Poll of the Day > Upcoming recession will destroy millennials.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
darkknight109 08/31/19 7:15:35 AM #101:	Kyuubi4269 posted... You hold the country's debt Thus proving that I am not chattel. Thank you for acknowledging the point. Kyuubi4269 posted... you pay tax because you're told to I pay taxes for the same reason I don't beat up my neighbours and steal their house - because it's the law. I enjoy the benefits of those taxes, in the sense that if someone tried to beat me up and steal my house, I can be confident that the entity those taxes get paid to will send a group of people over to remove the offenders. That costs money, though - hence, the taxes. It's a fair tradeoff. Kyuubi4269 posted... you're not free unless you're a recognised nation and you're not Sure I'm free. If I wanted to, I could stop paying taxes, declare myself independent from the government, live life as I choose. I'm perfectly free to do that - no one is standing over my shoulder preventing me from taking those actions. However, the government has told me the actions it would take in response to such conduct and I don't feel like trying to marshal a militia to overthrow them, so while I am free to undertake whatever actions I see fit, they are also free to respond in kind, and I think I like our current arrangement better; I'd rather work with people than against them, y'know? Honestly, the agreement I and the rest of my fellow citizens have with them is pretty good, all things considered, so I don't see reason to try to renegotiate it at present. Also, by your incredibly strange definition, recognized nations aren't free either. All nations have obligations they must follow - to their citizenry, and to their fellow nations. Governments that violate those obligations in a serious enough manner will swiftly find themselves replaced, either from within or without, in the same way that citizens that violate the law typically find themselves imprisoned. That collection of obligations, by the by, is called "society". We've had it for a while and it's worked out pretty well. Kyuubi4269 posted... Imagine you have a loan. You cannot go to your bank and ask them for negative interest and they will not give it to you as you are not valuable. You apparently missed the rest of my answer to this, as I already addressed this. Yes, I can renegotiate my loan. Yes, I can ask for lower interest. And yes, I am valuable to the bank, as I have an extremely good credit rating (to the point where my bank won't shut up about trying to loan me more money, because they know I'm good to pay it back; I get offers from them for new credit cards and/or lines of credit about twice a month). Would they give me negative interest? Not in these market conditions. But that's a difference of price, not concept. If I lived in Denmark, which is currently offering negative interest rates, I absolutely could. Ask any mortgage specialist and they will all tell you the same story: the bank would rather renegotiate your loan than have you default or lose your business. If you lose your job and cannot pay, banks can and will negotiate from you, on the logic that they'd rather get some of their money back than none. I don't know how much you make - perhaps it's a lot less than I do and that's why you think the bank doesn't consider its customers valuable, but I can tell you straight-up that you're wrong about this. A bank without investors is an empty building with no money. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926772156] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You hold the country's debt</quote> Thus proving that I am not chattel. Thank you for acknowledging the point. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>you pay tax because you're told to</quote> I pay taxes for the same reason I don't beat up my neighbours and steal their house - because it's the law. I enjoy the benefits of those taxes, in the sense that if someone tried to beat me up and steal my house, I can be confident that the entity those taxes get paid to will send a group of people over to remove the offenders. That costs money, though - hence, the taxes. It's a fair tradeoff. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>you're not free unless you're a recognised nation and you're not</quote> Sure I'm free. If I wanted to, I could stop paying taxes, declare myself independent from the government, live life as I choose. I'm perfectly free to do that - no one is standing over my shoulder preventing me from taking those actions. However, the government has told me the actions it would take in response to such conduct and I don't feel like trying to marshal a militia to overthrow them, so while I am free to undertake whatever actions I see fit, they are also free to respond in kind, and I think I like our current arrangement better; I'd rather work with people than against them, y'know? Honestly, the agreement I and the rest of my fellow citizens have with them is pretty good, all things considered, so I don't see reason to try to renegotiate it at present. Also, by your incredibly strange definition, recognized nations aren't free either. All nations have obligations they must follow - to their citizenry, and to their fellow nations. Governments that violate those obligations in a serious enough manner will swiftly find themselves replaced, either from within or without, in the same way that citizens that violate the law typically find themselves imprisoned. That collection of obligations, by the by, is called "society". We've had it for a while and it's worked out pretty well. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine you have a loan. You cannot go to your bank and ask them for negative interest and they will not give it to you as you are not valuable. </quote> You apparently missed the rest of my answer to this, as I already addressed this. Yes, I can renegotiate my loan. Yes, I can ask for lower interest. And yes, I am valuable to the bank, as I have an extremely good credit rating (to the point where my bank won't shut up about trying to loan me more money, because they know I'm good to pay it back; I get offers from them for new credit cards and/or lines of credit about twice a month). Would they give me negative interest? Not in these market conditions. But that's a difference of price, not concept. If I lived in Denmark, which is currently offering negative interest rates, I absolutely could. Ask any mortgage specialist and they will all tell you the same story: the bank would rather renegotiate your loan than have you default or lose your business. If you lose your job and cannot pay, banks can and will negotiate from you, on the logic that they'd rather get some of their money back than none. I don't know how much you make - perhaps it's a lot less than I do and that's why you think the bank doesn't consider its customers valuable, but I can tell you straight-up that you're wrong about this. A bank without investors is an empty building with no money.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/31/19 7:19:41 AM #102:	Kyuubi4269 posted... The US, however, is valuable and can ask China for negative interest because they are valuable to their debtor. If the US is so valuable that it can ask for negative interest, isn't it bizarre how you're the only person smart enough to think of asking for it? I mean, here's the US paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest, when they could just march to all the people they owe money to and demand negative interest rates instead. Instead of paying hundreds of billions, they could be earning it instead! Man, why didn't anyone else think of that? You should be on Wall Street - you'd make a killing. (Also, I don't mean to embarrass you while you're passing on all this investment wisdom, but a "debtor" is the entity that owes debt; the word you were going for is "creditor"). Exactly, except the supermarket will take you to court if you can't make payments while China will offer negative interest as the trade with the US is more valuable to the country than interest payments. Strange how they've literally never done that then. They also can't get a CCJ on the US and make it sell up to pay off debts, all terms can be broken as nobody has sufficiently more power than another to force them, they're only maintained for keeping good relations. They can't get a "CCJ" because it's not in the terms of the loans. Do you not understand how sovereign debt works? The reason why banks and lenders can pursue liens and other activities to force you to pay up your debt is because you agree to let them do that when you sign off on the loan. Sovereign debt is not bound by any such agreement (largely because it doesn't make sense - countries don't retire or lose their jobs or die the way that people do, so there's no reason why they couldn't take 200 years to pay back a loan, so long as they're willing to keep up the interest payments in the mean time). And while China can't force the US to pay up if it ultimately decides to default on its obligations, the results would nonetheless be catastrophic for the US (and the rest of the world, given America's unique position in the financial world). The entire reason why the US is so "valuable", as you put it, is because the US always pays back its obligations. It is the ultimate safe haven, an entity where people can store their money in the form of investments without worry that it will be lost or devalued by default or government fiat. But if the US were to default on its loans, suddenly that all goes away. Since, as you at least seem to understand, no one can enforce terms against an entity as powerful as the US, the nation's word is its bond and a default would reveal that its word is no longer trustworthy and it cannot be counted on to honour the terms of any agreements it has signed onto. While it cannot be directly punished for this, it will nonetheless suffer dire consequences. Investment capital would flee the country, looking for more secure lenders. US borrowing power would collapse, and with it America's ability to pay its bills. The resultant fallout would be catastrophic, far beyond the scale of the Great Depression or Great Recession, and the US would be at ground zero. It could very well precipitate a complete collapse of the global financial system, which would then have to be rebuilt (likely with a different country at its centre). And no, the US couldn't just go to China and demand negative interest to counter it (for one thing, China only owns about 5% of the US's debt, so even if it agreed to ridiculously favourable terms it wouldn't be nearly enough to contain the disaster). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926772207] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The US, however, is valuable and can ask China for negative interest because they are valuable to their debtor. </quote> If the US is so valuable that it can ask for negative interest, isn't it bizarre how you're the only person smart enough to think of asking for it? I mean, here's the US paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest, when they could just march to all the people they owe money to and demand negative interest rates instead. Instead of paying hundreds of billions, they could be earning it instead! Man, why didn't anyone else think of that? You should be on Wall Street - you'd make a killing. (Also, I don't mean to embarrass you while you're passing on all this investment wisdom, but a "debtor" is the entity that owes debt; the word you were going for is "creditor"). <quote>Exactly, except the supermarket will take you to court if you can't make payments while China will offer negative interest as the trade with the US is more valuable to the country than interest payments. </quote> Strange how they've literally never done that then. <quote>They also can't get a CCJ on the US and make it sell up to pay off debts, all terms can be broken as nobody has sufficiently more power than another to force them, they're only maintained for keeping good relations. </quote> They can't get a "CCJ" because it's not in the terms of the loans. Do you not understand how sovereign debt works? The reason why banks and lenders can pursue liens and other activities to force you to pay up your debt is because you agree to let them do that when you sign off on the loan. Sovereign debt is not bound by any such agreement (largely because it doesn't make sense - countries don't retire or lose their jobs or die the way that people do, so there's no reason why they couldn't take 200 years to pay back a loan, so long as they're willing to keep up the interest payments in the mean time). And while China can't force the US to pay up if it ultimately decides to default on its obligations, the results would nonetheless be catastrophic for the US (and the rest of the world, given America's unique position in the financial world). The entire reason why the US is so "valuable", as you put it, is because the US always pays back its obligations. It is the ultimate safe haven, an entity where people can store their money in the form of investments without worry that it will be lost or devalued by default or government fiat. But if the US were to default on its loans, suddenly that all goes away. Since, as you at least seem to understand, no one can enforce terms against an entity as powerful as the US, the nation's word is its bond and a default would reveal that its word is no longer trustworthy and it cannot be counted on to honour the terms of any agreements it has signed onto. While it cannot be directly punished for this, it will nonetheless suffer dire consequences. Investment capital would flee the country, looking for more secure lenders. US borrowing power would collapse, and with it America's ability to pay its bills. The resultant fallout would be catastrophic, far beyond the scale of the Great Depression or Great Recession, and the US would be at ground zero. It could very well precipitate a complete collapse of the global financial system, which would then have to be rebuilt (likely with a different country at its centre). And no, the US couldn't just go to China and demand negative interest to counter it (for one thing, China only owns about 5% of the US's debt, so even if it agreed to ridiculously favourable terms it wouldn't be nearly enough to contain the disaster).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/31/19 7:19:49 AM #103:	Kyuubi4269 posted... If the world decided to turn on China and colonise it to avoid paying debt, they can disappear China and continue as normal. If you firebombed your bank to escape your loan, you would be imprisoned. Your "firebombing" example is actually apt, though not in the way you think. Ignoring the hilarious idea that the world could "disappear" a nuclear-armed country of 1.4 billion people without catastrophic cost in lives and treasure, which rather precludes the idea of "continuing on as normal" in any meaningful sense of the phrase, erasing a country would rather be like if I somehow destroyed your bank in its entirety. The bank may no longer exist... but you do, and now any savings your had in that bank are gone. Assuming you're not already destitute, the loss of your bank account would have enormous ramifications on your life. Now imagine that same situation... except there's $4.3 trillion in the bank. Again, this would precipitate a crisis. Yes, the loss of savings would be partially offset by the loss of debts (the US would effectively "gain" a little over a trillion dollars from the cancelled loans), but China - like pretty much all nations in the world - currently owes more than it is owed. China, by dint of no longer existing, would no longer be able to pay its creditors. You know what happened the last time a bunch of loans started defaulting or entering delinquency? The subprime mortgage crisis, which led directly into the Great Recession. Kyuubi4269 posted... Country debt isn't even remotely close to peasant debt, you do not understand how it works. I know enough to know that the correct titles are "sovereign debt" and "consumer debt", not "country debt" and "peasant debt". The fact that you don't even know the proper terms for half of what you're talking about makes me question your knowledge of basic economics. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926772209] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If the world decided to turn on China and colonise it to avoid paying debt, they can disappear China and continue as normal. If you firebombed your bank to escape your loan, you would be imprisoned.</quote> Your "firebombing" example is actually apt, though not in the way you think. Ignoring the hilarious idea that the world could "disappear" a nuclear-armed country of 1.4 billion people without catastrophic cost in lives and treasure, which rather precludes the idea of "continuing on as normal" in any meaningful sense of the phrase, erasing a country would rather be like if I somehow destroyed your bank in its entirety. The bank may no longer exist... but you do, and now any savings your had in that bank are gone. Assuming you're not already destitute, the loss of your bank account would have enormous ramifications on your life. Now imagine that same situation... except there's $4.3 trillion in the bank. Again, this would precipitate a crisis. Yes, the loss of savings would be partially offset by the loss of debts (the US would effectively "gain" a little over a trillion dollars from the cancelled loans), but China - like pretty much all nations in the world - currently owes more than it is owed. China, by dint of no longer existing, would no longer be able to pay its creditors. You know what happened the last time a bunch of loans started defaulting or entering delinquency? The subprime mortgage crisis, which led directly into the Great Recession. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Country debt isn't even remotely close to peasant debt, you do not understand how it works.