great recession, in the last couple years, millennial car buying behavior has bounced back, even with new cars. I think kids wanted cars, they just couldn't afford them in the nadir of the recession, as they were most negatively financially impacted as a generation, and people took that to be a sign that they were "shunning" car and home ownership rather than that they were broke and too poor for it due to high student debt and a jobless recovery:



So I notice I don't see Ubers or any Lyft mustaches when I go to a state university. Ask kids there, most have never used it. Go to an Ivy League school, and the things are everywhere. That's when it dawns on you that they are just too pricy. That's why I also selected $500/mo as a somewhat reasonable price (about $100 per week) for an automated car network plan. That's on the edge of what people can afford, but it's much closer to what the average driver who owns his/her vehicle pays today. Charge much higher, and you're leaving out the middle class. It will be a minor miracle if they can get the seats that cheap. Those lidar arrays still cost more than the car they mount them on. But I figure it's possible...eventually. And they'll probably cap you at X rides and X miles per month or something.

As for, How did we survive before cheap airfares, fax machines, email, and mobile phones? TBH, most Americans on average fly less than two round-trips per decade (and nearly 20% have never flown in their lives, and only 30% say they have flown in the past 12-18 months). Most never use a fax machine. The cell phones and e-mail are ubiquitous, though. But e-mail is only vital for the white collar set. Lots of folks I know either don't use it regularly or just have a shared one for the household.

So far as licenses go, a big issue there is that youth employment has plummeted. Over 50% of kids 16-19 worked at least 20 hours per week in the summer at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration. That figure is down to between 20 and 25% now. Look around when you go to a fast food joint or hotel or knick-knack shop or restaurant or convenience store...most of those jobs that in the 1990s would have been held by kids are now held by adults. My guess is kids are getting squeezed between the middle here. On one hand, adults are hard up for work, wages are low, so they'll take crappy minimum wage jobs with no set schedule or benefits or future. On the other hand, college admissions are getting more and more competitive, so you'd better be a nearly pro-caliber athlete along with a nearly grammy-caliber musician and president of the student council while go get straight As. And for whatever reason, minimum wage jobs do not count or impress admissions officers. Probably old class bias again. So parents would rather their kids do an extra 4 extra curricular activities and get into a better school or get a scholarship than have them work. And this trend, of course, is choppy. But it's not hard to think that the summer and/or after school job and the car go hand in hand. It's how it was for me and nearly everyone I knew. You save up a few hundred or a thousand. You buy some friend or relative's rust bucket off them with that. You use a chunk of the rest of what you earn to keep that sucker on the road. Then you use the rest to be a bit independent--buy your girlfriend something for her birthday--go to a concert or a ball game with your buddies--buy yourself a guitar--play 'Hey Mister!' in the package store parking lot until you score some beers--you know, kid stuff. Now there is no job, so the whole thing falls apart.

But there is a generational change there for real, maybe. Because 'no job' wasn't really an option I remember my father accepting. He dragged me down to the golf course at 11 years old and had me shag bags around for rich folk for a couple dollars an hour under the table. From there, my only way out was to find my own other work. And sure enough, I did and have ever since. But even then, it was networking. A friend of a friend had a job here or there. I hear a ton of kids--college grads--complain about starting into the job market, and I realize they've never even played the game on the small-scale for minimum wage jobs, that's why it's so confusing or seems so unfair to them. They just don't understand it, because they've never been in it.

But I'll tell you one other thing: I just about promise that drugs and alcohol consumption are down for the new cohort for the same reason. No money. No job, no money. No job, no money, no car. No job, no money, no car, no freedom. No job, no money, no car, no freedom, no adventures. That, to me anyways, is a much more plausible explanation for variation in millennial behavior than 'the need to stay connected' or some other nebulous thing like that. They just don't have the jobs or the money that even Gen X or the early millennials had.

[jk]

Re: Robotic Achievement

i think you need to add urban residence in congested cities with public transit as a reason to skip car ownership. when my son lived in dallas, he had a car. in manhattan, no thanks.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Robotic Achievement

i think you need to add urban residence in congested cities with public transit as a reason to skip car ownership. when my son lived in dallas, he had a car. in manhattan, no thanks.

Maybe. But let's face it: To live in Manhattan in this day in age means you're probably earning at the top 10% of the income distribution or better. Now, you never really needed a car in Manhattan. But this day in age, it's almost a class thing any way you cut it. You have the bottom 20%...who are earning below $20k, which is too poor for a car, but who can't afford to live directly in cities or on train lines, and so they rely mostly on busses. Then you have the middle 60%, who earn between about $20k and $100k, who rely mostly on cars, but who may have long train commutes or rely partly on park-and-rides or something too. Then you have the top 20% earning $100k+, who can potentially afford to live directly in city centers or to pay for Uber or taxis daily or fancier things the higher up the income scale you go...

That's just the way the split works I think. The majority of Americans fall in that center gap still. In fact, Americans are becoming less mobile and moving less. Even the idea for moving from home (you're nearby me right?) to Dallas to NYC is very much an upper-middle-class+ luxury. The majority of Americans (nearly 60%) are born in and die in their home states. 37% never leave their home town. Even 40% of college grads never leave their home state.

Bouncing from city to city like this seems normal, but actually millennials are less likely to leave their home towns than previous generations. It's just the top 25% of them are moving from city to city more often and faster. The bottom 75% of them are largely going nowhere.

