Poll of the Day > Upcoming recession will destroy millennials.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
darkknight109 09/07/19 8:19:49 PM #152:	LinkPizza posted... 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. In bringing up all these "what-ifs", you still seem to be missing the point I've brought up several times. Self-driving cars aren't perfect, but they don't need to be - they just need to be better than us. They already are. And they're still getting better. That there are some things that we're still better at isn't a winning argument because, on the whole, the self-driving cars still win out. They are better, safer, more efficient drivers than humans. Period. The pedestrian with his body language? If the car doesn't already know what that means, it can and will be taught. Predictive ability? Already there. Driving is all about signals we, as drivers, give to one another. Self-driving cars simple take those signals and convert them to digital form. I don't know how up-to-speed you are on AI and machine learning, but they've made huge strides over the last decade. Learning robots exist. There are commercially available robots that aren't programmed for any specific task, but can learn by watching a human do something. They attempt it themselves, then fine-tune their response until achieving the desired outcome. Self-driving cars use highly advanced variants of this to fine-tune their driving. Self-driving cars are not individual entities, but a network of robots all communicating with one another. The first time one of them sees a pedestrian looking the wrong way and leaning forward, it might be fooled; but it will share its experience with the rest of the network and the next time one of them runs into a similar situation, it will know what to expect. LinkPizza posted... 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. Sure, some hobbyists enjoy car driving and maintenance. But, increasingly, that's what manual driving is going to become - a hobby. Something the rich spend cash on to amuse themselves, much like old-style weapons forging in an assembly-line world. Eventually, it will probably be something that can only be done at specialized facilities, as manual vehicles will eventually be removed from the roads. But that's not really what we're talking about in this topic. We're talking about commercial driving, and that's going to be one of the first sectors to automate, because the financial pressure to do so will be enormous. --- 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:927123517] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> In bringing up all these "what-ifs", you still seem to be missing the point I've brought up several times. Self-driving cars aren't perfect, but they don't need to be - they just need to be better than us. They already are. And they're still getting better. That there are some things that we're still better at isn't a winning argument because, on the whole, the self-driving cars still win out. They are better, safer, more efficient drivers than humans. Period. The pedestrian with his body language? If the car doesn't already know what that means, it can and will be taught. Predictive ability? Already there. Driving is all about signals we, as drivers, give to one another. Self-driving cars simple take those signals and convert them to digital form. I don't know how up-to-speed you are on AI and machine learning, but they've made huge strides over the last decade. Learning robots exist. There are commercially available robots that aren't programmed for any specific task, but can learn by watching a human do something. They attempt it themselves, then fine-tune their response until achieving the desired outcome. Self-driving cars use highly advanced variants of this to fine-tune their driving. Self-driving cars are not individual entities, but a network of robots all communicating with one another. The first time one of them sees a pedestrian looking the wrong way and leaning forward, it might be fooled; but it will share its experience with the rest of the network and the next time one of them runs into a similar situation, it will know what to expect. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <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.</quote> Sure, some hobbyists enjoy car driving and maintenance. But, increasingly, that's what manual driving is going to become - a hobby. Something the rich spend cash on to amuse themselves, much like old-style weapons forging in an assembly-line world. Eventually, it will probably be something that can only be done at specialized facilities, as manual vehicles will eventually be removed from the roads. But that's not really what we're talking about in this topic. We're talking about commercial driving, and that's going to be one of the first sectors to automate, because the financial pressure to do so will be enormous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/07/19 8:19:53 PM #153:	LinkPizza posted... Not to mention people who dont trust them. People don't trust a lot of new technology. That doesn't stop it from becoming widespread. My father, for years, didn't trust Paypal or any online banking tool. He refused to ever enter his credit card online. But the world moved on and soon that was the only practical way to buy a lot of goods. Today he does most of his shopping online. AVs will be the same. People will bitch and complain and they will eventually get over it, one way or another. The technology works. That's really the only thing that matters. Trust and adoption will follow. They always do. LinkPizza posted... and then, theres still motorcycles and bikes. AVs are already programmed to understand motorcycles and bikes. They are not a source of concern for AV manufacturers. LinkPizza posted... Then theres the price. They are probably going to be pretty expensive. Initially, yes, in the same way that first-generation technology is always expensive. Televisions, cell phones, smart phones, computers - when these things came out, they were expensive and not something everyone could or would buy. But they all quickly came down in price and swiftly became household fixtures. AVs will be the same. The first generation will be costly, and not something the average consumer will be interested in. The next generations will see better market adoption and eventually they will become the norm. LinkPizza posted... 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. Where did I say that? There isn't going to be some random point ten years from now where someone says, "OK, manual vehicles are now illegal! Go buy a self-driving car." People will self-adopt, the technology will get cheaper, and it will spread. That's how technology works. In the 50s and 60s, automatic transmissions first started becoming commercially available and they were originally an expensive add-on to most vehicles. Today, you now have to specify if you want a manual transmission and it usually costs extra. Automatic transmissions have become a standard part of the vehicle. Self-driving units will be much the same - you'll have to pay more for them initially, but soon enough they will be considered a normal part of the car. And the people who insist on buying a manual drive vehicle will be looked at in much the same way as people today who insist on buying a manual transmission because they think it's more enjoyable to drive: hobbyists, willing to pay extra to finance their hobby. --- 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:927123520] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Not to mention people who dont trust them.</quote> People don't trust a lot of new technology. That doesn't stop it from becoming widespread. My father, for years, didn't trust Paypal or any online banking tool. He refused to ever enter his credit card online. But the world moved on and soon that was the only practical way to buy a lot of goods. Today he does most of his shopping online. AVs will be the same. People will bitch and complain and they will eventually get over it, one way or another. The technology works. That's really the only thing that matters. Trust and adoption will follow. They always do. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>and then, theres still motorcycles and bikes.</quote> AVs are already programmed to understand motorcycles and bikes. They are not a source of concern for AV manufacturers. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Then theres the price. They are probably going to be pretty expensive. </quote> Initially, yes, in the same way that first-generation technology is always expensive. Televisions, cell phones, smart phones, computers - when these things came out, they were expensive and not something everyone could or would buy. But they all quickly came down in price and swiftly became household fixtures. AVs will be the same. The first generation will be costly, and not something the average consumer will be interested in. The next generations will see better market adoption and eventually they will become the norm. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> Where did I say that? There isn't going to be some random point ten years from now where someone says, "OK, manual vehicles are now illegal! Go buy a self-driving car." People will self-adopt, the technology will get cheaper, and it will spread. That's how technology works. In the 50s and 60s, automatic transmissions first started becoming commercially available and they were originally an expensive add-on to most vehicles. Today, you now have to specify if you want a manual transmission and it usually costs extra. Automatic transmissions have become a standard part of the vehicle. Self-driving units will be much the same - you'll have to pay more for them initially, but soon enough they will be considered a normal part of the car. And the people who insist on buying a manual drive vehicle will be looked at in much the same way as people today who insist on buying a manual transmission because they think it's more enjoyable to drive: hobbyists, willing to pay extra to finance their hobby.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:05:28 PM #154:	darkknight109 posted... 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. Except we do. We operate at a loss, but money is still a factor. From buying new vehicles, to buying parts for them, to buying equipment (Like fluid, cleaning supplies, etc.), to paying employees. We operate at a loss, but we have things we still need to buy. That comes from money we get. We cant just waste money because were operating at a loss. And as I said before, just because its cost effective in one place doesnt mean its the same for everywhere. It may be cost effective in the cities they are using it in. But that doesnt mean it will be the same for every city. darkknight109 posted... Any of these could be handled via an emergency button, the same way train cars work. If they push them. They may not be able to if they are on the floor dying. Also, people just may not push it. Some people are dumb. Some are drunk or on drugs. Some will probably be sleep. They could end up on the bus alone. In the case of bodily fluids, we want to stop the spread. Riders may not know to pour the kitty litter like stuff on spills. So, its better to have someone who can stop the spread, instead of letting customers ride in a bus with vomit or blood just sloshing around. darkknight109 posted... 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. Not all the time, but that wont work. If we had to use smaller vehicles, wed have to send out one every 15 or 20 minutes depending on if we were sending out 4 or 3 buses. Mainly because even though we dont always have a full bus, we normally have more than 16. And almost always more than 8. The exceptions are when the bus first leaves the station (as it just started), we they come in at the end (as most people have gotten off on stops closes to their final destinations), and Saturdays. Though, its not always empty on Saturdays. But the routes are also different. And less people ride. But we still get a good amount. But the numbers are pretty random on Saturdays. We have to send out more the whole day So, we use much more gas as there are more vehicles. Not to mention, with vans, there will be even more vehicles that also need fuel --- 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:927129738] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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.</quote> Except we do. We operate at a loss, but money is still a factor. From buying new vehicles, to buying parts for them, to buying equipment (Like fluid, cleaning supplies, etc.), to paying employees. We operate at a loss, but we have things we still need to buy. That comes from money we get. We cant just waste money because were operating at a loss. And as I said before, just because its cost effective in one place doesnt mean its the same for everywhere. It may be cost effective in the cities they are using it in. But that doesnt mean it will be the same for every city. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Any of these could be handled via an emergency button, the same way train cars work.</quote> If they push them. They may not be able to if they are on the floor dying. Also, people just may not push it. Some people are dumb. Some are drunk or on drugs. Some will probably be sleep. They could end up on the bus alone. In the case of bodily fluids, we want to stop the spread. Riders may not know to pour the kitty litter like stuff on spills. So, its better to have someone who can stop the spread, instead of letting customers ride in a bus with vomit or blood just sloshing around. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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.</quote> Not all the time, but that wont work. If we had to use smaller vehicles, wed have to send out one every 15 or 20 minutes depending on if we were sending out 4 or 3 buses. Mainly because even though we dont always have a full bus, we normally have more than 16. And almost always more than 8. The exceptions are when the bus first leaves the station (as it just started), we they come in at the end (as most people have gotten off on stops closes to their final destinations), and Saturdays. Though, its not always empty on Saturdays. But the routes are also different. And less people ride. But we still get a good amount. But the numbers are pretty random on Saturdays. We have to send out more the whole day So, we use much more gas as there are more vehicles. Not to mention, with vans, there will be even more vehicles that also need fuel</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:05:33 PM #155:	darkknight109 posted... 