</quote> I know enough to know that the correct titles are "sovereign debt" and "consumer debt", not "country debt" and "peasant debt". The fact that you don't even know the proper terms for half of what you're talking about makes me question your knowledge of basic economics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CharlesBronson 08/31/19 7:20:59 AM #104:	darkknight109 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... You hold the country's debt Thus proving that I am not chattel. Thank you for acknowledging the point. Kyuubi4269 posted... you pay tax because you're told to I pay taxes for the same reason I don't beat up my neighbours and steal their house - because it's the law. I enjoy the benefits of those taxes, in the sense that if someone tried to beat me up and steal my house, I can be confident that the entity those taxes get paid to will send a group of people over to remove the offenders. That costs money, though - hence, the taxes. It's a fair tradeoff. Kyuubi4269 posted... you're not free unless you're a recognised nation and you're not Sure I'm free. If I wanted to, I could stop paying taxes, declare myself independent from the government, live life as I choose. I'm perfectly free to do that - no one is standing over my shoulder preventing me from taking those actions. However, the government has told me the actions it would take in response to such conduct and I don't feel like trying to marshal a militia to overthrow them, so while I am free to undertake whatever actions I see fit, they are also free to respond in kind, and I think I like our current arrangement better; I'd rather work with people than against them, y'know? Honestly, the agreement I and the rest of my fellow citizens have with them is pretty good, all things considered, so I don't see reason to try to renegotiate it at present. Also, by your incredibly strange definition, recognized nations aren't free either. All nations have obligations they must follow - That collection of obligations, by the by, is called "society". We've had it for a while and it's worked out pretty well. Kyuubi4269 posted... Imagine you have a loan. You cannot go to your bank and ask them for negative interest and they will not give it to you as you are not valuable. You apparently missed the rest of my answer to this, as I already addressed this. Yes, I can renegotiate my loan. Yes, I can ask for lower interest. And yes, I am valuable to the bank, as I have an extremely good credit rating (to the point where my bank won't shut up about trying to loan me more money, because they know I'm good to pay it back; I get offers from them for new credit cards and/or lines of credit about twice a month). Would they give me negative interest? Not in these market conditions. But that's a difference of price, not concept. If I lived in Denmark, which is currently offering negative interest rates, I absolutely could. Ask any mortgage specialist and they will all tell you the same story: the bank would rather renegotiate your loan than have you default or lose your business. If you lose your job and cannot pay, banks can and will negotiate from you, on the logic that they'd rather get some of their money back than none. I don't know how much you make - perhaps it's a lot less than I do and that's why you think the bank doesn't consider its customers valuable, but I can tell you straight-up that you're wrong about this. A bank without investors is an empty building with no money. are we supposed to read all that? where'd you graducate from snhu lol? <cite>CharlesBronson posted [p:926772226] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You hold the country's debt</quote> Thus proving that I am not chattel. Thank you for acknowledging the point. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>you pay tax because you're told to</quote> I pay taxes for the same reason I don't beat up my neighbours and steal their house - because it's the law. I enjoy the benefits of those taxes, in the sense that if someone tried to beat me up and steal my house, I can be confident that the entity those taxes get paid to will send a group of people over to remove the offenders. That costs money, though - hence, the taxes. It's a fair tradeoff. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>you're not free unless you're a recognised nation and you're not</quote> Sure I'm free. If I wanted to, I could stop paying taxes, declare myself independent from the government, live life as I choose. I'm perfectly free to do that - no one is standing over my shoulder preventing me from taking those actions. However, the government has told me the actions it would take in response to such conduct and I don't feel like trying to marshal a militia to overthrow them, so while I am free to undertake whatever actions I see fit, they are also free to respond in kind, and I think I like our current arrangement better; I'd rather work with people than against them, y'know? Honestly, the agreement I and the rest of my fellow citizens have with them is pretty good, all things considered, so I don't see reason to try to renegotiate it at present. Also, by your incredibly strange definition, recognized nations aren't free either. All nations have obligations they must follow - That collection of obligations, by the by, is called "society". We've had it for a while and it's worked out pretty well. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine you have a loan. You cannot go to your bank and ask them for negative interest and they will not give it to you as you are not valuable. </quote> You apparently missed the rest of my answer to this, as I already addressed this. Yes, I can renegotiate my loan. Yes, I can ask for lower interest. And yes, I am valuable to the bank, as I have an extremely good credit rating (to the point where my bank won't shut up about trying to loan me more money, because they know I'm good to pay it back; I get offers from them for new credit cards and/or lines of credit about twice a month). Would they give me negative interest? Not in these market conditions. But that's a difference of price, not concept. If I lived in Denmark, which is currently offering negative interest rates, I absolutely could. Ask any mortgage specialist and they will all tell you the same story: the bank would rather renegotiate your loan than have you default or lose your business. If you lose your job and cannot pay, banks can and will negotiate from you, on the logic that they'd rather get some of their money back than none. I don't know how much you make - perhaps it's a lot less than I do and that's why you think the bank doesn't consider its customers valuable, but I can tell you straight-up that you're wrong about this. A bank without investors is an empty building with no money.</quote> are we supposed to read all that? where'd you graducate from snhu lol?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 9:07:28 AM #105:	Kyuubi4269 posted... If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy. That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926773897] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy.</quote> That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 08/31/19 9:44:28 AM #106:	I dont think Im overestimating the problems. Other people are underestimating them. And probably saying shit like, Well cross that bridge when we get there. Which is not a solution or smart thing to say. The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. And thats just the seats on our buses. If people were allowed to stand on ours, we would be able to hold many more. And we get full buses often. Those are too small for everyday use. And as Kyuubi said, they are meant to last for 10 years. That rack up miles fast. Theyll be out or commission before 10 years hit. As for who needs to slow down, everybody does. Id rather not go full speed into a social collapse. Which is likely to happen as no one actually gives a fuck about whats going to happen. Id rather them all stop. But slowing down is probably the only option that would work... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926774667] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>I dont think Im overestimating the problems. Other people are underestimating them. And probably saying shit like, Well cross that bridge when we get there. Which is not a solution or smart thing to say. The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. And thats just the seats on our buses. If people were allowed to stand on ours, we would be able to hold many more. And we get full buses often. Those are too small for everyday use. And as Kyuubi said, they are meant to last for 10 years. That rack up miles fast. Theyll be out or commission before 10 years hit. As for who needs to slow down, everybody does. Id rather not go full speed into a social collapse. Which is likely to happen as no one actually gives a fuck about whats going to happen. Id rather them all stop. But slowing down is probably the only option that would work...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/31/19 9:52:10 AM #107:	For so many reasons slowing down is not possible though. The best course of action is to come up with solutions now to make the transition better for people. --- More malicious than mischievous <cite>Mead posted [p:926774841] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>For so many reasons slowing down is not possible though. The best course of action is to come up with solutions now to make the transition better for people. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 08/31/19 10:19:43 AM #108:	Which means were screwed, I guess... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926775497] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Which means were screwed, I guess...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/31/19 10:23:29 AM #109:	LinkPizza posted... Which means were screwed, I guess... Not at all If we take legislative steps to change things economically and societally automation could be an amazing thing for humanity --- More malicious than mischievous <cite>Mead posted [p:926775590] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Which means were screwed, I guess...</quote> Not at all If we take legislative steps to change things economically and societally automation could be an amazing thing for humanity </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 08/31/19 11:27:12 AM #110:	Mead posted... LinkPizza posted... Which means were screwed, I guess... Not at all If we take legislative steps to change things economically and societally automation could be an amazing thing for humanity Sounds like theres no plan in place, or even being worked on. And this isnt something you can just wing. Nor is it something you can just toss on people at the last second. Seems more like were screwed. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926777338] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Which means were screwed, I guess...</quote> Not at all If we take legislative steps to change things economically and societally automation could be an amazing thing for humanity </quote> Sounds like theres no plan in place, or even being worked on. And this isnt something you can just wing. Nor is it something you can just toss on people at the last second. Seems more like were screwed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SusanGreenEyes 08/31/19 11:33:09 AM #111:	SunWuKung420 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy. That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth. Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there. --- Been a murder, over in Riften. Some old lady who runs an orphanage. Those poor children must be heartbroken. <cite>SusanGreenEyes posted [p:926777504] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy.</quote> That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth.</quote> Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 12:36:53 PM #112:	SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy. That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth. Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there. Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926779750] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy.</quote> That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth.</quote> Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there.</quote> Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SusanGreenEyes 08/31/19 3:03:55 PM #113:	SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy. That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth. Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there. Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others. If rich capitalists are making the same amount of money as fry cooks, then wouldn't it just make a lot more sense for them to close down their businesses, which would put millions of people out of work? Why put in all that work for no profit? --- Been a murder, over in Riften. Some old lady who runs an orphanage. Those poor children must be heartbroken. <cite>SusanGreenEyes posted [p:926784842] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy.</quote> That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth.</quote> Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there.</quote> Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others.</quote> If rich capitalists are making the same amount of money as fry cooks, then wouldn't it just make a lot more sense for them to close down their businesses, which would put millions of people out of work? Why put in all that work for no profit?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 3:39:16 PM #114:	SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy. That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth. Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there. Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others. If rich capitalists are making the same amount of money as fry cooks, then wouldn't it just make a lot more sense for them to close down their businesses, which would put millions of people out of work? Why put in all that work for no profit? When did I say the same? You don't see the problem where 99% of the wealth and resources are the hands of 0.1% of the people? You don't understand how that creates the instability that causes destruction of society? Of course you don't since you're arguing for the status quo to continue, a status quo that time and time again has destroyed empires. But this time, it won't be one nation or one country, but the world has a whole. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926786091] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If nobody could have more than what's necessary, nobody would work harder than you and that would destroy the economy.</quote> That's a fallacy. The unnecessary accumulation of wealth has historically caused more collapses than not accumulating wealth.</quote> Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there.</quote> Especially when someone is still accumulating wealth at the expense of others.</quote> If rich capitalists are making the same amount of money as fry cooks, then wouldn't it just make a lot more sense for them to close down their businesses, which would put millions of people out of work? Why put in all that work for no profit?</quote> When did I say the same? You don't see the problem where 99% of the wealth and resources are the hands of 0.1% of the people? You don't understand how that creates the instability that causes destruction of society? Of course you don't since you're arguing for the status quo to continue, a status quo that time and time again has destroyed empires. But this time, it won't be one nation or one country, but the world has a whole.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 3:44:35 PM #115:	@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926786262] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SusanGreenEyes 08/31/19 4:19:54 PM #116:	SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. --- Been a murder, over in Riften. Some old lady who runs an orphanage. Those poor children must be heartbroken. <cite>SusanGreenEyes posted [p:926787581] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 4:58:12 PM #117:	SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926789019] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SusanGreenEyes 08/31/19 5:15:20 PM #118:	SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed. You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists. --- Been a murder, over in Riften. Some old lady who runs an orphanage. Those poor children must be heartbroken. <cite>SusanGreenEyes posted [p:926789631] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed.</quote> You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 5:25:42 PM #119:	SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed. You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists. If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926790001] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed.</quote> You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists.</quote> If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SusanGreenEyes 08/31/19 6:34:18 PM #120:	SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed. You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists. If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs. Interesting. What do you call a political system in which the government sets wages and capitalists are taxed at absurd rates, to the point that it is no longer economically advantageous to run businesses? --- Been a murder, over in Riften. Some old lady who runs an orphanage. Those poor children must be heartbroken. <cite>SusanGreenEyes posted [p:926792403] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed.</quote> You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists.</quote> If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs.</quote> Interesting. What do you call a political system in which the government sets wages and capitalists are taxed at absurd rates, to the point that it is no longer economically advantageous to run businesses?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 08/31/19 7:16:02 PM #121:	SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... SusanGreenEyes posted... SunWuKung420 posted... @SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food. Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary. No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed. You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists. If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs. Interesting. What do you call a political system in which the government sets wages and capitalists are taxed at absurd rates, to the point that it is no longer economically advantageous to run businesses? Oh wait. I see. You think capitalism is a viable system. It's not. A system that says other should have at the expense of others having less is wrong. Especially when that system says it ok to push others down in order to get up. I recommend you stop thinking in the sense that having more money than you can spend is a good place to be. Maybe start thinking that everyone having what they need while working to keeping that system running is better. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:926793939] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>@SusanGreenEyes Also remind us of what job you do? Only in America is it ok to make fun of the people that cook your food.</quote> Nobody is making fun of anyone. The point is that if you expect capitalists to earn as a lot less money then you can't also expect them to employ hundreds of workers and work insane hours running businesses. A person earning a smaller salary should be expected to do the work associated with that salary.</quote> No. People do work to help society function and every function needs a person to do it. We could educate everyone to the level of doctor but we would still need janitors. So unless we all did every job or we ensured all jobs were treated equally and ensured nobody that contributes had to struggle, any other system especially those that allow 1 person to dictate what others have or don't have, is doomed.</quote> You're describing communism which isn't a political system our country participates in. There are many communist societies around the world and people are perfectly capable of visiting them. Americans don't want to become communists.</quote> If I wanted communism, I would have said that. Communism also fails. Also what Americans want really doesn't matter. There is what reality needs and what we are doing. We aren't doing what reality needs.</quote> Interesting. What do you call a political system in which the government sets wages and capitalists are taxed at absurd rates, to the point that it is no longer economically advantageous to run businesses?</quote> Oh wait. I see. You think capitalism is a viable system. It's not. A system that says other should have at the expense of others having less is wrong. Especially when that system says it ok to push others down in order to get up. I recommend you stop thinking in the sense that having more money than you can spend is a good place to be. Maybe start thinking that everyone having what they need while working to keeping that system running is better.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/31/19 10:14:04 PM #122:	LinkPizza posted... The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. A bus that's only holds half as many people is still cost effective if it is 10x cheaper. LinkPizza posted... As for who needs to slow down, everybody does. But nobody will. Literally nobody involved in this has any impetus to slow down, so it's pointless to talk about it. What we should be talking about is how we function in a world where this new technology is commonplace, because it will be commonplace within the next 10 years. We adapt or we fall. That's the rule. SusanGreenEyes posted... Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there. Massive corruption did a lot more to sink Venezuela than socialism ever did. For what it's worth, the lists of "Top 10 Happiest Countries", "Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP per Capita", "Top 10 Countries by Median Household Incomes", and "Top 10 Safest Countries" are dominated by European socialist states. Read into that what you will. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926800537] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. </quote> A bus that's only holds half as many people is still cost effective if it is 10x cheaper. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>As for who needs to slow down, everybody does.</quote> But nobody will. Literally nobody involved in this has any impetus to slow down, so it's pointless to talk about it. What we should be talking about is how we function in a world where this new technology is commonplace, because it will be commonplace within the next 10 years. We adapt or we fall. That's the rule. SusanGreenEyes posted...</cite> <quote>Try moving to Venezuela Dude. Socialism has worked quite well over there.</quote> Massive corruption did a lot more to sink Venezuela than socialism ever did. For what it's worth, the lists of "Top 10 Happiest Countries", "Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP per Capita", "Top 10 Countries by Median Household Incomes", and "Top 10 Safest Countries" are dominated by European socialist states. Read into that what you will.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 08/31/19 11:13:11 PM #123:	darkknight109 posted... LinkPizza posted... The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. A bus that's only holds half as many people is still cost effective if it is 10x cheaper. If the prices you gave are correct, its not 10x cheaper. Maybe half. And thats sitting. Our city has weird rules about standing on a bus. If the shuttle is force to use the city rules, then the shuttle holds about 1/4 what our bus holds. If our rules change to when we can stand on both, same thing. Or maybe the bus could hold 5x as many people. But half the price for 1/5 of the people isnt cheaper. Especially since youll have to have more runs. We sometimes filled he bus with more than the shuttle can hold, not to mention people with disabilities and need things like wheelchairs and walker, which take up more space. Meaning less people per vehicle, meaning more vehicles on the same run, or more runs (2 or 3) and hour instead of one. Meaning 2 to 3 times more vehicles perp bus. Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... darkknight109 posted... LinkPizza posted... As for who needs to slow down, everybody does. But nobody will. Literally nobody involved in this has any impetus to slow down, so it's pointless to talk about it. What we should be talking about is how we function in a world where this new technology is commonplace, because it will be commonplace within the next 10 years. We adapt or we fall. That's the rule. Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to. And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. I hope it can just wait until Im dead and wont have to deal with it... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926802495] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The shuttle holds only half of what buses hold. </quote> A bus that's only holds half as many people is still cost effective if it is 10x cheaper.</quote> If the prices you gave are correct, its not 10x cheaper. Maybe half. And thats sitting. Our city has weird rules about standing on a bus. If the shuttle is force to use the city rules, then the shuttle holds about 1/4 what our bus holds. If our rules change to when we can stand on both, same thing. Or maybe the bus could hold 5x as many people. But half the price for 1/5 of the people isnt cheaper. Especially since youll have to have more runs. We sometimes filled he bus with more than the shuttle can hold, not to mention people with disabilities and need things like wheelchairs and walker, which take up more space. Meaning less people per vehicle, meaning more vehicles on the same run, or more runs (2 or 3) and hour instead of one. Meaning 2 to 3 times more vehicles perp bus. Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>As for who needs to slow down, everybody does.</quote> But nobody will. Literally nobody involved in this has any impetus to slow down, so it's pointless to talk about it. What we should be talking about is how we function in a world where this new technology is commonplace, because it will be commonplace within the next 10 years. We adapt or we fall. That's the rule. </quote> Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to. And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. I hope it can just wait until Im dead and wont have to deal with it...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/01/19 1:01:29 AM #124:	LinkPizza posted... Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... If it's less cost effective, why are municipalities already putting them into service? (For the record, new buses cost about half a million dollars just to purchase, and that's not covering the costs of the driver and insurance, fees that a self-driving bus wouldn't need to worry about). LinkPizza posted... Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to. Whether we should or shouldn't have to doesn't matter. We do. This technology is here and it's not going away. Crying about how unfair it is or how it shouldn't be a thing is going to get you absolutely nowhere. That's sort of like me saying, "We shouldn't have smartphones - it makes it so people expect to be able to get a hold of you at any time. We can't have a moment to ourselves anymore!" That's a) True and b) Also completely irrelevant, because smart phones aren't going to disappear, so we may as well figure out how to deal with it. LinkPizza posted... And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. It will be. The first iPhone launched in 2007; within a decade, they were everywhere. Facebook went public in 2006; six years later, they got their 1,000,000,000th user. Modern tablets first surfaced about 10 years ago; now they're as common as computers were in the 90s. A decade is roughly how long it takes new tech to achieve market penetration and the clock is already ticking on self-driving vehicles. And honestly? You're overlooking the good side of these. Self-driving autos could solve traffic and drop accidents to near-zero. They singlehandedly could help fight global warming by simply being far, far more efficient than human drivers. Hell, the idea of owning your own car may one day become a thing of the past (if you think about it, 90% of the time your car just sits idle in a lot somewhere; if the car could go off and tend to other people when you're not using it, that would be far more efficient). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926806084] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... </quote> If it's less cost effective, why are municipalities already putting them into service? (For the record, new buses cost about half a million dollars just to purchase, and that's not covering the costs of the driver and insurance, fees that a self-driving bus wouldn't need to worry about). LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to.</quote> Whether we should or shouldn't have to doesn't matter. We do. This technology is here and it's not going away. Crying about how unfair it is or how it shouldn't be a thing is going to get you absolutely nowhere. That's sort of like me saying, "We shouldn't have smartphones - it makes it so people expect to be able to get a hold of you at any time. We can't have a moment to ourselves anymore!" That's a) True and b) Also completely irrelevant, because smart phones aren't going to disappear, so we may as well figure out how to deal with it. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. </quote> It will be. The first iPhone launched in 2007; within a decade, they were everywhere. Facebook went public in 2006; six years later, they got their 1,000,000,000th user. Modern tablets first surfaced about 10 years ago; now they're as common as computers were in the 90s. A decade is roughly how long it takes new tech to achieve market penetration and the clock is already ticking on self-driving vehicles. And honestly? You're overlooking the good side of these. Self-driving autos could solve traffic and drop accidents to near-zero. They singlehandedly could help fight global warming by simply being far, far more efficient than human drivers. Hell, the idea of owning your own car may one day become a thing of the past (if you think about it, 90% of the time your car just sits idle in a lot somewhere; if the car could go off and tend to other people when you're not using it, that would be far more efficient).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 09/01/19 1:06:54 AM #125:	It's okay. I always wanted to live the struggle. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:926806218] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>It's okay. I always wanted to live the struggle.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 1:37:27 AM #126:	darkknight109 posted... LinkPizza posted... Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... If it's less cost effective, why are municipalities already putting them into service? (For the record, new buses cost about half a million dollars just to purchase, and that's not covering the costs of the driver and insurance, fees that a self-driving bus wouldn't need to worry about). Because every municipality is different. It works for some, but not for other. Which is why all of them dont have them. Also, for the record, I work in the transportation industry (buses and para transit vans, specifically). So, Im aware of the cost of buses, vans, and their parts... That being said, half a million isnt so bad considering a self driving shuttle that holds 1/4 the people is a quarter million. Hold 1/4 the amount of people, but only about half the price, so... darkknight109 posted... LinkPizza posted... Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to. Whether we should or shouldn't have to doesn't matter. We do. This technology is here and it's not going away. Crying about how unfair it is or how it shouldn't be a thing is going to get you absolutely nowhere. That's sort of like me saying, "We shouldn't have smartphones - it makes it so people expect to be able to get a hold of you at any time. We can't have a moment to ourselves anymore!" That's a) True and b) Also completely irrelevant, because smart phones aren't going to disappear, so we may as well figure out how to deal with it. Id still rather argue about it instead of accepting a pile of shit as life... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926807102] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Making it less cost effective, as 2 or 3 of those would cost more than one bus... </quote> If it's less cost effective, why are municipalities already putting them into service? (For the record, new buses cost about half a million dollars just to purchase, and that's not covering the costs of the driver and insurance, fees that a self-driving bus wouldn't need to worry about).</quote> Because every municipality is different. It works for some, but not for other. Which is why all of them dont have them. Also, for the record, I work in the transportation industry (buses and para transit vans, specifically). So, Im aware of the cost of buses, vans, and their parts... That being said, half a million isnt so bad considering a self driving shuttle that holds 1/4 the people is a quarter million. Hold 1/4 the amount of people, but only about half the price, so... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah. I rather not fall when another choice where people can be happy is a choice. Why should we have to fall as a species because people are greedy and cant think about the rest of us for one fucking second instead of only themselves? We shouldnt have to.</quote> Whether we should or shouldn't have to doesn't matter. We do. This technology is here and it's not going away. Crying about how unfair it is or how it shouldn't be a thing is going to get you absolutely nowhere. That's sort of like me saying, "We shouldn't have smartphones - it makes it so people expect to be able to get a hold of you at any time. We can't have a moment to ourselves anymore!" That's a) True and b) Also completely irrelevant, because smart phones aren't going to disappear, so we may as well figure out how to deal with it.</quote> Id still rather argue about it instead of accepting a pile of shit as life...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 1:37:33 AM #127:	darkknight109 posted... LinkPizza posted... And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. It will be. The first iPhone launched in 2007; within a decade, they were everywhere. Facebook went public in 2006; six years later, they got their 1,000,000,000th user. Modern tablets first surfaced about 10 years ago; now they're as common as computers were in the 90s. A decade is roughly how long it takes new tech to achieve market penetration and the clock is already ticking on self-driving vehicles. And honestly? You're overlooking the good side of these. Self-driving autos could solve traffic and drop accidents to near-zero. They singlehandedly could help fight global warming by simply being far, far more efficient than human drivers. Hell, the idea of owning your own car may one day become a thing of the past (if you think about it, 90% of the time your car just sits idle in a lot somewhere; if the car could go off and tend to other people when you're not using it, that would be far more efficient). Those pieces of technology are different. Those change the world in a big way (somewhat), but youre talking about changing everything. Not to mention the shitstorm that will come with it. Im sure itll take more than 10 years. And thats what Im hoping for. Id rather not be around for it, good sides or not. Self-driving cars wont be as effective until everyone has them. And most people probably dont want to give up their cars. And people are still going to be expecting to buy them for at least the first few years that theyre out. And theyll be expensive. And 90% of the time depends on what you do with it. Or your hobbies. Some peoples hobbies are all about their vehicles. Going out for drives and such. Those hobbies probably arent going to change anytime soon. Theyll just be mad if people take those away. Or motorcycles. And this is going to cause an influx of accidents from people trying to get money from the industries. Also, Id rather own my own car instead of sharing with the rest of the world, in all honesty. There are some good sides. I thing really good, though. Im usually Pretty optimistic, but all I can see now is shit filling the future. And Id honestly rather not be a part of that... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926807105] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And I sure hope its nowhere near commonplace in 10 years. </quote> It will be. The first iPhone launched in 2007; within a decade, they were everywhere. Facebook went public in 2006; six years later, they got their 1,000,000,000th user. Modern tablets first surfaced about 10 years ago; now they're as common as computers were in the 90s. A decade is roughly how long it takes new tech to achieve market penetration and the clock is already ticking on self-driving vehicles. And honestly? You're overlooking the good side of these. Self-driving autos could solve traffic and drop accidents to near-zero. They singlehandedly could help fight global warming by simply being far, far more efficient than human drivers. Hell, the idea of owning your own car may one day become a thing of the past (if you think about it, 90% of the time your car just sits idle in a lot somewhere; if the car could go off and tend to other people when you're not using it, that would be far more efficient).</quote> Those pieces of technology are different. Those change the world in a big way (somewhat), but youre talking about changing everything. Not to mention the shitstorm that will come with it. Im sure itll take more than 10 years. And thats what Im hoping for. Id rather not be around for it, good sides or not. Self-driving cars wont be as effective until everyone has them. And most people probably dont want to give up their cars. And people are still going to be expecting to buy them for at least the first few years that theyre out. And theyll be expensive. And 90% of the time depends on what you do with it. Or your hobbies. Some peoples hobbies are all about their vehicles. Going out for drives and such. Those hobbies probably arent going to change anytime soon. Theyll just be mad if people take those away. Or motorcycles. And this is going to cause an influx of accidents from people trying to get money from the industries. Also, Id rather own my own car instead of sharing with the rest of the world, in all honesty. There are some good sides. I thing really good, though. Im usually Pretty optimistic, but all I can see now is shit filling the future. And Id honestly rather not be a part of that...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/01/19 4:25:14 AM #128:	LinkPizza posted... That being said, half a million isnt so bad considering a self driving shuttle that holds 1/4 the people is a quarter million. Hold 1/4 the amount of people, but only about half the price, so... Half the price, with 0% of the cost of a driver. In the long term, that's cost effective. LinkPizza posted... Id still rather argue about it instead of accepting a pile of shit as life... Argue all you like, but you're arguing the wrong thing. Don't argue, "We shouldn't use this new technology". For one, that's a slap in the face to anyone who has ever lost a relative to a drunk or inattentive driver, something this technology could render a thing of the past. But more importantly, that argument is going to go precisely nowhere - no one who is in any position to do anything about it is going to take an argument like that seriously. It's simply not practical. If you want to argue about something, argue about what we should do in response to this new technology. Argue how we should handle increasing numbers of people being pushed out of the job market. This isn't he first time this has happened - factory workers also got automated out of their jobs, and we kinda fucked up our response to that. So let's start talking about what we can do differently, because the new wave of automation isn't just restricted to bus drivers and cabbies - it's coming for all of us, so we better figure out what we're going to do when it hits. Do that and you'll find a much more receptive audience. LinkPizza posted... Those pieces of technology are different. Those change the world in a big way (somewhat), but youre talking about changing everything. Consider, before you say this, that 10 years ago iPhones were luxury purchases in the developed world; now they're commonplace even in developing countries. Technology moves fast, and you're in for a nasty surprise if you think automation is any different. Businesses are already looking at this technology with dollar signs in their eyes; civilian adoption won't be far behind. LinkPizza posted... Self-driving cars wont be as effective until everyone has them. You're still talking about this like it's the future. It's not - it's the present. Self driving cars are already on the road today. They're already being used in business applications today. Depending on where you are in the world, you may have already shared the road with them. And their accident rates are substantially lower than human drivers. They're already proven to be more effective than human drivers. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926810402] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>That being said, half a million isnt so bad considering a self driving shuttle that holds 1/4 the people is a quarter million. Hold 1/4 the amount of people, but only about half the price, so... </quote> Half the price, with 0% of the cost of a driver. In the long term, that's cost effective. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Id still rather argue about it instead of accepting a pile of shit as life...</quote> Argue all you like, but you're arguing the wrong thing. Don't argue, "We shouldn't use this new technology". For one, that's a slap in the face to anyone who has ever lost a relative to a drunk or inattentive driver, something this technology could render a thing of the past. But more importantly, that argument is going to go precisely nowhere - no one who is in any position to do anything about it is going to take an argument like that seriously. It's simply not practical. If you want to argue about something, argue about what we should do in response to this new technology. Argue how we should handle increasing numbers of people being pushed out of the job market. This isn't he first time this has happened - factory workers also got automated out of their jobs, and we kinda fucked up our response to that. So let's start talking about what we can do differently, because the new wave of automation isn't just restricted to bus drivers and cabbies - it's coming for all of us, so we better figure out what we're going to do when it hits. Do that and you'll find a much more receptive audience. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Those pieces of technology are different. Those change the world in a big way (somewhat), but youre talking about changing everything.</quote> Consider, before you say this, that 10 years ago iPhones were luxury purchases in the developed world; now they're commonplace even in developing countries. Technology moves fast, and you're in for a nasty surprise if you think automation is any different. Businesses are already looking at this technology with dollar signs in their eyes; civilian adoption won't be far behind. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Self-driving cars wont be as effective until everyone has them.</quote> You're still talking about this like it's the future. It's not - it's the present. Self driving cars are already on the road today. They're already being used in business applications today. Depending on where you are in the world, you may have already shared the road with them. And their accident rates are substantially lower than human drivers. They're already proven to be more effective than human drivers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 8:39:20 AM #129:	darkknight109 posted... Half the price, with 0% of the cost of a driver. In the long term, that's cost effective. Except for the fact that a good percentage of our customers are wheelchair bound and need to be strapped down, so we still need drivers to help with that for the shuttle replacing the bus. And the fact that the shuttle replacing the vans have way more handicap people that need strapping down including wheel chairs and walkers. And that we have many blind riders that need help getting to and on the right vehicle. And that some vehicles have to wait at certain spots for a certain amount of time. And would need to walk and talk to people on certain areas. We would still have to send drivers out with our vehicles regardless of if they drive them or not, making self-driving pointless. And spending 75% or 100% of a million instead of a little over 50% isnt cost effective. Our drivers dont actually make that much here. Not compared to other places. It would actually be cheaper for our drivers to drive the buses than spend an extra 250,000 or 500,000 per buses to have the same amount of seats. Because making less seats isnt good for the station... darkknight109 posted... Argue all you like, but you're arguing the wrong thing. Don't argue, "We shouldn't use this new technology". For one, that's a slap in the face to anyone who has ever lost a relative to a drunk or inattentive driver, something this technology could render a thing of the past. But more importantly, that argument is going to go precisely nowhere - no one who is in any position to do anything about it is going to take an argument like that seriously. It's simply not practical. If you want to argue about something, argue about what we should do in response to this new technology. Argue how we should handle increasing numbers of people being pushed out of the job market. This isn't he first time this has happened - factory workers also got automated out of their jobs, and we kinda fucked up our response to that. So let's start talking about what we can do differently, because the new wave of automation isn't just restricted to bus drivers and cabbies - it's coming for all of us, so we better figure out what we're going to do when it hits. Do that and you'll find a much more receptive audience. You say that, but there was a guy on this site that lost his wife to a drunk driver. And he was very against the self-driving cars himself. You cant say its always a slap in the face. People have their own reasons for liking or disliking something. Im not going to like self-driving cars. Or pretend to just because someone lost a relative or loved one in a drunk driving accident. As for my argument, its not going to go anywhere either way. I dont care if my argument goes no where, Im dont like the way the world is going. Its not like if I change my stance, people will automatically listen. Im not anyone important. Theyll do the same thing theyre doing. In the end, I dont plan to change anyones mind. I dont care to. I dont care about having an audience (receptive or not), either. I just dont want to be around when shit hits the fan. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926813446] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Half the price, with 0% of the cost of a driver. In the long term, that's cost effective.</quote> Except for the fact that a good percentage of our customers are wheelchair bound and need to be strapped down, so we still need drivers to help with that for the shuttle replacing the bus. And the fact that the shuttle replacing the vans have way more handicap people that need strapping down including wheel chairs and walkers. And that we have many blind riders that need help getting to and on the right vehicle. And that some vehicles have to wait at certain spots for a certain amount of time. And would need to walk and talk to people on certain areas. We would still have to send drivers out with our vehicles regardless of if they drive them or not, making self-driving pointless. And spending 75% or 100% of a million instead of a little over 50% isnt cost effective. Our drivers dont actually make that much here. Not compared to other places. It would actually be cheaper for our drivers to drive the buses than spend an extra 250,000 or 500,000 per buses to have the same amount of seats. Because making less seats isnt good for the station... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Argue all you like, but you're arguing the wrong thing. Don't argue, "We shouldn't use this new technology". For one, that's a slap in the face to anyone who has ever lost a relative to a drunk or inattentive driver, something this technology could render a thing of the past. But more importantly, that argument is going to go precisely nowhere - no one who is in any position to do anything about it is going to take an argument like that seriously. It's simply not practical. If you want to argue about something, argue about what we should do in response to this new technology. Argue how we should handle increasing numbers of people being pushed out of the job market. This isn't he first time this has happened - factory workers also got automated out of their jobs, and we kinda fucked up our response to that. So let's start talking about what we can do differently, because the new wave of automation isn't just restricted to bus drivers and cabbies - it's coming for all of us, so we better figure out what we're going to do when it hits. Do that and you'll find a much more receptive audience.</quote> You say that, but there was a guy on this site that lost his wife to a drunk driver. And he was very against the self-driving cars himself. You cant say its always a slap in the face. People have their own reasons for liking or disliking something. Im not going to like self-driving cars. Or pretend to just because someone lost a relative or loved one in a drunk driving accident. As for my argument, its not going to go anywhere either way. I dont care if my argument goes no where, Im dont like the way the world is going. Its not like if I change my stance, people will automatically listen. Im not anyone important. Theyll do the same thing theyre doing. In the end, I dont plan to change anyones mind. I dont care to. I dont care about having an audience (receptive or not), either. I just dont want to be around when shit hits the fan.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 8:39:26 AM #130:	darkknight109 posted... Consider, before you say this, that 10 years ago iPhones were luxury purchases in the developed world; now they're commonplace even in developing countries. Technology moves fast, and you're in for a nasty surprise if you think automation is any different. Businesses are already looking at this technology with dollar signs in their eyes; civilian adoption won't be far behind. I know automation is around. But I dont believe everything will be automated (or close to everything) in 10 years. And definitely hope not. I see it being slightly different that a phone or tablet. darkknight109 posted... You're still talking about this like it's the future. It's not - it's the present. Self driving cars are already on the road today. They're already being used in business applications today. Depending on where you are in the world, you may have already shared the road with them. And their accident rates are substantially lower than human drivers. They're already proven to be more effective than human drivers. Yes. They are more effective. But as I said, they wont be as effective as they can be until everyone has them. Once everyone has them, then things will be better for people who want to be on the roads. I dont see how thats hard to understand. For example, cars can move faster because they can tell where all other cars are. And can move from place to place without stopping and shit. But they cant do that while human drivers are still out there. So, yes, theyll be more effective once everyone has them. But they can only be at their max efficiency when thats all thats on the road. Not that it matters to me, anyway... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926813449] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Consider, before you say this, that 10 years ago iPhones were luxury purchases in the developed world; now they're commonplace even in developing countries. Technology moves fast, and you're in for a nasty surprise if you think automation is any different. Businesses are already looking at this technology with dollar signs in their eyes; civilian adoption won't be far behind.</quote> I know automation is around. But I dont believe everything will be automated (or close to everything) in 10 years. And definitely hope not. I see it being slightly different that a phone or tablet. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You're still talking about this like it's the future. It's not - it's the present. Self driving cars are already on the road today. They're already being used in business applications today. Depending on where you are in the world, you may have already shared the road with them. And their accident rates are substantially lower than human drivers. They're already proven to be more effective than human drivers.</quote> Yes. They are more effective. But as I said, they wont be as effective as they can be until everyone has them. Once everyone has them, then things will be better for people who want to be on the roads. I dont see how thats hard to understand. For example, cars can move faster because they can tell where all other cars are. And can move from place to place without stopping and shit. But they cant do that while human drivers are still out there. So, yes, theyll be more effective once everyone has them. But they can only be at their max efficiency when thats all thats on the road. Not that it matters to me, anyway...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gloBal enemy 09/01/19 9:10:00 AM #131:	This thread reminds me of high school economics all over again. Some really interesting views in here. --- If you can understand this, I'm 2/cosC for you. <cite>gloBal enemy posted [p:926814000] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>This thread reminds me of high school economics all over again. Some really interesting views in here. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/01/19 7:32:03 PM #132:	LinkPizza posted... Except for the fact that a good percentage of our customers are wheelchair bound and need to be strapped down, so we still need drivers to help with that for the shuttle replacing the bus. Except that can be done at the stop, meaning you would need one attendant per stop rather than per vehicle. And given that these people would not require the driving credentials of a professional driver, they would cost less too - a high school student could do that level of work. There's also the issue of insurance. Because self-driving vehicles are incredibly safe, their insurance costs are far, far lower than even the most careful human driver. From an insurer's perspective, it's basically free money - an automated, low-risk system that virtually never gets in at-fault accidents is pretty much their ideal customer. LinkPizza posted... You say that, but there was a guy on this site that lost his wife to a drunk driver. And he was very against the self-driving cars himself. Counterpoint: my best friend's mother, someone I was very close to, died to a drunk driver and I'd swap all vehicles on the road to self-driving ones in a heartbeat if it was within my power to do so. Personal anecdotes don't mean much in arguments like this. LinkPizza posted... I just dont want to be around when shit hits the fan. But you will be - that's my point. Unless you are already in your 60s, you are vastly overestimating the time involved with self-driving car adoption if you think this won't be a thing in your lifetime. If you're part of the average demographics of this forum, it'll probably hit long before retirement is in sight for you. So you have a choice right now. You can sit and complain about how unfair the whole thing is, which is just going to put people in the mind of a toddler whining that his toy got taken away, or you can start talking about how we can mitigate the negative effects of this, which is an actual solution to the problems you're raising. If you're just going to complain, you may as well stop wasting everyone's time - including your own - because no one will listen. If you want to talk about viable ways to make this technology work for the betterment of all people, then you have grounds for a good discussion. LinkPizza posted... But I dont believe everything will be automated (or close to everything) in 10 years. "Everything" won't be, in the same way that not everyone has a smart phone or Facebook account today. But it will be commonplace in that timeframe - common enough that businesses will adopt it and people will lose jobs over it. LinkPizza posted... Yes. They are more effective. But as I said, they wont be as effective as they can be until everyone has them. Irrelevant - they don't need to be at peak effectiveness; as I've said, they just need to be more effective than us, and they already are. It's not even that high a bar to surpass. To borrow a (modified) George Carlin quote: think about how stupid the average driver is, then realize that half of them are even stupider than that. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926835661] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Except for the fact that a good percentage of our customers are wheelchair bound and need to be strapped down, so we still need drivers to help with that for the shuttle replacing the bus.</quote> Except that can be done at the stop, meaning you would need one attendant per stop rather than per vehicle. And given that these people would not require the driving credentials of a professional driver, they would cost less too - a high school student could do that level of work. There's also the issue of insurance. Because self-driving vehicles are incredibly safe, their insurance costs are far, far lower than even the most careful human driver. From an insurer's perspective, it's basically free money - an automated, low-risk system that virtually never gets in at-fault accidents is pretty much their ideal customer. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>You say that, but there was a guy on this site that lost his wife to a drunk driver. And he was very against the self-driving cars himself.</quote> Counterpoint: my best friend's mother, someone I was very close to, died to a drunk driver and I'd swap all vehicles on the road to self-driving ones in a heartbeat if it was within my power to do so. Personal anecdotes don't mean much in arguments like this. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>I just dont want to be around when shit hits the fan.</quote> But you will be - that's my point. Unless you are already in your 60s, you are vastly overestimating the time involved with self-driving car adoption if you think this won't be a thing in your lifetime. If you're part of the average demographics of this forum, it'll probably hit long before retirement is in sight for you. So you have a choice right now. You can sit and complain about how unfair the whole thing is, which is just going to put people in the mind of a toddler whining that his toy got taken away, or you can start talking about how we can mitigate the negative effects of this, which is an actual solution to the problems you're raising. If you're just going to complain, you may as well stop wasting everyone's time - including your own - because no one will listen. If you want to talk about viable ways to make this technology work for the betterment of all people, then you have grounds for a good discussion. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>But I dont believe everything will be automated (or close to everything) in 10 years.</quote> "Everything" won't be, in the same way that not everyone has a smart phone or Facebook account today. But it will be commonplace in that timeframe - common enough that businesses will adopt it and people will lose jobs over it. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Yes. They are more effective. But as I said, they wont be as effective as they can be until everyone has them. </quote> Irrelevant - they don't need to be at peak effectiveness; as I've said, they just need to be more effective than us, and they already are. It's not even that high a bar to surpass. To borrow a (modified) George Carlin quote: think about how stupid the average driver is, then realize that half of them are even stupider than that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/01/19 7:35:03 PM #133:	Self driving trucks are already on the road in some states --- More malicious than mischievous <cite>Mead posted [p:926835802] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Self driving trucks are already on the road in some states </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 8:00:52 PM #135:	darkknight109 posted... Except that can be done at the stop, meaning you would need one attendant per stop rather than per vehicle. And given that these people would not require the driving credentials of a professional driver, they would cost less too - a high school student could do that level of work. There's also the issue of insurance. Because self-driving vehicles are incredibly safe, their insurance costs are far, far lower than even the most careful human driver. From an insurer's perspective, it's basically free money - an automated, low-risk system that virtually never gets in at-fault accidents is pretty much their ideal customer. That makes absolutely no sense. Each bus goes to like 10 stops. So instead of 8 bus drivers, you want 80 attendants? And strapping down someone is not hard. But they definitely would not give the job to a high school student. You still have to be trained on it. And then theres company policy, as well. So, no. Besides, whos gonna work when everything is suppose to be free, right? There can still easily be accidents inside. It might be a little lower. But it will still rose every year like always. Even without accidents, they rise. And if they are still real people driving at that time, they cant lower as there can still be accidents. darkknight109 posted... Counterpoint: my best friend's mother, someone I was very close to, died to a drunk driver and I'd swap all vehicles on the road to self-driving ones in a heartbeat if it was within my power to do so. Personal anecdotes don't mean much in arguments like this. They dont. The point was its not a slap in the face to everybody who has lost someone. Basically, everyone is different. You made it seem like everybody who has lost someone would rather have self-driving cars. All I was proving was that you were assuming. darkknight109 posted... But you will be - that's my point. Unless you are already in your 60s, you are vastly overestimating the time involved with self-driving car adoption if you think this won't be a thing in your lifetime. If you're part of the average demographics of this forum, it'll probably hit long before retirement is in sight for you. So you have a choice right now. You can sit and complain about how unfair the whole thing is, which is just going to put people in the mind of a toddler whining that his toy got taken away, or you can start talking about how we can mitigate the negative effects of this, which is an actual solution to the problems you're raising. If you're just going to complain, you may as well stop wasting everyone's time - including your own - because no one will listen. If you want to talk about viable ways to make this technology work for the betterment of all people, then you have grounds for a good discussion. Again, making some assumptions. Youre assuming its definitely happening within 10 years. It might, it might. And I sure hope not. Youre also assuming Im going to live to be old. And another assumption you made was that I wouldnt be able to get out of the situation whenever I feel like it. Also, I could have technically had a retirement in 10 years. So, not that long, tbh... And honestly, Id rather be the toddler. I dont want any part of this. I already said I dont need an audience, nor do I want one. And it doesnt matter if I had a solution. Because no one would listen anybody. Im just a person. No one would care what I have to say. And thats totally fine... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926836728] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Except that can be done at the stop, meaning you would need one attendant per stop rather than per vehicle. And given that these people would not require the driving credentials of a professional driver, they would cost less too - a high school student could do that level of work. There's also the issue of insurance. Because self-driving vehicles are incredibly safe, their insurance costs are far, far lower than even the most careful human driver. From an insurer's perspective, it's basically free money - an automated, low-risk system that virtually never gets in at-fault accidents is pretty much their ideal customer.</quote> That makes absolutely no sense. Each bus goes to like 10 stops. So instead of 8 bus drivers, you want 80 attendants? And strapping down someone is not hard. But they definitely would not give the job to a high school student. You still have to be trained on it. And then theres company policy, as well. So, no. Besides, whos gonna work when everything is suppose to be free, right? There can still easily be accidents inside. It might be a little lower. But it will still rose every year like always. Even without accidents, they rise. And if they are still real people driving at that time, they cant lower as there can still be accidents. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Counterpoint: my best friend's mother, someone I was very close to, died to a drunk driver and I'd swap all vehicles on the road to self-driving ones in a heartbeat if it was within my power to do so. Personal anecdotes don't mean much in arguments like this.</quote> They dont. The point was its not a slap in the face to everybody who has lost someone. Basically, everyone is different. You made it seem like everybody who has lost someone would rather have self-driving cars. All I was proving was that you were assuming. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>But you will be - that's my point. Unless you are already in your 60s, you are vastly overestimating the time involved with self-driving car adoption if you think this won't be a thing in your lifetime. If you're part of the average demographics of this forum, it'll probably hit long before retirement is in sight for you. So you have a choice right now. You can sit and complain about how unfair the whole thing is, which is just going to put people in the mind of a toddler whining that his toy got taken away, or you can start talking about how we can mitigate the negative effects of this, which is an actual solution to the problems you're raising. If you're just going to complain, you may as well stop wasting everyone's time - including your own - because no one will listen. If you want to talk about viable ways to make this technology work for the betterment of all people, then you have grounds for a good discussion.</quote> Again, making some assumptions. Youre assuming its definitely happening within 10 years. It might, it might. And I sure hope not. Youre also assuming Im going to live to be old. And another assumption you made was that I wouldnt be able to get out of the situation whenever I feel like it. Also, I could have technically had a retirement in 10 years. So, not that long, tbh... And honestly, Id rather be the toddler. I dont want any part of this. I already said I dont need an audience, nor do I want one. And it doesnt matter if I had a solution. Because no one would listen anybody. Im just a person. No one would care what I have to say. And thats totally fine...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 8:00:57 PM #136:	darkknight109 posted... "Everything" won't be, in the same way that not everyone has a smart phone or Facebook account today. But it will be commonplace in that timeframe - common enough that businesses will adopt it and people will lose jobs over it. And that will pretty much collapse everything... darkknight109 posted... Irrelevant - they don't need to be at peak effectiveness; as I've said, they just need to be more effective than us, and they already are. It's not even that high a bar to surpass. To borrow a (modified) George Carlin quote: think about how stupid the average driver is, then realize that half of them are even stupider than that. That fine. Either way, I wont be using them... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926836731] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>"Everything" won't be, in the same way that not everyone has a smart phone or Facebook account today. But it will be commonplace in that timeframe - common enough that businesses will adopt it and people will lose jobs over it.</quote> And that will pretty much collapse everything... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Irrelevant - they don't need to be at peak effectiveness; as I've said, they just need to be more effective than us, and they already are. It's not even that high a bar to surpass. To borrow a (modified) George Carlin quote: think about how stupid the average driver is, then realize that half of them are even stupider than that.</quote> That fine. Either way, I wont be using them...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gloBal enemy 09/01/19 10:57:16 PM #137:	I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in. Whilst I'm more inclined to agree with Darknight's points given I work in consulting and help my clients with automation (as well as building our own NN solutions), I also appreciate LinkPizza's views which are a bit more traditional and dare I say, often on the other side of the fence when we are working with clients on being better prepared for the future. --- If you can understand this, I'm 2/cosC for you. <cite>gloBal enemy posted [p:926843301] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in. Whilst I'm more inclined to agree with Darknight's points given I work in consulting and help my clients with automation (as well as building our own NN solutions), I also appreciate LinkPizza's views which are a bit more traditional and dare I say, often on the other side of the fence when we are working with clients on being better prepared for the future. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/01/19 11:01:55 PM #138:	gloBal enemy posted... I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in. Whilst I'm more inclined to agree with Darknight's points given I work in consulting and help my clients with automation (as well as building our own NN solutions), I also appreciate LinkPizza's views which are a bit more traditional and dare I say, often on the other side of the fence when we are working with clients on being better prepared for the future. I am 30 years old. Currently, my professions are Air Force and Transportation (Bus station & Para-transit). --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926843462] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>gloBal enemy posted...</cite> <quote>I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in. Whilst I'm more inclined to agree with Darknight's points given I work in consulting and help my clients with automation (as well as building our own NN solutions), I also appreciate LinkPizza's views which are a bit more traditional and dare I say, often on the other side of the fence when we are working with clients on being better prepared for the future. </quote> I am 30 years old. Currently, my professions are Air Force and Transportation (Bus station & Para-transit).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gloBal enemy 09/01/19 11:14:34 PM #139:	LinkPizza posted... I am 30 years old. Currently, my professions are Air Force and Transportation (Bus station & Para-transit). Interesting. I pegged you as closer to 40 based on your arguments. You being in air force however makes alot more sense. --- If you can understand this, I'm 2/cosC for you. <cite>gloBal enemy posted [p:926843846] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I am 30 years old. Currently, my professions are Air Force and Transportation (Bus station & Para-transit).</quote> Interesting. I pegged you as closer to 40 based on your arguments. You being in air force however makes alot more sense. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ecco6t9 09/02/19 12:12:50 AM #140:	First day of high school back in 2000, it was a class of 3,000 students, one of the vice principals said You go to college and get the good job. I realized then that there was one job and 3,000 others vying for it so I opted not to put myself $20,000 - $100,000 in debt to try for that one job. --- Time Magazine's Man Of The Year 2006. <cite>ecco6t9 posted [p:926845649] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>First day of high school back in 2000, it was a class of 3,000 students, one of the vice principals said You go to college and get the good job. I realized then that there was one job and 3,000 others vying for it so I opted not to put myself $20,000 - $100,000 in debt to try for that one job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/04/19 6:13:44 AM #141:	LinkPizza posted... That makes absolutely no sense. Each bus goes to like 10 stops. So instead of 8 bus drivers, you want 80 attendants? Put it this way - they've clearly found some way around this to make it cost effective. I have no idea what it is, but if it wasn't cost effective, they wouldn't bother doing it. They are, ergo it must be. LinkPizza posted... Besides, whos gonna work when everything is suppose to be free, right? It's going to be a long time before we hit the "everything is free" stage, and by that point I'm quite confident that someone will have figured out a way to have a robot do a task as simple as belting someone in (such robots already exist, but are still too expensive to have doing something menial like that). LinkPizza posted... There can still easily be accidents inside. Can be? Yes. Can "easily" be? No. Not if we're talking about at-fault accidents, that is. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of serious crashes are due to "dangerous choices or errors people make behind the wheel" - AKA, human error. Computers aren't immune to making "bad choices", but they make them at a much lower rate (and some not at all, like driving drunk, distracted driving/texting while driving, fatigued driving, etc.). To date, there have been just six fatalities caused by self-driving cars (four drivers, two pedestrians). And even in cases where a self-driving car has been involved in a crash, it's almost never an at-fault crash. Axios looked at this about a year ago - of 62 incidents when a self-driving car was in autonomous mode (i.e. not being driven by the driver), just one was determined to be the fault of the self-driving car. LinkPizza posted... It might be a little lower. But it will still rose every year like always. Even without accidents, they rise. And if they are still real people driving at that time, they cant lower as there can still be accidents. Of course they can lower insurance for self-driving cars. Again, insurers are all about risk. They evaluate you for your risk. If you are young, male, and have a couple of at-fault accidents or tickets on your record, you will be paying through the nose for insurance and some companies may flat-out refuse to cover you at all. You are simply too risky for them - they can and will charge you 10x the amount they would charge a less risky driver. By the same token, if you are an older driver with decades of accident-free driving under your belt, your insurance is cheap. Hell, my insurance dropped by half after I moved because I no longer commuted to work, so my vehicle classification changed from "commuter vehicle" to "recreational vehicle". To an insurance company, a vehicle that is permanently attentive, with a negligible at-fault accident rate is pretty close to their definition of an ideal customer. They want customers that they never have to pay for, customers that never make a claim, customers that are low risk. Self-driving vehicles are all of those things, moreso than humans ever could be. Once the technology is more widespread and the track record is proven, insurers will be tripping over themselves to insure these cars, because it's basically free money for them. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926944994] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>That makes absolutely no sense. Each bus goes to like 10 stops. So instead of 8 bus drivers, you want 80 attendants? </quote> Put it this way - they've clearly found some way around this to make it cost effective. I have no idea what it is, but if it wasn't cost effective, they wouldn't bother doing it. They are, ergo it must be. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Besides, whos gonna work when everything is suppose to be free, right?</quote> It's going to be a long time before we hit the "everything is free" stage, and by that point I'm quite confident that someone will have figured out a way to have a robot do a task as simple as belting someone in (such robots already exist, but are still too expensive to have doing something menial like that). LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>There can still easily be accidents inside.</quote> Can be? Yes. Can "easily" be? No. Not if we're talking about at-fault accidents, that is. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of serious crashes are due to "dangerous choices or errors people make behind the wheel" - AKA, human error. Computers aren't immune to making "bad choices", but they make them at a much lower rate (and some not at all, like driving drunk, distracted driving/texting while driving, fatigued driving, etc.). To date, there have been just six fatalities caused by self-driving cars (four drivers, two pedestrians). And even in cases where a self-driving car has been involved in a crash, it's almost never an at-fault crash. Axios looked at this about a year ago - of 62 incidents when a self-driving car was in autonomous mode (i.e. not being driven by the driver), just one was determined to be the fault of the self-driving car. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>It might be a little lower. But it will still rose every year like always. Even without accidents, they rise. And if they are still real people driving at that time, they cant lower as there can still be accidents. </quote> Of course they can lower insurance for self-driving cars. Again, insurers are all about risk. They evaluate you for your risk. If you are young, male, and have a couple of at-fault accidents or tickets on your record, you will be paying through the nose for insurance and some companies may flat-out refuse to cover you at all. You are simply too risky for them - they can and will charge you 10x the amount they would charge a less risky driver. By the same token, if you are an older driver with decades of accident-free driving under your belt, your insurance is cheap. Hell, my insurance dropped by half after I moved because I no longer commuted to work, so my vehicle classification changed from "commuter vehicle" to "recreational vehicle". To an insurance company, a vehicle that is permanently attentive, with a negligible at-fault accident rate is pretty close to their definition of an ideal customer. They want customers that they never have to pay for, customers that never make a claim, customers that are low risk. Self-driving vehicles are all of those things, moreso than humans ever could be. Once the technology is more widespread and the track record is proven, insurers will be tripping over themselves to insure these cars, because it's basically free money for them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/04/19 6:13:49 AM #142:	LinkPizza posted... The point was its not a slap in the face to everybody who has lost someone. I didn't say it was to "everybody". That said, cars kill ~40,000 people every single year in the US alone - don't you think cutting down on that statistic is something we should be aiming for? LinkPizza posted... Again, making some assumptions. Of course I'm making assumptions, because it's impossible to have this conversation unless you do that. You're also making assumptions - specifically, that these vehicles won't become widespread in your lifetime, despite the fact that the government's own estimates suggest there will be millions on the road in the next decade. LinkPizza posted... Youre also assuming Im going to live to be old. People who assume they're going to die young often wind up impoverished in their later years. I don't recommend that mindset. LinkPizza posted... And that will pretty much collapse everything... It very well could, if we don't prepare for it. So let's stop complaining and start figuring out how to stave off that collapse. Something more realistic than, "Let's just not let technology advance any further." gloBal enemy posted... I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in. I don't generally give out my age online. I will say that I'm older than LinkPizza and I'm an engineer (specifically in the energy/oil and gas industry). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926944996] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The point was its not a slap in the face to everybody who has lost someone. </quote> I didn't say it was to "everybody". That said, cars kill ~40,000 people every single year in the US alone - don't you think cutting down on that statistic is something we should be aiming for? LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Again, making some assumptions.</quote> Of course I'm making assumptions, because it's impossible to have this conversation unless you do that. You're also making assumptions - specifically, that these vehicles won't become widespread in your lifetime, despite the fact that the government's own estimates suggest there will be millions on the road in the next decade. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Youre also assuming Im going to live to be old.</quote> People who assume they're going to die young often wind up impoverished in their later years. I don't recommend that mindset. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And that will pretty much collapse everything... </quote> It very well could, if we don't prepare for it. So let's stop complaining and start figuring out how to stave off that collapse. Something more realistic than, "Let's just not let technology advance any further." gloBal enemy posted...</cite> <quote>I'm curious, how old are you both (LinkPizza & Darkknight109) and what profession/industry are you in.</quote> I don't generally give out my age online. I will say that I'm older than LinkPizza and I'm an engineer (specifically in the energy/oil and gas industry).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/04/19 8:29:19 AM #143:	darkknight109 posted... Put it this way - they've clearly found some way around this to make it cost effective. I have no idea what it is, but if it wasn't cost effective, they wouldn't bother doing it. They are, ergo it must be. Cost effective in one place doesnt mean it is everywhere. Places have different prices. Some places have prices higher than us. Usually, most places do. Its cheap here. Out station doesnt really make any money. The only reason we are basically allowed to exist is because the city pays to keep us around. Other place already charged more than us. And could possibly raise prices even more to pay for the buses. I remember something happening in Washington where they raised like all the taxes they could to the limit to get enough money to pay for a new public transport system, and kept it that way for a few years to make sure they would have money to fix it when they needed to... Also, Idk if its just the area or something, but Ive never seen as many disabled people and such in wheelchairs on buses as Ive seen here. So, just because its cost effective in some places doesnt mean it will be everywhere... darkknight109 posted... It's going to be a long time before we hit the "everything is free" stage, and by that point I'm quite confident that someone will have figured out a way to have a robot do a task as simple as belting someone in (such robots already exist, but are still too expensive to have doing something menial like that). The problem is between now and then. What happens to all the people who cant work because they have robots who do better jobs? Everything wont be free. So they need to work. But there are no jobs available because robots have all of them. Are they just suppose to starve and die because nobody has thought of anything? Or do we just make stuff free for them? Because if we do, people will start quitting en masse because why work for stuff when the people who dont work get the same stuff for free? darkknight109 posted... Can be? Yes. Can "easily" be? No. Not if we're talking about at-fault accidents, that is. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of serious crashes are due to "dangerous choices or errors people make behind the wheel" - AKA, human error. Computers aren't immune to making "bad choices", but they make them at a much lower rate (and some not at all, like driving drunk, distracted driving/texting while driving, fatigued driving, etc.). To date, there have been just six fatalities caused by self-driving cars (four drivers, two pedestrians). And even in cases where a self-driving car has been involved in a crash, it's almost never an at-fault crash. Axios looked at this about a year ago - of 62 incidents when a self-driving car was in autonomous mode (i.e. not being driven by the driver), just one was determined to be the fault of the self-driving car. Ok. I can see why you thought this, but I wasnt talking about those kinds of accidents. Though, while low now, I think the number will definitely rise with pretty quickly when more of those cars are on the road. I said accidents inside. As is people will pee, poop, vomit, and bleed on buses. And someone has to clean it up. Its not that much of a rarity, either. Not to mention when things happen to a passenger. Like needing emergency care and such. Lots of our patients are old/sick/disabled/etc. Thats why we would still need someone on the bus looking after them. Which if we have 24 instead on 8 buses, might triple or so the number of buses drivers or bus conductors we need. Though, they probably wont need a CDL do to the low number of people theyd carry... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926947453] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Put it this way - they've clearly found some way around this to make it cost effective. I have no idea what it is, but if it wasn't cost effective, they wouldn't bother doing it. They are, ergo it must be.</quote> Cost effective in one place doesnt mean it is everywhere. Places have different prices. Some places have prices higher than us. Usually, most places do. Its cheap here. Out station doesnt really make any money. The only reason we are basically allowed to exist is because the city pays to keep us around. Other place already charged more than us. And could possibly raise prices even more to pay for the buses. I remember something happening in Washington where they raised like all the taxes they could to the limit to get enough money to pay for a new public transport system, and kept it that way for a few years to make sure they would have money to fix it when they needed to... Also, Idk if its just the area or something, but Ive never seen as many disabled people and such in wheelchairs on buses as Ive seen here. So, just because its cost effective in some places doesnt mean it will be everywhere... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>It's going to be a long time before we hit the "everything is free" stage, and by that point I'm quite confident that someone will have figured out a way to have a robot do a task as simple as belting someone in (such robots already exist, but are still too expensive to have doing something menial like that).</quote> The problem is between now and then. What happens to all the people who cant work because they have robots who do better jobs? Everything wont be free. So they need to work. But there are no jobs available because robots have all of them. Are they just suppose to starve and die because nobody has thought of anything? Or do we just make stuff free for them? Because if we do, people will start quitting en masse because why work for stuff when the people who dont work get the same stuff for free? darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Can be? Yes. Can "easily" be? No. Not if we're talking about at-fault accidents, that is. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of serious crashes are due to "dangerous choices or errors people make behind the wheel" - AKA, human error. Computers aren't immune to making "bad choices", but they make them at a much lower rate (and some not at all, like driving drunk, distracted driving/texting while driving, fatigued driving, etc.). To date, there have been just six fatalities caused by self-driving cars (four drivers, two pedestrians). And even in cases where a self-driving car has been involved in a crash, it's almost never an at-fault crash. Axios looked at this about a year ago - of 62 incidents when a self-driving car was in autonomous mode (i.e. not being driven by the driver), just one was determined to be the fault of the self-driving car.</quote> Ok. I can see why you thought this, but I wasnt talking about those kinds of accidents. Though, while low now, I think the number will definitely rise with pretty quickly when more of those cars are on the road. I said accidents inside. As is people will pee, poop, vomit, and bleed on buses. And someone has to clean it up. Its not that much of a rarity, either. Not to mention when things happen to a passenger. Like needing emergency care and such. Lots of our patients are old/sick/disabled/etc. Thats why we would still need someone on the bus looking after them. Which if we have 24 instead on 8 buses, might triple or so the number of buses drivers or bus conductors we need. Though, they probably wont need a CDL do to the low number of people theyd carry...