How will it reduce demand for parking? Do you envision the car will drop someone off and then drive away until it finds a parking spot that’s farther than the person would want to walk?

That sounds like a very hard problem , and people wouldn’t be happy waiting 5-10 minutes for their car to navigate back to them. Or it would just cruise around looking for parking, causing more traffic.

Cars could tailgate like virtual train cars following each other at highway speeds with very little separation, lanes could be narrowed to fit more cars side by side in traffic, etc.

Once again reinventing buses and trains

It took like 100 years to build the car-hell we have now. It’s going to take a lot of time and effort to fix it.

And people are, famously, stupid. They’ll fight like hell to avoid change, but once it’s in they’ll fight like hell to keep that change.

Plus there’s a lot of selfish idiots that need to be overridden.

So leave that problem for later. Let them keep driving themselves, and focus on improvements where people actually live.

Most people live in or close to cities.

You have to be careful at low skill/knowledge levels, because it’ll happily send you down a crazy path that looks legitimate.

I asked it how to do something in oracle SQL, because I don’t know oracle specifically, and it gave me a terrible answer. I suspected it wasn’t right so I asked a coworker who’s an old hand at Oracle, and he was like “no that’s terrible. Here’s a much simpler way”

I found it’s useful for code where I know like 70% of what I’m doing. More than that and I can just do it myself. Less than that and I can’t trust and diagnose the output.

I’d rather have old fashioned stack overflow and tutorials, honestly. It’s hard to actually learn when it just gives answers.

I don’t have the means or motivation to do research now from the couch, so I’ll concede you may be correct. However, I think it might be even safer to take those same billions of dollars and invest them in mass transit and other infrastructure changes. That would mean fewer car accidents, less pollution, nicer spaces, healthier people, healthier economies, etc. private car ownership cannot be the long term solution. If it’s not an outright dead end, it’s certainly a side street instead of high speed rail (if you’ll pardon a strained metaphor).

Self driving cars are a great idea, but they aren’t a fix everything solution, they just one part of an overall solution.

Why are they a great idea? What are they making better? How is it worth the real and opportunity costs?

To be clear, I didn’t insist we run women candidates anyway. That’s a tactical decision I don’t feel qualified to make from the toilet where I make Lemmy posts.

I just want us to agree that those 30% of men or whatever are trash. Because they are trash. Trash that votes, but still trash.

(And not irredeemable - many things that end up in the trash can be fixed or repurposed. People are not immutable.)

Some men will simply not vote for a woman, it’s sad, but it’s reality.

Can we all agree that those men are trash? I don’t care what else they’ve got going on, if they refuse to vote for a woman because she’s a woman, they deserve to go into the dumpster.

I’m so sick of all these sacks of shit making the world worse

Self driving cars have always been a stupid solution to the wrong problem.

We shouldn’t be investing billions in them. We should be investing billions in creating livable spaces that don’t need cars so much. Then people will be happier and there will be less pollution.

But I guess that’s not profitable so I guess we’ll just do idiotic garbage that gets people killed.

I didn’t think anyone liked Vance. But I guess there are a lot of sexists and Republican cultists out there.

It’s hard to explain a real plan when most people are only semi literate, with no attention span, and no real knowledge of how government works.

What percentage of people believe the president writes laws, do you think?