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. That wont work, either. The problem is they wont want to have some routes self-driving and other manual driving. One big reason is because like I said, the routes times would have to change. And that would mess a lot of people up if some routes changed and others didnt. Not to mention, they would have to sometimes switch stuff around. Which causes an issue when different stops are different time depending on which route has self-driving buses at the time. The price is still an issue as they would need to also have enough as back-ups, as well. And we dont have enough back-up buses to allow any amount to really be down for too long. The best way would be to do it for vans. But since you can buy 4 vans that each hold more with money left over for the same price as the bus, that wouldnt make sense. And either way, wed still be waiting for a long time, anyway. We about to get some new buses in addition to the ones we already have, which will last for at least a little while. Same with vans. Were replacing a bunch soon. Mainly, we have to wait for the deal to be struck with the buses. And then more money for the vans. Meaning well have a bunch of new vehicles. And they arent going to replace them anytime soon. Especially with such expensive, yet small, vehicles. darkknight109 posted... 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. I shouldnt say nobody. But I dont think most people would actually be in favor of it. People might like the sound of it, until they realize they cant afford to live the same life they have be living. And have to give up a lot of stuff. Also, when working, you dont always have a chance to just spend money sometimes. But if youre not working, itll be easy to burn through it. It sounds appealing until you realize that it kind of sucks. I like being able to work a little extra to make a little extra. And then I can treat myself to something. I wouldnt be able to do that on mandatory welfare --- 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:927129744] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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.</quote> That wont work, either. The problem is they wont want to have some routes self-driving and other manual driving. One big reason is because like I said, the routes times would have to change. And that would mess a lot of people up if some routes changed and others didnt. Not to mention, they would have to sometimes switch stuff around. Which causes an issue when different stops are different time depending on which route has self-driving buses at the time. The price is still an issue as they would need to also have enough as back-ups, as well. And we dont have enough back-up buses to allow any amount to really be down for too long. The best way would be to do it for vans. But since you can buy 4 vans that each hold more with money left over for the same price as the bus, that wouldnt make sense. And either way, wed still be waiting for a long time, anyway. We about to get some new buses in addition to the ones we already have, which will last for at least a little while. Same with vans. Were replacing a bunch soon. Mainly, we have to wait for the deal to be struck with the buses. And then more money for the vans. Meaning well have a bunch of new vehicles. And they arent going to replace them anytime soon. Especially with such expensive, yet small, vehicles. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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> I shouldnt say nobody. But I dont think most people would actually be in favor of it. People might like the sound of it, until they realize they cant afford to live the same life they have be living. And have to give up a lot of stuff. Also, when working, you dont always have a chance to just spend money sometimes. But if youre not working, itll be easy to burn through it. It sounds appealing until you realize that it kind of sucks. I like being able to work a little extra to make a little extra. And then I can treat myself to something. I wouldnt be able to do that on mandatory welfare</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:06:35 PM #156:	darkknight109 posted... 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. I know what it is. But that doesnt mean anything. We dont know how much were going to get. And just because they mean to keep us above the poverty line doesnt mean they will. And this doesnt solve the lifestyle problem. Getting paid a set amount doesnt help when its less than you were making. And it sucks that people wont have jobs even when they want to to make more to have a better life. I understand what it is. And I still dont like it. And I dont think people will if they find out theyre getting less. Especially with how easy it will be to burn through when you dont have anything to do all day darkknight109 posted... 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. The only reason is sounds good is because its the only plan. The problem is if they are going to do that. Or just fuck the country over. As long as theyre fine, the people in charge might not care. It a sucky plan, but the only one. And it may not even happen. Were probably fucked and will end up in the dystopian future either way --- 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:927129789] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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.</quote> I know what it is. But that doesnt mean anything. We dont know how much were going to get. And just because they mean to keep us above the poverty line doesnt mean they will. And this doesnt solve the lifestyle problem. Getting paid a set amount doesnt help when its less than you were making. And it sucks that people wont have jobs even when they want to to make more to have a better life. I understand what it is. And I still dont like it. And I dont think people will if they find out theyre getting less. Especially with how easy it will be to burn through when you dont have anything to do all day darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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.</quote> The only reason is sounds good is because its the only plan. The problem is if they are going to do that. Or just fuck the country over. As long as theyre fine, the people in charge might not care. It a sucky plan, but the only one. And it may not even happen. Were probably fucked and will end up in the dystopian future either way</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:06:42 PM #157:	darkknight109 posted... 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. It might. You cant say it wont. Just like Ive heard human drivers say their rates wont go up because the accident wasnt their fault. But it still can go up. Also, Im not sure about the rates thing. Its not all about rates, but benefits, as well. Ike free towing a certain amount of times a year. Or roadside assistance. Those can change who the companies pick as well as rates. Not to mention, it doesnt always mean their competitors rates will go down. And you can always try to undercut. Most places have to get multiple quotes when getting stuff. I know we do at the station I work at. And not sure if this is true. But I once heard that gas station raise their prices as soon as other gas stations do. So, there might be something to that. This may seem like a golden goose, but thats because you arent seeing that it doesnt matter. Accidents can easily happen because human drivers are still on the road. And even if they ever try to take away our freedom to drive, it wont be an overnight thing. It will probably take years. And during those years, self-driving cars can still end up in accidents with other self-driving cars and human drivers. And rates can, and most likely will, go up. Especially when the other car doesnt have insurance and your insurance company pays. Sure, you can get the money back by suing. But that doesnt mean your price wont rise darkknight109 posted... Sure, some hobbyists enjoy car driving and maintenance. But, increasingly, that's what manual driving is going to become - a hobby. Something the rich spend cash on to amuse themselves, much like old-style weapons forging in an assembly-line world. Eventually, it will probably be something that can only be done at specialized facilities, as manual vehicles will eventually be removed from the roads. But that's not really what we're talking about in this topic. We're talking about commercial driving, and that's going to be one of the first sectors to automate, because the financial pressure to do so will be enormous. Which jusy sucks for everyone else. Just a big ol Fuck you to people who have that as a hobby. Just find something else to do. Thats awesome. Just screw people over, I guess. Who cares? Its not like the rich people who make decisions care about everyone else. Plus, the rich can still do it if they want. And like I said, while it may be profitable some places, it wont be everywhere. And this city is one of those places where ot wont be profitable. I dont know if those other places dont have people with disabilities getting on. Or have the same types on accidents we do on our buses or whatever. Because a self-driving bus in this town will still need an employee on the vehicles when its doing its thing. --- 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:927129796] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <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> It might. You cant say it wont. Just like Ive heard human drivers say their rates wont go up because the accident wasnt their fault. But it still can go up. Also, Im not sure about the rates thing. Its not all about rates, but benefits, as well. Ike free towing a certain amount of times a year. Or roadside assistance. Those can change who the companies pick as well as rates. Not to mention, it doesnt always mean their competitors rates will go down. And you can always try to undercut. Most places have to get multiple quotes when getting stuff. I know we do at the station I work at. And not sure if this is true. But I once heard that gas station raise their prices as soon as other gas stations do. So, there might be something to that. This may seem like a golden goose, but thats because you arent seeing that it doesnt matter. Accidents can easily happen because human drivers are still on the road. And even if they ever try to take away our freedom to drive, it wont be an overnight thing. It will probably take years. And during those years, self-driving cars can still end up in accidents with other self-driving cars and human drivers. And rates can, and most likely will, go up. Especially when the other car doesnt have insurance and your insurance company pays. Sure, you can get the money back by suing. But that doesnt mean your price wont rise darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Sure, some hobbyists enjoy car driving and maintenance. But, increasingly, that's what manual driving is going to become - a hobby. Something the rich spend cash on to amuse themselves, much like old-style weapons forging in an assembly-line world. Eventually, it will probably be something that can only be done at specialized facilities, as manual vehicles will eventually be removed from the roads. But that's not really what we're talking about in this topic. We're talking about commercial driving, and that's going to be one of the first sectors to automate, because the financial pressure to do so will be enormous.</quote> Which jusy sucks for everyone else. Just a big ol Fuck you to people who have that as a hobby. Just find something else to do. Thats awesome. Just screw people over, I guess. Who cares? Its not like the rich people who make decisions care about everyone else. Plus, the rich can still do it if they want. And like I said, while it may be profitable some places, it wont be everywhere. And this city is one of those places where ot wont be profitable. I dont know if those other places dont have people with disabilities getting on. Or have the same types on accidents we do on our buses or whatever. Because a self-driving bus in this town will still need an employee on the vehicles when its doing its thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/07/19 11:07:29 PM #158:	In the future we wont need buses everyone will just get lubed up and shot through a pneumatic biotube --- More malicious than mischievous <cite>Mead posted [p:927129837] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>In the future we wont need buses everyone will just get lubed up and shot through a pneumatic biotube </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:07:36 PM #159:	darkknight109 posted... In bringing up all these "what-ifs", you still seem to be missing the point I've brought up several times. Self-driving cars aren't perfect, but they don't need to be - they just need to be better than us. They already are. And they're still getting better. That there are some things that we're still better at isn't a winning argument because, on the whole, the self-driving cars still win out. They are better, safer, more efficient drivers than humans. Period. The pedestrian with his body language? If the car doesn't already know what that means, it can and will be taught. Predictive ability? Already there. Driving is all about signals we, as drivers, give to one another. Self-driving cars simple take those signals and convert them to digital form. I don't know how up-to-speed you are on AI and machine learning, but they've made huge strides over the last decade. Learning robots exist. There are commercially available robots that aren't programmed for any specific task, but can learn by watching a human do something. They attempt it themselves, then fine-tune their response until achieving the desired outcome. Self-driving cars use highly advanced variants of this to fine-tune their driving. Self-driving cars are not individual entities, but a network of robots all communicating with one another. The first time one of them sees a pedestrian looking the wrong way and leaning forward, it might be fooled; but it will share its experience with the rest of the network and the next time one of them runs into a similar situation, it will know what to expect. You need to bring up What-ifs because you cant prepare without them. I mean, you can. But then youd be doing a shitty job of preparing And Id