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/04/19 8:29:58 AM #144:	darkknight109 posted... Of course they can lower insurance for self-driving cars. Again, insurers are all about risk. They evaluate you for your risk. If you are young, male, and have a couple of at-fault accidents or tickets on your record, you will be paying through the nose for insurance and some companies may flat-out refuse to cover you at all. You are simply too risky for them - they can and will charge you 10x the amount they would charge a less risky driver. By the same token, if you are an older driver with decades of accident-free driving under your belt, your insurance is cheap. Hell, my insurance dropped by half after I moved because I no longer commuted to work, so my vehicle classification changed from "commuter vehicle" to "recreational vehicle". To an insurance company, a vehicle that is permanently attentive, with a negligible at-fault accident rate is pretty close to their definition of an ideal customer. They want customers that they never have to pay for, customers that never make a claim, customers that are low risk. Self-driving vehicles are all of those things, moreso than humans ever could be. Once the technology is more widespread and the track record is proven, insurers will be tripping over themselves to insure these cars, because it's basically free money for them. Except it might not be. The fact is that insurance rates can rise even when you have an accident thats not your fault. And with real drivers still on the road, its possible enough of those vehicles will still have accidents. And even though they arent at fault, can raise the insurance a bit. And could still end up paying if the other person doesnt have insurance. You can sue for the money back. But still. Not to mention, there are still a few things a human can predict that a self-driving car might not be able to... darkknight109 posted... I didn't say it was to "everybody". That said, cars kill ~40,000 people every single year in the US alone - don't you think cutting down on that statistic is something we should be aiming for? Sure. I just dont agree with forcing everybody into something they dont want. darkknight109 posted... Of course I'm making assumptions, because it's impossible to have this conversation unless you do that. You're also making assumptions - specifically, that these vehicles won't become widespread in your lifetime, despite the fact that the government's own estimates suggest there will be millions on the road in the next decade. Its not an assumption on my part. Ill be dead. It could happen on 5, 10, 15, 20, or 100 years. Either way, Ill be dead. So, not my lifetime... darkknight109 posted... People who assume they're going to die young often wind up impoverished in their later years. I don't recommend that mindset. Thats because they dont die early enough. I love for the time Im in. Once things change to the hellish future, I just finish it. darkknight109 posted... It very well could, if we don't prepare for it. So let's stop complaining and start figuring out how to stave off that collapse. Something more realistic than, "Let's just not let technology advance any further." If you want to figure it out, go ahead. I dont feel like wasting my time to not be heard, nor do I care. As Im not going to deal with it. I plan to be gone by then. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926947464] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Of course they can lower insurance for self-driving cars. Again, insurers are all about risk. They evaluate you for your risk. If you are young, male, and have a couple of at-fault accidents or tickets on your record, you will be paying through the nose for insurance and some companies may flat-out refuse to cover you at all. You are simply too risky for them - they can and will charge you 10x the amount they would charge a less risky driver. By the same token, if you are an older driver with decades of accident-free driving under your belt, your insurance is cheap. Hell, my insurance dropped by half after I moved because I no longer commuted to work, so my vehicle classification changed from "commuter vehicle" to "recreational vehicle". To an insurance company, a vehicle that is permanently attentive, with a negligible at-fault accident rate is pretty close to their definition of an ideal customer. They want customers that they never have to pay for, customers that never make a claim, customers that are low risk. Self-driving vehicles are all of those things, moreso than humans ever could be. Once the technology is more widespread and the track record is proven, insurers will be tripping over themselves to insure these cars, because it's basically free money for them.</quote> Except it might not be. The fact is that insurance rates can rise even when you have an accident thats not your fault. And with real drivers still on the road, its possible enough of those vehicles will still have accidents. And even though they arent at fault, can raise the insurance a bit. And could still end up paying if the other person doesnt have insurance. You can sue for the money back. But still. Not to mention, there are still a few things a human can predict that a self-driving car might not be able to... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't say it was to "everybody". That said, cars kill ~40,000 people every single year in the US alone - don't you think cutting down on that statistic is something we should be aiming for?</quote> Sure. I just dont agree with forcing everybody into something they dont want. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Of course I'm making assumptions, because it's impossible to have this conversation unless you do that. You're also making assumptions - specifically, that these vehicles won't become widespread in your lifetime, despite the fact that the government's own estimates suggest there will be millions on the road in the next decade.</quote> Its not an assumption on my part. Ill be dead. It could happen on 5, 10, 15, 20, or 100 years. Either way, Ill be dead. So, not my lifetime... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>People who assume they're going to die young often wind up impoverished in their later years. I don't recommend that mindset.</quote> Thats because they dont die early enough. I love for the time Im in. Once things change to the hellish future, I just finish it. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>It very well could, if we don't prepare for it. So let's stop complaining and start figuring out how to stave off that collapse. Something more realistic than, "Let's just not let technology advance any further."</quote> If you want to figure it out, go ahead. I dont feel like wasting my time to not be heard, nor do I care. As Im not going to deal with it. I plan to be gone by then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/04/19 10:38:00 AM #145:	Noop_Noop posted... Sorry you fuckers either never learned how or never wanted to put forth the effort required to game the system. Ah yes, let's blame those who didn't game the system, not the system that needed to be gamed in the first place. That's a sustainable way to run a country. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:926951081] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Sorry you fuckers either never learned how or never wanted to put forth the effort required to game the system.</quote> Ah yes, let's blame those who didn't game the system, not the system that needed to be gamed in the first place. That's a sustainable way to run a country.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gloBal enemy 09/04/19 11:43:32 AM #146:	I think gamed is a strong word to use in this context. Being forward thinking or deliberately working in industries more likely to grow rather than become redundant is not the same as manipulating or taking advantage of loopholes for ones benefit. --- If you can understand this, I'm 2/cosC for you. <cite>gloBal enemy posted [p:926953545] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>I think gamed is a strong word to use in this context. Being forward thinking or deliberately working in industries more likely to grow rather than become redundant is not the same as manipulating or taking advantage of loopholes for ones benefit. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/04/19 12:59:48 PM #147:	LinkPizza posted... Cost effective in one place doesnt mean it is everywhere. Places have different prices. Some places have prices higher than us. If somewhere else has higher prices than you do and they still make it cost effective, that means it should be easier - not harder - for it to be cost effective where you live. LinkPizza posted... The problem is between now and then. What happens to all the people who cant work because they have robots who do better jobs? Everything wont be free. So they need to work. But there are no jobs available because robots have all of them. Are they just suppose to starve and die because nobody has thought of anything? That's the question I posed when we first started this little side-tangent; you said you would rather be a toddler - your words there - than have the discussion. For the record, I think the simplest answer is shifting to some form of universal basic income. Jobs will pay extra, giving incentive to hold them, but if you don't have one it won't ultimately result in starvation and poverty. LinkPizza posted... Though, while low now, I think the number will definitely rise with pretty quickly when more of those cars are on the road. Accident rates are already volume adjusted; how many cars there are on the road doesn't change them. The raw number of accidents goes up, sure, but the fact that self-driving cars get into at-fault accidents at a far, far lower rate than humans isn't going to change. If anything, it will drop further as the system gets fine-tuned and the technology improves further. LinkPizza posted... And with real drivers still on the road, its possible enough of those vehicles will still have accidents. That sounds like an excellent reason to phase out non-autonomous vehicles once the technology becomes widespread. But more to the point, human drivers on the road having at-fault accidents involving other cars would affect all other vehicles at the same rate - autonomous or non-autonomous. It's a null factor. LinkPizza posted... Sure. I just dont agree with forcing everybody into something they dont want. "Everybody" clearly isn't against this. I don't drive much these days, but if you offered me a ride with a random driver versus a ride in an autonomous vehicle, I'd take the AV every time. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:926956594] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Cost effective in one place doesnt mean it is everywhere. Places have different prices. Some places have prices higher than us.</quote> If somewhere else has higher prices than you do and they still make it cost effective, that means it should be easier - not harder - for it to be cost effective where you live. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The problem is between now and then. What happens to all the people who cant work because they have robots who do better jobs? Everything wont be free. So they need to work. But there are no jobs available because robots have all of them. Are they just suppose to starve and die because nobody has thought of anything? </quote> That's the question I posed when we first started this little side-tangent; you said you would rather be a toddler - your words there - than have the discussion. For the record, I think the simplest answer is shifting to some form of universal basic income. Jobs will pay extra, giving incentive to hold them, but if you don't have one it won't ultimately result in starvation and poverty. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Though, while low now, I think the number will definitely rise with pretty quickly when more of those cars are on the road.</quote> Accident rates are already volume adjusted; how many cars there are on the road doesn't change them. The raw number of accidents goes up, sure, but the fact that self-driving cars get into at-fault accidents at a far, far lower rate than humans isn't going to change. If anything, it will drop further as the system gets fine-tuned and the technology improves further. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And with real drivers still on the road, its possible enough of those vehicles will still have accidents.</quote> That sounds like an excellent reason to phase out non-autonomous vehicles once the technology becomes widespread. But more to the point, human drivers on the road having at-fault accidents involving other cars would affect all other vehicles at the same rate - autonomous or non-autonomous. It's a null factor. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Sure. I just dont agree with forcing everybody into something they dont want.</quote> "Everybody" clearly isn't against this. I don't drive much these days, but if you offered me a ride with a random driver versus a ride in an autonomous vehicle, I'd take the AV every time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/04/19 4:03:55 PM #148:	darkknight109 posted... If somewhere else has higher prices than you do and they still make it cost effective, that means it should be easier - not harder - for it to be cost effective where you live. No. The higher prices are for the customers. It makes it easier for them because they end up with more money. By actually running our company, we technically lose money all the time. As for cost effective, I still havent seen any proof why. First of all, no matter what, well have to have an employee on the bus. We need them for wheelchair, for any accidents (like pee, poop, vomit, and blood clean-up), to stop any disputes, medical emergencies (seizures, heart attack, heat stroke, etc.), etc. Meaning that no matter what, well still have to pay them. Then theres the cost of the self-driving vehicles vs the amount of people it can hold. You said they hold 8 people sitting. And then cost $250,000 from what I saw online. Our buses cost about $500,000 and hold more than 30 sitting customers. We are paying half the price of a full buses, with 1/4 the number of seats. Thats already less cost-effective as you getting less seats for you buck. Thats for buses. For para-transit vans, they also hold more people. And they only cost about $61,000. That means we could buy 4 vans for less than the price of one self-driving vehicle. And then, for both buses and vans, we would need a ton to replace them. We have 15 buses. Wed probably need 3x-4x as many self driving vehicles to make sure we could pick up everybody, wed need either 24-32 out on the 8 routes a day for bus. For vans, who knows how many. We usually send out about 10 vans, which means probably 15 vehicles. But out vans drivers have ways to pick up and drop off people thats different from dispatch because it makes more sense. Meaning that if the self driving stays a certain course, they may need like 15-20 out at a time. The problem is that all of those vehicle will need a driver (or conductor) still. Meaning it would cost more in employee cost. And employee insurance. And possibly regular insurance. And replacing all the vans would be a lot. We have to replace all the bus. For vans, we have 29. Meaning wed have to get like 45 self-driving buses for the vans, as well. Not to mention spares for the buses. Thats like not to far from 100 self-driving vehicles. We dont have enough space for them. Thats like in cost to replace everything with spares 20-25 million. And I know station back home that already have over 100 buses. It would cost a fortune for those stations to replace everything. Not to the mention the gas. They all need gas. 3-4 times as much for buses. Probably twice as much for vans. Way to much altogether. I dont see it as cost effective at all... darkknight109 posted... That's the question I posed when we first started this little side-tangent; you said you would rather be a toddler - your words there - than have the discussion. For the record, I think the simplest answer is shifting to some form of universal basic income. Jobs will pay extra, giving incentive to hold them, but if you don't have one it won't ultimately result in starvation and poverty. Which nobody wants. People want to be able to afford the lifestyle they already had. And youd rather take that away from them by forcing them to live on a basic income that would still have to change based on where you live. Nobody wants to be forced to not get the stuff they want. They can barely go out to eat. And that cant buy the normal foods they buy. Its basically like forcing people on welfare or food stamps when they could just keep their job and live peacefully without all this other shit. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926964799] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>If somewhere else has higher prices than you do and they still make it cost effective, that means it should be easier - not harder - for it to be cost effective where you live.</quote> No. The higher prices are for the customers. It makes it easier for them because they end up with more money. By actually running our company, we technically lose money all the time. As for cost effective, I still havent seen any proof why. First of all, no matter what, well have to have an employee on the bus. We need them for wheelchair, for any accidents (like pee, poop, vomit, and blood clean-up), to stop any disputes, medical emergencies (seizures, heart attack, heat stroke, etc.), etc. Meaning that no matter what, well still have to pay them. Then theres the cost of the self-driving vehicles vs the amount of people it can hold. You said they hold 8 people sitting. And then cost $250,000 from what I saw online. Our buses cost about $500,000 and hold more than 30 sitting customers. We are paying half the price of a full buses, with 1/4 the number of seats. Thats already less cost-effective as you getting less seats for you buck. Thats for buses. For para-transit vans, they also hold more people. And they only cost about $61,000. That means we could buy 4 vans for less than the price of one self-driving vehicle. And then, for both buses and vans, we would need a ton to replace them. We have 15 buses. Wed probably need 3x-4x as many self driving vehicles to make sure we could pick up everybody, wed need either 24-32 out on the 8 routes a day for bus. For vans, who knows how many. We usually send out about 10 vans, which means probably 15 vehicles. But out vans drivers have ways to pick up and drop off people thats different from dispatch because it makes more sense. Meaning that if the self driving stays a certain course, they may need like 15-20 out at a time. The problem is that all of those vehicle will need a driver (or conductor) still. Meaning it would cost more in employee cost. And employee insurance. And possibly regular insurance. And replacing all the vans would be a lot. We have to replace all the bus. For vans, we have 29. Meaning wed have to get like 45 self-driving buses for the vans, as well. Not to mention spares for the buses. Thats like not to far from 100 self-driving vehicles. We dont have enough space for them. Thats like in cost to replace everything with spares 20-25 million. And I know station back home that already have over 100 buses. It would cost a fortune for those stations to replace everything. Not to the mention the gas. They all need gas. 3-4 times as much for buses. Probably twice as much for vans. Way to much altogether. I dont see it as cost effective at all... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>That's the question I posed when we first started this little side-tangent; you said you would rather be a toddler - your words there - than have the discussion. For the record, I think the simplest answer is shifting to some form of universal basic income. Jobs will pay extra, giving incentive to hold them, but if you don't have one it won't ultimately result in starvation and poverty.</quote> Which nobody wants. People want to be able to afford the lifestyle they already had. And youd rather take that away from them by forcing them to live on a basic income that would still have to change based on where you live. Nobody wants to be forced to not get the stuff they want. They can barely go out to eat. And that cant buy the normal foods they buy. Its basically like forcing people on welfare or food stamps when they could just keep their job and live peacefully without all this other shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/04/19 4:04:16 PM #149:	darkknight109 posted... Accident rates are already volume adjusted; how many cars there are on the road doesn't change them. The raw number of accidents goes up, sure, but the fact that self-driving cars get into at-fault accidents at a far, far lower rate than humans isn't going to change. If anything, it will drop further as the system gets fine-tuned and the technology improves further. Possibly. But the number will still be there. And insurance could still easily rise. Not to mention the other cars on the road means that they still cant predict everything. And there are some thing humans can see that the car wont. We know how people will react. Like seeing someone looking only one way, and ready to bolt as soon as they see one vehicle pass. We could understand that and slow down early. Where a car might think they are just standing on the side of the road waiting. Especially depending on the clothes they wear. darkknight109 posted... That sounds like an excellent reason to phase out non-autonomous vehicles once the technology becomes widespread. But more to the point, human drivers on the road having at-fault accidents involving other cars would affect all other vehicles at the same rate - autonomous or non-autonomous. It's a null factor. Except not everyone is going to like that. People like having their own car where they can fix and test drive, or just go out for nice drives, and stuff like that. Its not the same as having a car do all the work. Not to mention people who dont trust them. Not to mention letting you car kill you if it comes to having to make a decision between you and another car, and choosing the other car over yours. That would suck, as well... and then, theres still motorcycles and bikes. But people arent going to want to be forced into a self-driving car. Then theres the price. They are probably going to be pretty expensive. More than a regular car. Some people already have trouble buying a regular car. Others have trouble buying used cars. But you expect everybody to have enough for a self-driving car. Or people to want to pay when they either just finished paying off a car, or are still currently paying for one. People arent going to want to do that, either... darkknight109 posted... "Everybody" clearly isn't against this. I don't drive much these days, but if you offered me a ride with a random driver versus a ride in an autonomous vehicle, I'd take the AV every time. And Id go with the random person every time. Lots of people dont like or trust them. Not everybody, of course. But there are many people who dont want self-driving cars... Couldnt add on to first quote do to space limitations: Also, bus space is very valuable. Which is why I bring it up. People rent out buses to hold large groups. Renting out a bunch of small shuttles is not the same. And our trolleys look much nicer. Also, bus space helps when we help evacuate people and shuttling people places. Evacuations would take much longer with less seats. And when we had to shuttle everyone to hotels, and then back to the airports, that takes a while, even with huge buses. Imagine carrying 1/4 or less per trip. Once, it took all night until 7am. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:926964811] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Accident rates are already volume adjusted; how many cars there are on the road doesn't change them. The raw number of accidents goes up, sure, but the fact that self-driving cars get into at-fault accidents at a far, far lower rate than humans isn't going to change. If anything, it will drop further as the system gets fine-tuned and the technology improves further.</quote> Possibly. But the number will still be there. And insurance could still easily rise. Not to mention the other cars on the road means that they still cant predict everything. And there are some thing humans can see that the car wont. We know how people will react. Like seeing someone looking only one way, and ready to bolt as soon as they see one vehicle pass. We could understand that and slow down early. Where a car might think they are just standing on the side of the road waiting. Especially depending on the clothes they wear. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>That sounds like an excellent reason to phase out non-autonomous vehicles once the technology becomes widespread. But more to the point, human drivers on the road having at-fault accidents involving other cars would affect all other vehicles at the same rate - autonomous or non-autonomous. It's a null factor.</quote> Except not everyone is going to like that. People like having their own car where they can fix and test drive, or just go out for nice drives, and stuff like that. Its not the same as having a car do all the work. Not to mention people who dont trust them. Not to mention letting you car kill you if it comes to having to make a decision between you and another car, and choosing the other car over yours. That would suck, as well... and then, theres still motorcycles and bikes. But people arent going to want to be forced into a self-driving car. Then theres the price. They are probably going to be pretty expensive. More than a regular car. Some people already have trouble buying a regular car. Others have trouble buying used cars. But you expect everybody to have enough for a self-driving car. Or people to want to pay when they either just finished paying off a car, or are still currently paying for one. People arent going to want to do that, either... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>"Everybody" clearly isn't against this. I don't drive much these days, but if you offered me a ride with a random driver versus a ride in an autonomous vehicle, I'd take the AV every time.</quote> And Id go with the random person every time. Lots of people dont like or trust them. Not everybody, of course. But there are many people who dont want self-driving cars... Couldnt add on to first quote do to space limitations: Also, bus space is very valuable. Which is why I bring it up. People rent out buses to hold large groups. Renting out a bunch of small shuttles is not the same. And our trolleys look much nicer. Also, bus space helps when we help evacuate people and shuttling people places. Evacuations would take much longer with less seats. And when we had to shuttle everyone to hotels, and then back to the airports, that takes a while, even with huge buses. Imagine carrying 1/4 or less per trip. Once, it took all night until 7am.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/07/19 8:17:56 PM #150:	LinkPizza posted... No. The higher prices are for the customers. It makes it easier for them because they end up with more money. By actually running our company, we technically lose money all the time. Then you have no reason to worry about the financials. If your company is already operating at a loss, profitability is clearly not a huge factor in your operations. Again, the truism is at play here: if it wasn't cost effective, cities wouldn't be putting these things in. LinkPizza posted... We need them for wheelchair, for any accidents (like pee, poop, vomit, and blood clean-up), to stop any disputes, medical emergencies (seizures, heart attack, heat stroke, etc.), etc Any of these could be handled via an emergency button, the same way train cars work. LinkPizza posted... You said they hold 8 people sitting. And then cost $250,000 from what I saw online. Our buses cost about $500,000 and hold more than 30 sitting customers. We are paying half the price of a full buses, with 1/4 the number of seats. Thats already less cost-effective as you getting less seats for you buck. Depends - how frequently are you driving with a completely full bus? I'm guessing not all the time. That will impact exactly how cost effective it is. This is where smaller vehicles are actually more effective. During peak hours, you can get more of them on the road to handle volume, then immediately take them off the road when demand dies down. It's much more difficult to do that with a manned bus, because telling a driver, "Hey, can you come in and drive for an hour and a half, then go back home?" isn't going to fly with anyone who actually wants to use their paycheque to pay the bills. LinkPizza posted... And then, for both buses and vans, we would need a ton to replace them. And no one is saying you'll do it all at once. Merely as buses are retired as part of their natural purchase cycle, they'll be replaced - in part or in whole - with self-driving vehicles. LinkPizza posted... Which nobody wants. I'd be in favour of it. And it's an idea that's gaining a good deal of political traction. So no, this isn't something "nobody" wants. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:927123439] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>No. The higher prices are for the customers. It makes it easier for them because they end up with more money. By actually running our company, we technically lose money all the time.</quote> Then you have no reason to worry about the financials. If your company is already operating at a loss, profitability is clearly not a huge factor in your operations. Again, the truism is at play here: if it wasn't cost effective, cities wouldn't be putting these things in. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>We need them for wheelchair, for any accidents (like pee, poop, vomit, and blood clean-up), to stop any disputes, medical emergencies (seizures, heart attack, heat stroke, etc.), etc</quote> Any of these could be handled via an emergency button, the same way train cars work. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>You said they hold 8 people sitting. And then cost $250,000 from what I saw online. Our buses cost about $500,000 and hold more than 30 sitting customers. We are paying half the price of a full buses, with 1/4 the number of seats. Thats already less cost-effective as you getting less seats for you buck. </quote> Depends - how frequently are you driving with a completely full bus? I'm guessing not all the time. That will impact exactly how cost effective it is. This is where smaller vehicles are actually more effective. During peak hours, you can get more of them on the road to handle volume, then immediately take them off the road when demand dies down. It's much more difficult to do that with a manned bus, because telling a driver, "Hey, can you come in and drive for an hour and a half, then go back home?" isn't going to fly with anyone who actually wants to use their paycheque to pay the bills. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And then, for both buses and vans, we would need a ton to replace them.</quote> And no one is saying you'll do it all at once. Merely as buses are retired as part of their natural purchase cycle, they'll be replaced - in part or in whole - with self-driving vehicles. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Which nobody wants.</quote> I'd be in favour of it. And it's an idea that's gaining a good deal of political traction. So no, this isn't something "nobody" wants.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/07/19 8:18:25 PM #151:	LinkPizza posted... People want to be able to afford the lifestyle they already had. And youd rather take that away from them by forcing them to live on a basic income that would still have to change based on where you live. Nobody wants to be forced to not get the stuff they want. They can barely go out to eat. And that cant buy the normal foods they buy. Based on this statement, it's clear to me that you don't understand what UBI is. UBI isn't meant to keep people at the poverty line; it's basically saying, "Here's $XXXX.XX per month - no strings attached. Spend it as you see fit." Do you have a job on top of that? Good for you, keep the extra money. Do you not have a job? In our hypothetical future, UBI will be enough to let you earn a comfortable living - pay for your house, your food, entertainment, travel, whatever you want. Automation is going to result in costs plummeting, because a fully automated manufacturing system has basically only raw materials and upkeep as overhead costs. In today's world, the vast majority of costs are human-created - wages for the workers, designers, engineers, managers, shippers, store owners, etc.; those mostly or all go away in an automated world. LinkPizza posted... Its basically like forcing people on welfare or food stamps when they could just keep their job and live peacefully without all this other shit. Well... to be frank, no, they can't just keep their job and live peacefully without "all this other shit". Because "all this other shit" is here, and it can do their jobs better than they can. Your argument is like saying, to an auto company factory worker in the 90s, "Why can't you just keep your job?"; the answer is, "Because improvements in technology have made my job obsolete, because now robots can do the tasks I used to, faster and better and far cheaper than I can." Automation is coming, like it or not. It will take jobs, the way it's already hollowed out parts of the manufacturing sector. It will continue to do so. And we need a plan, if we don't want to wind up in this dystopian future you keep moaning about. UBI is as good as any that I've seen put forward. LinkPizza posted... And insurance could still easily rise. It won't. Insurance companies compete for each other's businesses. If one insurance company tried to increase rates on self-driving autos, it would be an immediate opportunity for one of their competitors to swoop in and steal their customers - especially since a large chunk of the self-driving market is going to be corporate fleets, who are keenly aware of their bottom line. Again, a self-driving car is a perfect customer to an insurance company. They're not going to kill the golden goose. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:927123463] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>People want to be able to afford the lifestyle they already had. And youd rather take that away from them by forcing them to live on a basic income that would still have to change based on where you live. Nobody wants to be forced to not get the stuff they want. They can barely go out to eat. And that cant buy the normal foods they buy.</quote> Based on this statement, it's clear to me that you don't understand what UBI is. UBI isn't meant to keep people at the poverty line; it's basically saying, "Here's $XXXX.XX per month - no strings attached. Spend it as you see fit." Do you have a job on top of that? Good for you, keep the extra money. Do you not have a job? In our hypothetical future, UBI will be enough to let you earn a comfortable living - pay for your house, your food, entertainment, travel, whatever you want. Automation is going to result in costs plummeting, because a fully automated manufacturing system has basically only raw materials and upkeep as overhead costs. In today's world, the vast majority of costs are human-created - wages for the workers, designers, engineers, managers, shippers, store owners, etc.; those mostly or all go away in an automated world. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its basically like forcing people on welfare or food stamps when they could just keep their job and live peacefully without all this other shit.</quote> Well... to be frank, no, they can't just keep their job and live peacefully without "all this other shit". Because "all this other shit" is here, and it can do their jobs better than they can. Your argument is like saying, to an auto company factory worker in the 90s, "Why can't you just keep your job?"; the answer is, "Because improvements in technology have made my job obsolete, because now robots can do the tasks I used to, faster and better and far cheaper than I can." Automation is coming, like it or not. It will take jobs, the way it's already hollowed out parts of the manufacturing sector. It will continue to do so. And we need a plan, if we don't want to wind up in this dystopian future you keep moaning about. UBI is as good as any that I've seen put forward. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And insurance could still easily rise.</quote> It won't. Insurance companies compete for each other's businesses. If one insurance company tried to increase rates on self-driving autos, it would be an immediate opportunity for one of their competitors to swoop in and steal their customers - especially since a large chunk of the self-driving market is going to be corporate fleets, who are keenly aware of their bottom line. Again, a self-driving car is a perfect customer to an insurance company. They're not going to kill the golden goose.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Poll of the Day > Upcoming recession will destroy millennials. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Upcoming recession will destroy millennials.