The media only likes to talk about millennial trends that happen for that top 25%. And I imagine your son is in that group, and easily. But the reality of life for the majority of millennials is very different. They are growing up when everything is coming apart. There is way more income inequality for them than even people just a few years older. The result is that they really are sort of splitting into multiple lifestyles that don't overlap or interact.

[jk]

Re: Robotic Achievement

i think a lot of geographic mobility was destroyed by the housing crisis. in recessions prior to that workers would relocate. i remember [i forget how many recessions ago] when there was a big flow from the rust belt to e.g. texas. once people were stuck with underwater mortgages, however, they were stuck geographically.

i do think there's also a socioeconomic class effect on mobility. it's partly income, partly education. i know of some e.g. ass't professors who have had to move 1000's of miles to get an academic job, and count themselves lucky to have one at all. they are not big earners. but i certainly agree that mobility correlates strongly with money, too.

among the handful of people i count as my friends, there is not one living in the state in which he grew up. and in a few weeks my son will be leaving manhattan for a new job. at that point my 3 children will each be living 2800 - 3100 miles from where they grew up. [which is not very convenient for me]

[vt]

Re: Robotic Achievement

[vt]

Re: Robotic Achievement

https://www.rt.com/viral/373450-robo...itches-status/

[Adeptus]

Re: Robotic Achievement

Robot Chef: Saw some videos on this a few weeks ago. Very impressive. Would seriously consider buying it if the human reviews of the product match the demos' claims.

What is it? It's a pair of robotic arms you install in your kitchen above your stove. The Robot Chef comes with 2,000 pre-configured recipes it can cook from scratch, but you can add on nearly endless recipes, including your own. Imagine, coming home each day from work to a 5 star Michelin cooked meal, hot and ready to eat! Good bye fast food restaurants! And all for only for a price of 10,000 GBP. The high dexterity of the robotic hands have been a work in progress for the past 17 years, it's not just ready for hospital operating tables, but your kitchen as well!

At a glance I rate this 8/10. Why? Still needs integration to your smart fridge that auto-orders food from your grocery store delivered by drone just in time for the robot to begin cooking. Oh and the ability for 'something' to get the food out from the fridge and to the Robot arms above the stove automagically. Lastly, I question the safety of the whole system. IMHO it would require a fire safety mechanism in case the robot drops some oil and starts a fire. Yes, it's not as technically impressive as passing turing tests.. but hell, this could be a huge lifestyle improvement at a very affordable cost for most middle class humans.

Here's one sample video, for more just go to youtube and type "Robot Chef"

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Robotic Achievement

Thanks Adeptus, great find!
That is a a truly amazing mechanism.
It certainly fits the spirit of Turing testing -a biomimetic machine that can use human hand tools successfully.

It's also interesting how they's split up the problem.
By recording movements from a human chef, they get to skip all the control and sensor issues, and work only with the issues of the end effector for motion and force with mechanical hands and arms.
That bit alone might have a thousand future applications from hazardous work to prosthetics.

[jk]

Re: Robotic Achievement

https://www.rt.com/viral/373450-robo...itches-status/

according the article they want to legislate asimov's 3 laws! [but he is not credited]

[DSpencer]

Re: Robotic Achievement

Robot Chef: Saw some videos on this a few weeks ago. Very impressive. Would seriously consider buying it if the human reviews of the product match the demos' claims.

What is it? It's a pair of robotic arms you install in your kitchen above your stove. The Robot Chef comes with 2,000 pre-configured recipes it can cook from scratch, but you can add on nearly endless recipes, including your own. Imagine, coming home each day from work to a 5 star Michelin cooked meal, hot and ready to eat! Good bye fast food restaurants! And all for only for a price of 10,000 GBP. The high dexterity of the robotic hands have been a work in progress for the past 17 years, it's not just ready for hospital operating tables, but your kitchen as well!

At a glance I rate this 8/10. Why? Still needs integration to your smart fridge that auto-orders food from your grocery store delivered by drone just in time for the robot to begin cooking. Oh and the ability for 'something' to get the food out from the fridge and to the Robot arms above the stove automagically. Lastly, I question the safety of the whole system. IMHO it would require a fire safety mechanism in case the robot drops some oil and starts a fire. Yes, it's not as technically impressive as passing turing tests.. but hell, this could be a huge lifestyle improvement at a very affordable cost for most middle class humans.

Here's one sample video, for more just go to youtube and type "Robot Chef"

As much as I love the potential of robotics, I am not at all sold on a robotic home chef. First of all, I like cooking and I'm not sure I want to outsource that. It also seems like picking one of the hardest challenges before much simpler tasks have been mastered. Cooking requires a wide range of skills and most of them would be very hard to learn by watching someone make a recipe once.

Last night I made Udon Beef Soup. I had to thin slice some ribeye steak and my steak was bone-in. Can the robot watch me once and know how to cut meat off the bone? Will it realize if there is a small piece of bone in the meat? Or will I have to wait until I crack a tooth to realize? Does the robot know that the weird slime in one of my green onions is not something I want to eat? Does it really know if food is done or does it just memorize the time and hope for the best?

A pair of arms also can't get all the ingredients from my pantry to the setup zone so I still have to do part of the job anyway. To really work on it's own I'd probably have to redo my entire kitchen. Pretty soon the robot kitchen would cost more than your house. This makes way more sense in limited applications such as a robot that makes perfect burgers for a restaurant than a do-everything robot for your home.

Now if there is one that can wash the dishes so I can cook without cleaning...I'm sold.