rather avoid the accident altogether, which humans might be able to do. Where the car has to possibly injure or kill someone before it learns. darkknight109 posted... People don't trust a lot of new technology. That doesn't stop it from becoming widespread. My father, for years, didn't trust Paypal or any online banking tool. He refused to ever enter his credit card online. But the world moved on and soon that was the only practical way to buy a lot of goods. Today he does most of his shopping online. AVs will be the same. People will bitch and complain and they will eventually get over it, one way or another. The technology works. That's really the only thing that matters. Trust and adoption will follow. They always do. They dont always do. People may trust them. But thats because people may be forced to. So just force people to do something they dont want because who cares, I guess darkknight109 posted... AVs are already programmed to understand motorcycles and bikes. They are not a source of concern for AV manufacturers. Maybe. Maybe not. Motorcycle riders are pretty insane with their riding sometimes. And it can get bad on the highway. Ive seen a lot of car crash compilations. And they have motorcycles, too. So, idk --- 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:927129843] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>In bringing up all these "what-ifs", you still seem to be missing the point I've brought up several times. Self-driving cars aren't perfect, but they don't need to be - they just need to be better than us. They already are. And they're still getting better. That there are some things that we're still better at isn't a winning argument because, on the whole, the self-driving cars still win out. They are better, safer, more efficient drivers than humans. Period. The pedestrian with his body language? If the car doesn't already know what that means, it can and will be taught. Predictive ability? Already there. Driving is all about signals we, as drivers, give to one another. Self-driving cars simple take those signals and convert them to digital form. I don't know how up-to-speed you are on AI and machine learning, but they've made huge strides over the last decade. Learning robots exist. There are commercially available robots that aren't programmed for any specific task, but can learn by watching a human do something. They attempt it themselves, then fine-tune their response until achieving the desired outcome. Self-driving cars use highly advanced variants of this to fine-tune their driving. Self-driving cars are not individual entities, but a network of robots all communicating with one another. The first time one of them sees a pedestrian looking the wrong way and leaning forward, it might be fooled; but it will share its experience with the rest of the network and the next time one of them runs into a similar situation, it will know what to expect.</quote> You need to bring up What-ifs because you cant prepare without them. I mean, you can. But then youd be doing a shitty job of preparing And Id rather avoid the accident altogether, which humans might be able to do. Where the car has to possibly injure or kill someone before it learns. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>People don't trust a lot of new technology. That doesn't stop it from becoming widespread. My father, for years, didn't trust Paypal or any online banking tool. He refused to ever enter his credit card online. But the world moved on and soon that was the only practical way to buy a lot of goods. Today he does most of his shopping online. AVs will be the same. People will bitch and complain and they will eventually get over it, one way or another. The technology works. That's really the only thing that matters. Trust and adoption will follow. They always do.</quote> They dont always do. People may trust them. But thats because people may be forced to. So just force people to do something they dont want because who cares, I guess darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>AVs are already programmed to understand motorcycles and bikes. They are not a source of concern for AV manufacturers.</quote> Maybe. Maybe not. Motorcycle riders are pretty insane with their riding sometimes. And it can get bad on the highway. Ive seen a lot of car crash compilations. And they have motorcycles, too. So, idk</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:07:46 PM #160:	darkknight109 posted... Initially, yes, in the same way that first-generation technology is always expensive. Televisions, cell phones, smart phones, computers - when these things came out, they were expensive and not something everyone could or would buy. But they all quickly came down in price and swiftly became household fixtures. AVs will be the same. The first generation will be costly, and not something the average consumer will be interested in. The next generations will see better market adoption and eventually they will become the norm. Not really. Cell phones are still crazy expensive. Only the old ones are cheap. And thats because there are new ones. Same thing with most of that stuff. Many people still cant afford them. I know people still using a flip phone (not by choice), have small old tvs, have never own their own computer of any kind, etc. And its just because they are still really expensive. And cars are even more expensive. A lot of people still dont have cars because they are super expensive. This will be worse than it is already. Itll probably take many, many years before anyone car really buy it. And even then, it will nly be some that can even afford it. And they might be able to only barely themselves. darkknight109 posted... Where did I say that? There isn't going to be some random point ten years from now where someone says, "OK, manual vehicles are now illegal! Go buy a self-driving car." People will self-adopt, the technology will get cheaper, and it will spread. That's how technology works. In the 50s and 60s, automatic transmissions first started becoming commercially available and they were originally an expensive add-on to most vehicles. Today, you now have to specify if you want a manual transmission and it usually costs extra. Automatic transmissions have become a standard part of the vehicle. Self-driving units will be much the same - you'll have to pay more for them initially, but soon enough they will be considered a normal part of the car. And the people who insist on buying a manual drive vehicle will be looked at in much the same way as people today who insist on buying a manual transmission because they think it's more enjoyable to drive: hobbyists, willing to pay extra to finance their hobby. Well, you seem to think everybody will just be able to afford self-driving cars. People dont really look at people buying manual today as weird, though. They just normally say they cant drive it. People seem to still love manual to this day, too. It may spread. But I dont think it will be anytime soon. I also hope not. But I really dont think its as soon as you think it is --- 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:927129852] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Initially, yes, in the same way that first-generation technology is always expensive. Televisions, cell phones, smart phones, computers - when these things came out, they were expensive and not something everyone could or would buy. But they all quickly came down in price and swiftly became household fixtures. AVs will be the same. The first generation will be costly, and not something the average consumer will be interested in. The next generations will see better market adoption and eventually they will become the norm.</quote> Not really. Cell phones are still crazy expensive. Only the old ones are cheap. And thats because there are new ones. Same thing with most of that stuff. Many people still cant afford them. I know people still using a flip phone (not by choice), have small old tvs, have never own their own computer of any kind, etc. And its just because they are still really expensive. And cars are even more expensive. A lot of people still dont have cars because they are super expensive. This will be worse than it is already. Itll probably take many, many years before anyone car really buy it. And even then, it will nly be some that can even afford it. And they might be able to only barely themselves. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Where did I say that? There isn't going to be some random point ten years from now where someone says, "OK, manual vehicles are now illegal! Go buy a self-driving car." People will self-adopt, the technology will get cheaper, and it will spread. That's how technology works. In the 50s and 60s, automatic transmissions first started becoming commercially available and they were originally an expensive add-on to most vehicles. Today, you now have to specify if you want a manual transmission and it usually costs extra. Automatic transmissions have become a standard part of the vehicle. Self-driving units will be much the same - you'll have to pay more for them initially, but soon enough they will be considered a normal part of the car. And the people who insist on buying a manual drive vehicle will be looked at in much the same way as people today who insist on buying a manual transmission because they think it's more enjoyable to drive: hobbyists, willing to pay extra to finance their hobby.</quote> Well, you seem to think everybody will just be able to afford self-driving cars. People dont really look at people buying manual today as weird, though. They just normally say they cant drive it. People seem to still love manual to this day, too. It may spread. But I dont think it will be anytime soon. I also hope not. But I really dont think its as soon as you think it is</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/07/19 11:08:51 PM #161:	Mead posted... In the future we wont need buses everyone will just get lubed up and shot through a pneumatic biotube If only we could. Futurama would be so proud... --- 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:927129895] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>In the future we wont need buses everyone will just get lubed up and shot through a pneumatic biotube </quote> If only we could. Futurama would be so proud...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 09/08/19 1:52:54 AM #162:	streamofthesky posted... Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. Taxing capital gains at the same rate at earned income is stupid because there's more risk in capital gains. It would also hurt average Americans who choose to invest. And discouraging investment tends to be pretty terrible for economies. streamofthesky posted... Technically it's them doing it, but it's clearly at the impetus of the POTUS. It's really not. streamofthesky posted... There's no logical reason to lower interest rates when unemployment is very low and stocks are near record highs (and interest rates are still historically VERY low already). The Fed's putting a band aid on the issues that will crash this economy hard, to stave off the reckoning for as long as they can. But when it does happen, they won't be able to lower rates even more to alleviate the pain, making the inevitable recession even worse. It's to try to avoid a coming recession. CharlesBronson posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I vote we stop allowing any accumulation of wealth over what is necessary. There's no reason for 1 person to have 4.5 trillion dollars when employees in their organizations struggle to survive. What? Jeff Besos only has $112 billion and created half a billion jobs how many jobs did you create? Know what your talking about or don't post. ....and Jeff Bezos doesn't even actually have $112 billion, that's an evaluation based on his holdings, not actual money. Net worth is a lot more fluid than currency. And, of course, limiting net worth would mean that people wouldn't be able to own the companies they started because the evaluations on those companies would run too high. Even if a proposal that stupid did go into effect, they'd bypass it by creating trusts, etc. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:927135213] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established.</quote> Taxing capital gains at the same rate at earned income is stupid because there's more risk in capital gains. It would also hurt average Americans who choose to invest. And discouraging investment tends to be pretty terrible for economies. streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Technically it's them doing it, but it's clearly at the impetus of the POTUS. </quote> It's really not. streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> There's no logical reason to lower interest rates when unemployment is very low and stocks are near record highs (and interest rates are still historically VERY low already). The Fed's putting a band aid on the issues that will crash this economy hard, to stave off the reckoning for as long as they can. But when it does happen, they won't be able to lower rates even more to alleviate the pain, making the inevitable recession even worse.</quote> It's to try to avoid a coming recession. CharlesBronson posted...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I vote we stop allowing any accumulation of wealth over what is necessary. There's no reason for 1 person to have 4.5 trillion dollars when employees in their organizations struggle to survive.</quote> What? Jeff Besos only has $112 billion and created half a billion jobs how many jobs did you create? Know what your talking about or don't post.</quote> ....and Jeff Bezos doesn't even actually have $112 billion, that's an evaluation based on his holdings, not actual money. Net worth is a lot more fluid than currency. And, of course, limiting net worth would mean that people wouldn't be able to own the companies they started because the evaluations on those companies would run too high. Even if a proposal that stupid did go into effect, they'd bypass it by creating trusts, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/08/19 2:35:02 AM #163:	Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. Taxing capital gains at the same rate at earned income is stupid because there's more risk in capital gains. It would also hurt average Americans who choose to invest. And discouraging investment tends to be pretty terrible for economies. If there are losses, those are a tax deduction. And if the tax rate is higher, that deduction is worth more, so...no. It'd be fine. And "average Americans" aren't investing in stocks. It's almost entirely the most wealthy, other than 401K plans, which...are taxed as income and not capital gains. Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... Technically it's them doing it, but it's clearly at the impetus of the POTUS. It's really not. It really is. Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... There's no logical reason to lower interest rates when unemployment is very low and stocks are near record highs (and interest rates are still historically VERY low already). The Fed's putting a band aid on the issues that will crash this economy hard, to stave off the reckoning for as long as they can. But when it does happen, they won't be able to lower rates even more to alleviate the pain, making the inevitable recession even worse. It's to try to avoid a coming recession. Stocks are at near record levels. Jobless rate is low. And the interest rate already is low. If all of that plus a grossly destructive tax cut isn't enough to prop up the economy, nothing is going to prevent a recession. They happen, it's a fact of life. Doing all of this now means we won't be able to lessen the pain of it as much when it happens anyway. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:927136144] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established.</quote> Taxing capital gains at the same rate at earned income is stupid because there's more risk in capital gains. It would also hurt average Americans who choose to invest. And discouraging investment tends to be pretty terrible for economies.</quote> If there are losses, those are a tax deduction. And if the tax rate is higher, that deduction is worth more, so...no. It'd be fine. And "average Americans" aren't investing in stocks. It's almost entirely the most wealthy, other than 401K plans, which...are taxed as income and not capital gains. Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Technically it's them doing it, but it's clearly at the impetus of the POTUS. </quote> It's really not.</quote> It really is. Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> There's no logical reason to lower interest rates when unemployment is very low and stocks are near record highs (and interest rates are still historically VERY low already). The Fed's putting a band aid on the issues that will crash this economy hard, to stave off the reckoning for as long as they can. But when it does happen, they won't be able to lower rates even more to alleviate the pain, making the inevitable recession even worse.</quote> It's to try to avoid a coming recession.</quote> Stocks are at near record levels. Jobless rate is low. And the interest rate already is low. If all of that plus a grossly destructive tax cut isn't enough to prop up the economy, nothing is going to prevent a recession. They happen, it's a fact of life. Doing all of this now means we won't be able to lessen the pain of it as much when it happens anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/08/19 6:07:25 AM #164:	LinkPizza posted... And as I said before, just because its cost effective in one place doesnt mean its the same for everywhere. Yet you haven't stipulated anything that would make the costs substantially different. "There's a lot of old people here" is not an argument against cost efficiency. LinkPizza posted... If they push them. They may not be able to if they are on the floor dying. Also, people just may not push it. Some people are dumb. Some are drunk or on drugs. Some will probably be sleep. They could end up on the bus alone. Literally every one of these arguments works just as well when applied to a train car, which has zero employees aboard 95+% of the time. Somehow they manage to function without turning into rolling abattoirs. LinkPizza posted... So, we use much more gas as there are more vehicles. Not to mention, with vans, there will be even more vehicles that also need fuel ...which use less fuel, as they are smaller vehicles. And most self-driving cars are electric or hybrids; very few use conventional diesel or gasoline engines. LinkPizza posted... That wont work, either. The problem is they wont want to have some routes self-driving and other manual driving. One big reason is because like I said, the routes times would have to change. I don't understand this complaint. Literally any route taken by a driver could also be taken by an AV. LinkPizza posted... The price is still an issue as they would need to also have enough as back-ups, as well. Which is in no way different from a manual vehicle. LinkPizza posted... Especially with such expensive, yet small, vehicles. You do realize there are more AVs than just vans, right? The one I cited earlier in this topic is just the first one that came up in my Google search. If there aren't automatic buses on the road already, there will be within a few years. LinkPizza posted... People might like the sound of it, until they realize they cant afford to live the same life they have be living. And have to give up a lot of stuff. Says who? No one has stipulated what the UBI would be set at. You can set it as high as you want. There's no reason why anyone, save for the rich, would need to take a haircut on this. --- 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:927139168] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And as I said before, just because its cost effective in one place doesnt mean its the same for everywhere.</quote> Yet you haven't stipulated anything that would make the costs substantially different. "There's a lot of old people here" is not an argument against cost efficiency. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>If they push them. They may not be able to if they are on the floor dying. Also, people just may not push it. Some people are dumb. Some are drunk or on drugs. Some will probably be sleep. They could end up on the bus alone.</quote> Literally every one of these arguments works just as well when applied to a train car, which has zero employees aboard 95+% of the time. Somehow they manage to function without turning into rolling abattoirs. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>So, we use much more gas as there are more vehicles. Not to mention, with vans, there will be even more vehicles that also need fuel </quote> ...which use less fuel, as they are smaller vehicles. And most self-driving cars are electric or hybrids; very few use conventional diesel or gasoline engines. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>That wont work, either. The problem is they wont want to have some routes self-driving and other manual driving. One big reason is because like I said, the routes times would have to change. </quote> I don't understand this complaint. Literally any route taken by a driver could also be taken by an AV. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The price is still an issue as they would need to also have enough as back-ups, as well. </quote> Which is in no way different from a manual vehicle. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Especially with such expensive, yet small, vehicles. </quote> You do realize there are more AVs than just vans, right? The one I cited earlier in this topic is just the first one that came up in my Google search. If there aren't automatic buses on the road already, there will be within a few years. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>People might like the sound of it, until they realize they cant afford to live the same life they have be living. And have to give up a lot of stuff. </quote> Says who? No one has stipulated what the UBI would be set at. You can set it as high as you want. There's no reason why anyone, save for the rich, would need to take a haircut on this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/08/19 6:07:41 AM #165:	LinkPizza posted... Also, when working, you dont always have a chance to just spend money sometimes. But if youre not working, itll be easy to burn through it. That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening. LinkPizza posted... I like being able to work a little extra to make a little extra. And then I can treat myself to something. I wouldnt be able to do that on mandatory welfare Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system. LinkPizza posted... We dont know how much were going to get. Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out. LinkPizza posted... And it sucks that people wont have jobs even when they want to to make more to have a better life. Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore. LinkPizza posted... Especially with how easy it will be to burn through when you dont have anything to do all day Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure. LinkPizza posted... The only reason is sounds good is because its the only plan. If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today. LinkPizza posted... It might. You cant say it wont. Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more 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:927139173] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Also, when working, you dont always have a chance to just spend money sometimes. But if youre not working, itll be easy to burn through it. </quote> That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>I like being able to work a little extra to make a little extra. And then I can treat myself to something. I wouldnt be able to do that on mandatory welfare</quote> Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>We dont know how much were going to get. </quote> Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And it sucks that people wont have jobs even when they want to to make more to have a better life.</quote> Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Especially with how easy it will be to burn through when you dont have anything to do all day </quote> Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The only reason is sounds good is because its the only plan. </quote> If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>It might. You cant say it wont. </quote> Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more money.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/08/19 6:10:38 AM #166:	LinkPizza posted... Its not all about rates, but benefits, as well. Ike free towing a certain amount of times a year. Or roadside assistance. Which would all be the same for AVs and manual vehicles, so it's pointless to bring this up. LinkPizza posted... Accidents can easily happen because human drivers are still on the road. And if human drivers are the cause that means insurance companies will start to charge human drivers higher premiums, because they are proving to be more risky than AVs. LinkPizza posted... And during those years, self-driving cars can still end up in accidents with other self-driving cars and human drivers. And? Human drivers can wind up in accidents too. They do it frequently - far more so than AVs. That's my point. LinkPizza posted... Which jusy sucks for everyone else. Just a big ol Fuck you to people who have that as a hobby. Just find something else to do. Thats awesome. Just screw people over, I guess. It's not really any different to other bygone hobbies. Once upon a time horse racing was a common hobby because horses were absolutely everywhere. Then the internal combustion engine happened, the global horse population peaked right around the turn of last century, and now horse racing is largely a rich person's hobby. Technology wipes out pastimes sometimes. Sucks, but it happens. LinkPizza posted... And this city is one of those places where ot wont be profitable. So you keep saying, but you've yet to articulate a good reason as to why. It's coming off as wishful thinking on your part. Other cities have old people. Other cities have disabled people. Other cities have people who become ill on buses. Yet they somehow manage just fine putting AVs on the road (and having unmanned train cars, for that matter). LinkPizza posted... You need to bring up What-ifs because you cant prepare without them. Except you're not the one preparing - the AV designers are. And if the accident record is any indication, they're already way, way, way ahead of you on these points. LinkPizza posted... And Id rather avoid the accident altogether, which humans might be able to do. This would be a fantastic points if humans never got into accidents. Except... we do. All the time. Hundreds of thousands of people across the globe die in car crashes every single year. We're actually really shitty at this job. Because some of us get behind the wheel whild drunk or tired or decide to text while driving; some of us drive while we're sleepy or angry; some of us just have moments of inattentiveness that result in lost lives. Robots don't do any of that. Which is why robots have accident rates far, far lower than humans. You're attempting to make perfect the enemy of very good, which is why this, "Yeah, but a human might perform better in this one scenario than a robot" argument doesn't fly. Because the robot performs far better in most other scenarios and far better overall. --- 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:927139213] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its not all about rates, but benefits, as well. Ike free towing a certain amount of times a year. Or roadside assistance. </quote> Which would all be the same for AVs and manual vehicles, so it's pointless to bring this up. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Accidents can easily happen because human drivers are still on the road. </quote> And if human drivers are the cause that means insurance companies will start to charge human drivers higher premiums, because they are proving to be more risky than AVs. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And during those years, self-driving cars can still end up in accidents with other self-driving cars and human drivers. </quote> And? Human drivers can wind up in accidents too. They do it frequently - far more so than AVs. That's my point. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Which jusy sucks for everyone else. Just a big ol Fuck you to people who have that as a hobby. Just find something else to do. Thats awesome. Just screw people over, I guess. </quote> It's not really any different to other bygone hobbies. Once upon a time horse racing was a common hobby because horses were absolutely everywhere. Then the internal combustion engine happened, the global horse population peaked right around the turn of last century, and now horse racing is largely a rich person's hobby. Technology wipes out pastimes sometimes. Sucks, but it happens. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And this city is one of those places where ot wont be profitable.</quote> So you keep saying, but you've yet to articulate a good reason as to why. It's coming off as wishful thinking on your part. Other cities have old people. Other cities have disabled people. Other cities have people who become ill on buses. Yet they somehow manage just fine putting AVs on the road (and having unmanned train cars, for that matter). LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>You need to bring up What-ifs because you cant prepare without them.</quote> Except you're not the one preparing - the AV designers are. And if the accident record is any indication, they're already way, way, way ahead of you on these points. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And Id rather avoid the accident altogether, which humans might be able to do. </quote> This would be a fantastic points if humans never got into accidents. Except... we do. All the time. Hundreds of thousands of people across the globe die in car crashes every single year. We're actually really shitty at this job. Because some of us get behind the wheel whild drunk or tired or decide to text while driving; some of us drive while we're sleepy or angry; some of us just have moments of inattentiveness that result in lost lives. Robots don't do any of that. Which is why robots have accident rates far, far lower than humans. You're attempting to make perfect the enemy of very good, which is why this, "Yeah, but a human might perform better in this one scenario than a robot" argument doesn't fly. Because the robot performs far better in most other scenarios and far better overall.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/08/19 6:10:42 AM #167:	LinkPizza posted... People may trust them. Enough of us will. And once everyone else sees how well the technology works and how effective it is, most will be onboard. There will be holdouts, of course - there always are. It's 2019 and some people still don't trust seatbelts, after all. But it won't stop the spread. After all, if you happen to be a transit rider and your city changes to an all-AV fleet and your options for getting to work now consist of "Ride an AV" or "Walk for two hours", you're going to be riding an AV. And you will see firsthand that nearly all the concerns people have about this technology are completely without merit. LinkPizza posted... Maybe. Maybe not. Motorcycle riders are pretty insane with their riding sometimes. And? An AV is the perfect thing to handle an erratic driver. They are much, much better than humans in that environment. Unlike us, they can see in all directions at once and have reaction times no human could hope to match. An AV can spot a motorcycle driver going nuts long before a human could and it can react accordingly. Again, this is not hypothetical technology. These cars are on the road right now and they have no problem handling bikes, motorcycles, or aggressive drivers. LinkPizza posted... Not really. Cell phones are still crazy expensive. If they're so expensive, why are they a common commodity in the developing world? I've been to India. I've met people who make less in a year than I do in a week, yet still had a new smartphone on their hip. The only reason they're expensive here in the developed world is that their manufacturers know we can afford it. LinkPizza posted... And cars are even more expensive. A lot of people still dont have cars because they are super expensive. This will be worse than it is already. Actually, AVs would be a godsend to those who can't afford a car. Why? Because, unlike manual cars, AVs could be easily rented on the fly. Instead of paying a $1000 a month car loan, you pay a $50 a month membership fee. When you need a vehicle, you hit a button on your phone and one drives its way over to your house, picks you up, drives you wherever you need to go, then goes off to pick up the next customer. This exact business model is why companies like Uber and Lyft are big players in the AV market. Like most transportation companies, their drivers are their biggest cost. If they can replace their fleet with AVs, that would be enormous to their bottom line. Cars could be made cheaper and more accessible to those who cannot afford them right now, because you could feasibly have a private car that costs as little as a bus ticket to take you to and from your job. You wouldn't own it, but you wouldn't have to - the difference would be academic. --- 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:927139214] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>People may trust them.</quote> Enough of us will. And once everyone else sees how well the technology works and how effective it is, most will be onboard. There will be holdouts, of course - there always are. It's 2019 and some people still don't trust seatbelts, after all. But it won't stop the spread. After all, if you happen to be a transit rider and your city changes to an all-AV fleet and your options for getting to work now consist of "Ride an AV" or "Walk for two hours", you're going to be riding an AV. And you will see firsthand that nearly all the concerns people have about this technology are completely without merit. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Maybe. Maybe not. Motorcycle riders are pretty insane with their riding sometimes. </quote> And? An AV is the perfect thing to handle an erratic driver. They are much, much better than humans in that environment. Unlike us, they can see in all directions at once and have reaction times no human could hope to match. An AV can spot a motorcycle driver going nuts long before a human could and it can react accordingly. Again, this is not hypothetical technology. These cars are on the road right now and they have no problem handling bikes, motorcycles, or aggressive drivers. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Not really. Cell phones are still crazy expensive.</quote> If they're so expensive, why are they a common commodity in the developing world? I've been to India. I've met people who make less in a year than I do in a week, yet still had a new smartphone on their hip. The only reason they're expensive here in the developed world is that their manufacturers know we can afford it. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And cars are even more expensive. A lot of people still dont have cars because they are super expensive. This will be worse than it is already. </quote> Actually, AVs would be a godsend to those who can't afford a car. Why? Because, unlike manual cars, AVs could be easily rented on the fly. Instead of paying a $1000 a month car loan, you pay a $50 a month membership fee. When you need a vehicle, you hit a button on your phone and one drives its way over to your house, picks you up, drives you wherever you need to go, then goes off to pick up the next customer. This exact business model is why companies like Uber and Lyft are big players in the AV market. Like most transportation companies, their drivers are their biggest cost. If they can replace their fleet with AVs, that would be enormous to their bottom line. Cars could be made cheaper and more accessible to those who cannot afford them right now, because you could feasibly have a private car that costs as little as a bus ticket to take you to and from your job. You wouldn't own it, but you wouldn't have to - the difference would be academic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 10:57:33 AM #168:	darkknight109 posted... Yet you haven't stipulated anything that would make the costs substantially different. "There's a lot of old people here" is not an argument against cost efficiency. No. I did explained that the amount of people would not work with smaller vehicles. But I also explained the prices of everything. And explained the that wed pay more in fuel, way more in vehicle cost (both to get a replacement for everything & the extra needed to have the same amount of room), and how we would still need drivers (though they wouldnt be driving). Not only that, but because they are more bus/van replacements, wed need more drivers. darkknight109 posted... Literally every one of these arguments works just as well when applied to a train car, which has zero employees aboard 95+% of the time. Somehow they manage to function without turning into rolling abattoirs. Yeah. And thats awesome that they dont have to worry about it. We do at our station. We have people that vomit all the time. People pee just in the seats pretty consistently. Poop is more of a rarity. But theres blood more than occasionally. We have had to call the ambulance a good number of times to receive medical help multiple times. Especially during the summer, though some are just heat stroke or whatever. We even literally had someone masturbating in the back of the bus. They had to get him off immediately. And I dont think that was the first time. Maybe wherever they already use it dont have the same issues as here. But not everywhere is the same. But without drivers here, somebody will get hurt or die or have some kind of incident, well be sued, and then well have to shut down. And that wont be good for the town at all. And also, trains have conductors. Technically, you can still get someone to help. Trains also have ticket checkers most of the time, from what I hear. And if you remember, I even said the buses would need a driver, or possibly conductor, in the case of them being self-driving. I made that connection specifically because of train conductors. darkknight109 posted... ...which use less fuel, as they are smaller vehicles. And most self-driving cars are electric or hybrids; very few use conventional diesel or gasoline engines. Idk anything about that. I just looked up the one you talked about. But most of the articles didnt seem to say whether it was or not from the parts that I read. Though, usually the bigger vehicles seem to use fuel. Theres also storage. Which comes down to we have no room. We have an extra lot, but we already dont have money to build it into a parking lots. Going into millions of dollars of debt will help with that... darkknight109 posted... I don't understand this complaint. Literally any route taken by a driver could also be taken by an AV. They wont want half the route self-driving and the other half not. They would need to all change at once is the issue. And with routes needing to change between which buses go on Wilco has routes a lot, that wont work. Because the self-driving buses will have to do the every 15/20 minute routes. While buses will be doing the hour routes until we have enough. Its hard for me to explain. Its how the station does routes here... But it would basically fuck over the public... --- 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:927144679] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Yet you haven't stipulated anything that would make the costs substantially different. "There's a lot of old people here" is not an argument against cost efficiency.</quote> No. I did explained that the amount of people would not work with smaller vehicles. But I also explained the prices of everything. And explained the that wed pay more in fuel, way more in vehicle cost (both to get a replacement for everything & the extra needed to have the same amount of room), and how we would still need drivers (though they wouldnt be driving). Not only that, but because they are more bus/van replacements, wed need more drivers. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Literally every one of these arguments works just as well when applied to a train car, which has zero employees aboard 95+% of the time. Somehow they manage to function without turning into rolling abattoirs.</quote> Yeah. And thats awesome that they dont have to worry about it. We do at our station. We have people that vomit all the time. People pee just in the seats pretty consistently. Poop is more of a rarity. But theres blood more than occasionally. We have had to call the ambulance a good number of times to receive medical help multiple times. Especially during the summer, though some are just heat stroke or whatever. We even literally had someone masturbating in the back of the bus. They had to get him off immediately. And I dont think that was the first time. Maybe wherever they already use it dont have the same issues as here. But not everywhere is the same. But without drivers here, somebody will get hurt or die or have some kind of incident, well be sued, and then well have to shut down. And that wont be good for the town at all. And also, trains have conductors. Technically, you can still get someone to help. Trains also have ticket checkers most of the time, from what I hear. And if you remember, I even said the buses would need a driver, or possibly conductor, in the case of them being self-driving. I made that connection specifically because of train conductors. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>...which use less fuel, as they are smaller vehicles. And most self-driving cars are electric or hybrids; very few use conventional diesel or gasoline engines.</quote> Idk anything about that. I just looked up the one you talked about. But most of the articles didnt seem to say whether it was or not from the parts that I read. Though, usually the bigger vehicles seem to use fuel. Theres also storage. Which comes down to we have no room. We have an extra lot, but we already dont have money to build it into a parking lots. Going into millions of dollars of debt will help with that... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't understand this complaint. Literally any route taken by a driver could also be taken by an AV.</quote> They wont want half the route self-driving and the other half not. They would need to all change at once is the issue. And with routes needing to change between which buses go on Wilco has routes a lot, that wont work. Because the self-driving buses will have to do the every 15/20 minute routes. While buses will be doing the hour routes until we have enough. Its hard for me to explain. Its how the station does routes here... But it would basically fuck over the public...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 10:59:27 AM #169:	darkknight109 posted... Which is in no way different from a manual vehicle. Its very different. More than 4x the cost of a van. And while its half the cost of a bus, it holds 1/4 of the passengers. Cost is very different from manual. As we need to go with what works. Picking up 8 at a time doesnt work without changing the routes. Even then, we could you $500,000 for one bus for one route. Or spend $750,000/$1,000,000 for 3/4 buses for one route. $500,000 sounds better, and it cheaper. darkknight109 posted... You do realize there are more AVs than just vans, right? The one I cited earlier in this topic is just the first one that came up in my Google search. If there aren't automatic buses on the road already, there will be within a few years. Sure. Maybe in some places. Most likely wont be here. One of the main reasons the city doesnt want them is cost, though. Our city has actually said they didnt want them for apparently multiple reasons. But cost was the biggest, according to my boss. Hes the one who deals with the city. darkknight109 posted... Says who? No one has stipulated what the UBI would be set at. You can set it as high as you want. There's no reason why anyone, save for the rich, would need to take a haircut on this. I dont see everyone getting a pay raise with this. Theres only so much money they can just give away for free every month. I dont see why it would be set at the same price, or more, than what everyone makes now. Especially since people in the same city can be all over the place. darkknight109 posted... That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening. Except its a financial problem brought on because of the UBI. And sometimes, it does happen. Some kids literally only get to eat at school. And Key mentioned before how they had to stop kids from taking food home because they were taking food home from school to share with their family. Some people are barely able to survive with the benefits they get. darkknight109 posted... Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system. Except for all that depends on how much we get a month for forced welfare/UBI. We can treat ourselves if we dont get enough to treat ourselves. And I understand what it is. What Im saying is we dont know how much well be getting. So, we can say well definitely have enough to live the same exact lifestyle. Most probably wont as people usually just work overtime if they can when they need more money to get something. UBI wont let us just get a little extra because we want something expensive. Because if that was the case, what would be the point of UBI. darkknight109 posted... Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out. You mean the people who dont care and get to make decision better start talking about it. How about you call them up and let them know, 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:927144743] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Which is in no way different from a manual vehicle.</quote> Its very different. More than 4x the cost of a van. And while its half the cost of a bus, it holds 1/4 of the passengers. Cost is very different from manual. As we need to go with what works. Picking up 8 at a time doesnt work without changing the routes. Even then, we could you $500,000 for one bus for one route. Or spend $750,000/$1,000,000 for 3/4 buses for one route. $500,000 sounds better, and it cheaper. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You do realize there are more AVs than just vans, right? The one I cited earlier in this topic is just the first one that came up in my Google search. If there aren't automatic buses on the road already, there will be within a few years.</quote> Sure. Maybe in some places. Most likely wont be here. One of the main reasons the city doesnt want them is cost, though. Our city has actually said they didnt want them for apparently multiple reasons. But cost was the biggest, according to my boss. Hes the one who deals with the city. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Says who? No one has stipulated what the UBI would be set at. You can set it as high as you want. There's no reason why anyone, save for the rich, would need to take a haircut on this.</quote> I dont see everyone getting a pay raise with this. Theres only so much money they can just give away for free every month. I dont see why it would be set at the same price, or more, than what everyone makes now. Especially since people in the same city can be all over the place. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening.</quote> Except its a financial problem brought on because of the UBI. And sometimes, it does happen. Some kids literally only get to eat at school. And Key mentioned before how they had to stop kids from taking food home because they were taking food home from school to share with their family. Some people are barely able to survive with the benefits they get. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system.</quote> Except for all that depends on how much we get a month for forced welfare/UBI. We can treat ourselves if we dont get enough to treat ourselves. And I understand what it is. What Im saying is we dont know how much well be getting. So, we can say well definitely have enough to live the same exact lifestyle. Most probably wont as people usually just work overtime if they can when they need more money to get something. UBI wont let us just get a little extra because we want something expensive. Because if that was the case, what would be the point of UBI. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out.</quote> You mean the people who dont care and get to make decision better start talking about it. How about you call them up and let them know, then...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:02:11 AM #170:	darkknight109 posted... Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore. And thats the problem. We wont have the jobs to help us have a better life (or in some cases, the same as they use to have). darkknight109 posted... Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure. It might go down. Or it might not. Thats just a big guess. You assume the price of stuff will go because of automation. But it might not. Or it might not by a lot. Also, are you talking about the pyramid with the stuff like love, safety, esteem, etc. on it. Because it so, those all cant be solved with the Internet. Maybe none of them for some people. Unless Im looking at the wrong thing... With the free things you mentioned, not all of free. Well, the good ones. Free video games usually arent the best. Music is free on certain things like YouTube and pandora. Though, Pandora you dont get to choose unless you pay. And YouTube you have to stay on the page with the phone open unless you pay. For me, I pay a sub every month to keep my music. For movies, youd technically be stealing, right. For the most part. For stories, those are free. But you can just socialize to get those. Maybe you dream of that. I watched YouTube for months without stop. Its definitely gets boring. And usually, only certain things hold peoples interest. Just because I like watching gameplays doesnt mean Ill like watching anyone play. I like to watch certain people. And they do have a finite amount of videos. And will run out when you catch up. Especially when they are only like 30 minutes or so... And sure, the money can be spent at leisure... as long as you have enough... darkknight109 posted... If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today. And we have no plan, so were fucked. The technology is here. Doesnt mean we have to keep rushing headlong into it. Or release it upon the world without any plan going forward. I dont care thatthe technology is here. I care about living a good life. You know, like what life is suppose to be about. I dont care about advanced technology if life will sucks because of it. Id rather live a good life with basic tech, then a shitty life with future tech. --- 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:927144843] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore.</quote> And thats the problem. We wont have the jobs to help us have a better life (or in some cases, the same as they use to have). darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure.</quote> It might go down. Or it might not. Thats just a big guess. You assume the price of stuff will go because of automation. But it might not. Or it might not by a lot. Also, are you talking about the pyramid with the stuff like love, safety, esteem, etc. on it. Because it so, those all cant be solved with the Internet. Maybe none of them for some people. Unless Im looking at the wrong thing... With the free things you mentioned, not all of free. Well, the good ones. Free video games usually arent the best. Music is free on certain things like YouTube and pandora. Though, Pandora you dont get to choose unless you pay. And YouTube you have to stay on the page with the phone open unless you pay. For me, I pay a sub every month to keep my music. For movies, youd technically be stealing, right. For the most part. For stories, those are free. But you can just socialize to get those. Maybe you dream of that. I watched YouTube for months without stop. Its definitely gets boring. And usually, only certain things hold peoples interest. Just because I like watching gameplays doesnt mean Ill like watching anyone play. I like to watch certain people. And they do have a finite amount of videos. And will run out when you catch up. Especially when they are only like 30 minutes or so... And sure, the money can be spent at leisure... as long as you have enough... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today.</quote> And we have no plan, so were fucked. The technology is here. Doesnt mean we have to keep rushing headlong into it. Or release it upon the world without any plan going forward. I dont care thatthe technology is here. I care about living a good life. You know, like what life is suppose to be about. I dont care about advanced technology if life will sucks because of it. Id rather live a good life with basic tech, then a shitty life with future tech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:05:05 AM #171:	darkknight109 posted... Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more money. Because they still have accidents. And still have accidents with humans. It doesnt make any sense to charge a human driver more who doesnt have accidents that are their fault. But they do. Why would charging a self-driving car be different from a human who has had less accidents. So, no. You cant say for sure. darkknight109 posted... Which would all be the same for AVs and manual vehicles, so it's pointless to bring this up. Youre the one who sounding like you saying its all about price. But its not. All Im saying is raising the price wont automatically push customers away of you have good benefits. Meaning companies can easily raise the price without always losing the customer like you seem to believe. darkknight109 posted... And if human drivers are the cause that means insurance companies will start to charge human drivers higher premiums, because they are proving to be more risky than AVs. Thats fine. But not the solution. The problem is that insurance companies would probably rather not have to keep paying to get cars fixed. And insurance usually only pays a certain amount. Meaning that the insurance for the self-driving vehicles would also end up paying a lot out, as well, to help their client. Which is why insurance rates can easily rise for self-driving vehicles. darkknight109 posted... And? Human drivers can wind up in accidents too. They do it frequently - far more so than AVs. That's my point. And rates for self-driving can still go up. Thats my point. darkknight109 posted... It's not really any different to other bygone hobbies. Once upon a time horse racing was a common hobby because horses were absolutely everywhere. Then the internal combustion engine happened, the global horse population peaked right around the turn of last century, and now horse racing is largely a rich person's hobby. Technology wipes out pastimes sometimes. Sucks, but it happens. Are you talking about riding horses, or watching them. Watching them is still pretty popular, as far as I know. And people who arent rich can still watch. If youre talking about riding then for racing, its not only for rich people. I know people who arent rich, but have horses. Though, I live in a place with an abundance of farms. So, horses and other farm animals, and llamas are pretty common here. Either way, people dont like their hobbies being taken away. Especially if its like all they like to do. Like I know people where their car is their only hobby, so... --- 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:927144934] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more money. </quote> Because they still have accidents. And still have accidents with humans. It doesnt make any sense to charge a human driver more who doesnt have accidents that are their fault. But they do. Why would charging a self-driving car be different from a human who has had less accidents. So, no. You cant say for sure. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Which would all be the same for AVs and manual vehicles, so it's pointless to bring this up.</quote> Youre the one who sounding like you saying its all about price. But its not. All Im saying is raising the price wont automatically push customers away of you have good benefits. Meaning companies can easily raise the price without always losing the customer like you seem to believe. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And if human drivers are the cause that means insurance companies will start to charge human drivers higher premiums, because they are proving to be more risky than AVs.</quote> Thats fine. But not the solution. The problem is that insurance companies would probably rather not have to keep paying to get cars fixed. And insurance usually only pays a certain amount. Meaning that the insurance for the self-driving vehicles would also end up paying a lot out, as well, to help their client. Which is why insurance rates can easily rise for self-driving vehicles. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And? Human drivers can wind up in accidents too. They do it frequently - far more so than AVs. That's my point.</quote> And rates for self-driving can still go up. Thats my point. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>It's not really any different to other bygone hobbies. Once upon a time horse racing was a common hobby because horses were absolutely everywhere. Then the internal combustion engine happened, the global horse population peaked right around the turn of last century, and now horse racing is largely a rich person's hobby. Technology wipes out pastimes sometimes. Sucks, but it happens.</quote> Are you talking about riding horses, or watching them. Watching them is still pretty popular, as far as I know. And people who arent rich can still watch. If youre talking about riding then for racing, its not only for rich people. I know people who arent rich, but have horses. Though, I live in a place with an abundance of farms. So, horses and other farm animals, and llamas are pretty common here. Either way, people dont like their hobbies being taken away. Especially if its like all they like to do. Like I know people where their car is their only hobby, so...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:23:24 AM #172:	darkknight109 posted... So you keep saying, but you've yet to articulate a good reason as to why. It's coming off as wishful thinking on your part. Other cities have old people. Other cities have disabled people. Other cities have people who become ill on buses. Yet they somehow manage just fine putting AVs on the road (and having unmanned train cars, for that matter). Ive given plenty of good reasons. And prices. Like actual prices. About how you can buy 4x the vans with money left over. And can buy a bus that cost twice as much but holds 4x the people. How wed have to buy like nearly 100 of the self-driving ones to meet the needs of what we use our vehicles for daily. How we would need 4x the bus conductors and 2x the para-transit conductors. How if they use fuel, well use so much more than we already do. And possibly having to add screens for the customers to buy stuff if they dont already have them. And voice for own visual challenges riders... And Idk how other cities are doing it. Maybe theyre taking some risk. In my city, and by the bus company rules, wheelchair users need to be strapped down using Q-straints. Which you can use from the wheelchair unless you have insanely long arms. Most wheelchair users cant get out of the seat. Meaning it would be hard for them to strapped themselves in. And you cant let customers do it. Thats a lawsuit waiting to happen. And gotta tie down walkers, as well. Which might be hard for the people that have to use walkers. So its a mystery what these other companies are doing if they dont have an employee on the bus... darkknight109 posted... Except you're not the one preparing - the AV designers are. And if the accident record is any indication, they're already way, way, way ahead of you on these points. Really? Because I havent heard anything about their planning. And you cant just spring stuff up on people at the last second... unless you want total chaos, I guess... darkknight109 posted... This would be a fantastic points if humans never got into accidents. Except... we do. All the time. Hundreds of thousands of people across the globe die in car crashes every single year. We're actually really shitty at this job. Because some of us get behind the wheel whild drunk or tired or decide to text while driving; some of us drive while we're sleepy or angry; some of us just have moments of inattentiveness that result in lost lives. Robots don't do any of that. Which is why robots have accident rates far, far lower than humans. You're attempting to make perfect the enemy of very good, which is why this, "Yeah, but a human might perform better in this one scenario than a robot" argument doesn't fly. Because the robot performs far better in most other scenarios and far better overall. Theyre not perfect. And if I have to put my life into the hands of a machine, I want it to be perfect with no mistakes made. And nobody getting hurt or dying. --- 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:927145448] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>So you keep saying, but you've yet to articulate a good reason as to why. It's coming off as wishful thinking on your part. Other cities have old people. Other cities have disabled people. Other cities have people who become ill on buses. Yet they somehow manage just fine putting AVs on the road (and having unmanned train cars, for that matter).</quote> Ive given plenty of good reasons. And prices. Like actual prices. About how you can buy 4x the vans with money left over. And can buy a bus that cost twice as much but holds 4x the people. How wed have to buy like nearly 100 of the self-driving ones to meet the needs of what we use our vehicles for daily. How we would need 4x the bus conductors and 2x the para-transit conductors. How if they use fuel, well use so much more than we already do. And possibly having to add screens for the customers to buy stuff if they dont already have them. And voice for own visual challenges riders... And Idk how other cities are doing it. Maybe theyre taking some risk. In my city, and by the bus company rules, wheelchair users need to be strapped down using Q-straints. Which you can use from the wheelchair unless you have insanely long arms. Most wheelchair users cant get out of the seat. Meaning it would be hard for them to strapped themselves in. And you cant let customers do it. Thats a lawsuit waiting to happen. And gotta tie down walkers, as well. Which might be hard for the people that have to use walkers. So its a mystery what these other companies are doing if they dont have an employee on the bus... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Except you're not the one preparing - the AV designers are. And if the accident record is any indication, they're already way, way, way ahead of you on these points.</quote> Really? Because I havent heard anything about their planning. And you cant just spring stuff up on people at the last second... unless you want total chaos, I guess... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This would be a fantastic points if humans never got into accidents. Except... we do. All the time. Hundreds of thousands of people across the globe die in car crashes every single year. We're actually really shitty at this job. Because some of us get behind the wheel whild drunk or tired or decide to text while driving; some of us drive while we're sleepy or angry; some of us just have moments of inattentiveness that result in lost lives. Robots don't do any of that. Which is why robots have accident rates far, far lower than humans. You're attempting to make perfect the enemy of very good, which is why this, "Yeah, but a human might perform better in this one scenario than a robot" argument doesn't fly. Because the robot performs far better in most other scenarios and far better overall.</quote> Theyre not perfect. And if I have to put my life into the hands of a machine, I want it to be perfect with no mistakes made. And nobody getting hurt or dying.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:24:21 AM #173:	darkknight109 posted... Enough of us will. And once everyone else sees how well the technology works and how effective it is, most will be onboard. There will be holdouts, of course - there always are. It's 2019 and some people still don't trust seatbelts, after all. But it won't stop the spread. After all, if you happen to be a transit rider and your city changes to an all-AV fleet and your options for getting to work now consist of "Ride an AV" or "Walk for two hours", you're going to be riding an AV. And you will see firsthand that nearly all the concerns people have about this technology are completely without merit. I wont see, but you already know the reason why, as I shouldnt have to keep saying it. That being said, they might walk. People have to all the time when they miss the bus. And if we get the self-driving ones, prices may have to rise. Which could easily cost us many of our passengers... darkknight109 posted... And? An AV is the perfect thing to handle an erratic driver. They are much, much better than humans in that environment. Unlike us, they can see in all directions at once and have reaction times no human could hope to match. An AV can spot a motorcycle driver going nuts long before a human could and it can react accordingly. Again, this is not hypothetical technology. These cars are on the road right now and they have no problem handling bikes, motorcycles, or aggressive drivers. Like I said, I dont know as I havent seen how theyd handle some do the drivers Ive seen... Thats all... darkknight109 posted... If they're so expensive, why are they a common commodity in the developing world? I've been to India. I've met people who make less in a year than I do in a week, yet still had a new smartphone on their hip. The only reason they're expensive here in the developed world is that their manufacturers know we can afford it. Because people waste multiple paychecks and rock it having enough to pay bills and such to buy them. And many people still dont. I see the people who ride the bus in cell phones. Most have flip phones, or older models. And a lot of people irl I see with smartphones have stories about using a whole paycheck and a half to buy them. Or having to pay a few bills late to afford it. Its not that its affordable. Its something people seem to bend over backwards to have, even if it screws with them financially. --- 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:927145474] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Enough of us will. And once everyone else sees how well the technology works and how effective it is, most will be onboard. There will be holdouts, of course - there always are. It's 2019 and some people still don't trust seatbelts, after all. But it won't stop the spread. After all, if you happen to be a transit rider and your city changes to an all-AV fleet and your options for getting to work now consist of "Ride an AV" or "Walk for two hours", you're going to be riding an AV. And you will see firsthand that nearly all the concerns people have about this technology are completely without merit.</quote> I wont see, but you already know the reason why, as I shouldnt have to keep saying it. That being said, they might walk. People have to all the time when they miss the bus. And if we get the self-driving ones, prices may have to rise. Which could easily cost us many of our passengers... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And? An AV is the perfect thing to handle an erratic driver. They are much, much better than humans in that environment. Unlike us, they can see in all directions at once and have reaction times no human could hope to match. An AV can spot a motorcycle driver going nuts long before a human could and it can react accordingly. Again, this is not hypothetical technology. These cars are on the road right now and they have no problem handling bikes, motorcycles, or aggressive drivers.</quote> Like I said, I dont know as I havent seen how theyd handle some do the drivers Ive seen... Thats all... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>If they're so expensive, why are they a common commodity in the developing world? I've been to India. I've met people who make less in a year than I do in a week, yet still had a new smartphone on their hip. The only reason they're expensive here in the developed world is that their manufacturers know we can afford it.</quote> Because people waste multiple paychecks and rock it having enough to pay bills and such to buy them. And many people still dont. I see the people who ride the bus in cell phones. Most have flip phones, or older models. And a lot of people irl I see with smartphones have stories about using a whole paycheck and a half to buy them. Or having to pay a few bills late to afford it. Its not that its affordable. Its something people seem to bend over backwards to have, even if it screws with them financially.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:24:31 AM #174:	darkknight109 posted... Actually, AVs would be a godsend to those who can't afford a car. Why? Because, unlike manual cars, AVs could be easily rented on the fly. Instead of paying a $1000 a month car loan, you pay a $50 a month membership fee. When you need a vehicle, you hit a button on your phone and one drives its way over to your house, picks you up, drives you wherever you need to go, then goes off to pick up the next customer. This exact business model is why companies like Uber and Lyft are big players in the AV market. Like most transportation companies, their drivers are their biggest cost. If they can replace their fleet with AVs, that would be enormous to their bottom line. Cars could be made cheaper and more accessible to those who cannot afford them right now, because you could feasibly have a private car that costs as little as a bus ticket to take you to and from your job. You wouldn't own it, but you wouldn't have to - the difference would be academic. Which also sucks. Not owning a car sucks. Renting one would be worse. Cant leave stuff in it. And if you do, it could easily go missing. Where with Ubers and Lyfts with drivers, you have a better chance of getting them back. Especially since you can contact that exact driver. And some will even bring it to you on their own. Plus, it helps with not needing to carry so much. Ive seen lots of people on vans with multiple bags of stuff they bring with them to work. Which could easily be less owning car. I think I replied to each one. I lost a bunch part way through posting... --- 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:927145478] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Actually, AVs would be a godsend to those who can't afford a car. Why? Because, unlike manual cars, AVs could be easily rented on the fly. Instead of paying a $1000 a month car loan, you pay a $50 a month membership fee. When you need a vehicle, you hit a button on your phone and one drives its way over to your house, picks you up, drives you wherever you need to go, then goes off to pick up the next customer. This exact business model is why companies like Uber and Lyft are big players in the AV market. Like most transportation companies, their drivers are their biggest cost. If they can replace their fleet with AVs, that would be enormous to their bottom line. Cars could be made cheaper and more accessible to those who cannot afford them right now, because you could feasibly have a private car that costs as little as a bus ticket to take you to and from your job. You wouldn't own it, but you wouldn't have to - the difference would be academic.</quote> Which also sucks. Not owning a car sucks. Renting one would be worse. Cant leave stuff in it. And if you do, it could easily go missing. Where with Ubers and Lyfts with drivers, you have a better chance of getting them back. Especially since you can contact that exact driver. And some will even bring it to you on their own. Plus, it helps with not needing to carry so much. Ive seen lots of people on vans with multiple bags of stuff they bring with them to work. Which could easily be less owning car. I think I replied to each one. I lost a bunch part way through posting...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 09/08/19 11:29:27 AM #175:	LinkPizza posted... Cant leave stuff in it. Is this really a concern? Why do you need to leave things in your car? I don't leave anything in my car except the registration and owner's manual in the glove box and some coolant in the trunk. --- 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:927145620] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Cant leave stuff in it.</quote> Is this really a concern? Why do you need to leave things in your car? I don't leave anything in my car except the registration and owner's manual in the glove box and some coolant in the trunk.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/08/19 11:52:35 AM #176:	Jen0125 posted... LinkPizza posted... Cant leave stuff in it. Is this really a concern? Why do you need to leave things in your car? I don't leave anything in my car except the registration and owner's manual in the glove box and some coolant in the trunk. All the time. Like all the time. I dont think Ive ever been in a car where I didnt leave stuff in it. Other than like taxis and stuff or brand new cars, I dont think Ive ever been in an empty car. Without like stuff they always leave in their car or have with them... Its good for not having to carry everything around until you need it. Like books for break. And even my switch. Also, for when I buy things on break. I work in the afternoon. And dont usually have time in the morning to shop. But during lunch, I can go buy dog and cat food. And leave it my car since I dont have time to go home. Cant go after work, either... --- 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:927146336] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Cant leave stuff in it.</quote> Is this really a concern? Why do you need to leave things in your car? I don't leave anything in my car except the registration and owner's manual in the glove box and some coolant in the trunk.</quote> All the time. Like all the time. I dont think Ive ever been in a car where I didnt leave stuff in it. Other than like taxis and stuff or brand new cars, I dont think Ive ever been in an empty car. Without like stuff they always leave in their car or have with them... Its good for not having to carry everything around until you need it. Like books for break. And even my switch. Also, for when I buy things on break. I work in the afternoon. And dont usually have time in the morning to shop. But during lunch, I can go buy dog and cat food. And leave it my car since I dont have time to go home. Cant go after work, either...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/12/19 5:10:43 AM #177:	LinkPizza posted... No. I did explained that the amount of people would not work with smaller vehicles. But I also explained the prices of everything. And explained the that wed pay more in fuel, way more in vehicle cost (both to get a replacement for everything & the extra needed to have the same amount of room), and how we would still need drivers (though they wouldnt be driving). None of this is unique to your city; it's universal. Yet other places are doing this and being cost effective about it. LinkPizza posted... And also, trains have conductors. Technically, you can still get someone to help. And there's no reason why you couldn't have a button on an AV that, when pressed, immediately alerts headquarters that there's a problem. Add in some remote cameras and you could have a single person in a central location monitoring buses for a problem; if there's an emergency, they contact first responders, and if a mess is made, they recall the bus for cleaning and send out a replacement. There's no reason why any of that would require someone present on the bus itself. LinkPizza posted... They wont want half the route self-driving and the other half not. Why not? Again, this is how other cities are doing it. Route XX is an AV route, all other routes are manual drive. LinkPizza posted... Its very different No, I mean the need for backups. You'll need those regardless of whether you have an AV or a manual drive vehicle. It's a null factor. LinkPizza posted... Most likely wont be here. One of the main reasons the city doesnt want them is cost, though. Our city has actually said they didnt want them for apparently multiple reasons. But cost was the biggest, according to my boss. If cost is the main reason, start preparing, because new tech costs drop quickly. They may not fit the city's budget now, but that will change in the future, especially when the city realizes they can significantly reduce the costs associated with drivers by switching to AVs. LinkPizza posted... I dont see everyone getting a pay raise with this. Theres only so much money they can just give away for free every month. "Everyone" won't, but that doesn't mean you need to set UBI at the bare minimum value. As an example, you could say that UBI pays out $50k a year in today's dollars. You won't be buying a million-dollar mansion with that money, but that's a living wage. And, again, automation itself is providing the answer to this conundrum. Every job lost to automation represents savings and that savings can be re-invested into society at large. Today, when I order a pizza, I have to pay not only the cost of the ingredients, but also a share of the building's rent, the wage of the cook preparing it, the wage of the delivery driver bringing it to my house, and some fuel and vehicle maintenance. But if you could automate the cook and turn the delivery driver into a drone, those costs disappear and the pizza becomes cheaper to make. For a lot of automated services, this cost can round down to zero (which is why so much content is available online for free these days). --- 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:927324788] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>No. I did explained that the amount of people would not work with smaller vehicles. But I also explained the prices of everything. And explained the that wed pay more in fuel, way more in vehicle cost (both to get a replacement for everything & the extra needed to have the same amount of room), and how we would still need drivers (though they wouldnt be driving).</quote> None of this is unique to your city; it's universal. Yet other places are doing this and being cost effective about it. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And also, trains have conductors. Technically, you can still get someone to help. </quote> And there's no reason why you couldn't have a button on an AV that, when pressed, immediately alerts headquarters that there's a problem. Add in some remote cameras and you could have a single person in a central location monitoring buses for a problem; if there's an emergency, they contact first responders, and if a mess is made, they recall the bus for cleaning and send out a replacement. There's no reason why any of that would require someone present on the bus itself. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>They wont want half the route self-driving and the other half not.</quote> Why not? Again, this is how other cities are doing it. Route XX is an AV route, all other routes are manual drive. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its very different</quote> No, I mean the need for backups. You'll need those regardless of whether you have an AV or a manual drive vehicle. It's a null factor. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Most likely wont be here. One of the main reasons the city doesnt want them is cost, though. Our city has actually said they didnt want them for apparently multiple reasons. But cost was the biggest, according to my boss. </quote> If cost is the main reason, start preparing, because new tech costs drop quickly. They may not fit the city's budget now, but that will change in the future, especially when the city realizes they can significantly reduce the costs associated with drivers by switching to AVs. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>I dont see everyone getting a pay raise with this. Theres only so much money they can just give away for free every month. </quote> "Everyone" won't, but that doesn't mean you need to set UBI at the bare minimum value. As an example, you could say that UBI pays out $50k a year in today's dollars. You won't be buying a million-dollar mansion with that money, but that's a living wage. And, again, automation itself is providing the answer to this conundrum. Every job lost to automation represents savings and that savings can be re-invested into society at large. Today, when I order a pizza, I have to pay not only the cost of the ingredients, but also a share of the building's rent, the wage of the cook preparing it, the wage of the delivery driver bringing it to my house, and some fuel and vehicle maintenance. But if you could automate the cook and turn the delivery driver into a drone, those costs disappear and the pizza becomes cheaper to make. For a lot of automated services, this cost can round down to zero (which is why so much content is available online for free these days).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/12/19 5:11:02 AM #178:	LinkPizza posted... Except for all that depends on how much we get a month for forced welfare/UBI. Right. So start talking about it so we can sort out these sorts of details. LinkPizza posted... You mean the people who dont care and get to make decision better start talking about it. How about you call them up and let them know, then... I would, but they won't listen to me. Not if I'm the only one talking about it. But if a bunch of people start talking about it? Then they listen. That's our job now - mobilize, talk about it, come up with some concrete plans of attack, argue, lobby, do what you have to to get this issue on the political agenda. Because you sitting and complaining about how unfair it all is sure isn't going to change anything. LinkPizza posted... UBI wont let us just get a little extra because we want something expensive. Sure it will - it's called a "part time job". We're swimming in them right now and UBI won't change that. LinkPizza posted... And thats the problem. We wont have the jobs to help us have a better life (or in some cases, the same as they use to have). Yes, and I'm asking you what's your alternative? You didn't actually address my question. Those jobs are gone and there's no bringing them back. More will join them shortly. This process is not reversible. So tell me your alternative. There's no point complaining about an imperfect solution unless you can come up with an improvement to it. LinkPizza posted... It might go down. Or it might not. Thats just a big guess. It's not a guess at all, it's literally something that's already happened and is continuing to happen. Here's a challenge for you. Let's say I told you that you needed to collect as much music as possible - any type, any genre, any format - using only the following resources: -A computer with a high speed internet connection -Unlimited data storage -A budget of zero dollars and zero cents. How much would you be able to collect? Answer: enough that anyone listening to it could listen to your collection for the rest of their life and never have to hear a repeated song. In fact, new, free songs are being made faster than you can collect them. Now imagine I gave you the same assignment, but in the year 1980. How many songs would you have been able to attain then? Answer: very little. Music is now free. Not all music, of course, but enough of it that you can put together a perfectly serviceable playlist of songs you like without spending a cent. And this trend is everywhere. After adjusting for inflation, video games are now cheaper than they've ever been. We get more TV networks for less money than at any point in history. As companies automate their production and distribution networks, shipping prices are dropping. Automation drops costs; if it didn't, people wouldn't bother doing it. That's automation's big payoff. --- 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:927324794] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Except for all that depends on how much we get a month for forced welfare/UBI.</quote> Right. So start talking about it so we can sort out these sorts of details. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>You mean the people who dont care and get to make decision better start talking about it. How about you call them up and let them know, then... </quote> I would, but they won't listen to me. Not if I'm the only one talking about it. But if a bunch of people start talking about it? Then they listen. That's our job now - mobilize, talk about it, come up with some concrete plans of attack, argue, lobby, do what you have to to get this issue on the political agenda. Because you sitting and complaining about how unfair it all is sure isn't going to change anything. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>UBI wont let us just get a little extra because we want something expensive. </quote> Sure it will - it's called a "part time job". We're swimming in them right now and UBI won't change that. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And thats the problem. We wont have the jobs to help us have a better life (or in some cases, the same as they use to have). </quote> Yes, and I'm asking you what's your alternative? You didn't actually address my question. Those jobs are gone and there's no bringing them back. More will join them shortly. This process is not reversible. So tell me your alternative. There's no point complaining about an imperfect solution unless you can come up with an improvement to it. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>It might go down. Or it might not. Thats just a big guess.</quote> It's not a guess at all, it's literally something that's already happened and is continuing to happen. Here's a challenge for you. Let's say I told you that you needed to collect as much music as possible - any type, any genre, any format - using only the following resources: -A computer with a high speed internet connection -Unlimited data storage -A budget of zero dollars and zero cents. How much would you be able to collect? Answer: enough that anyone listening to it could listen to your collection for the rest of their life and never have to hear a repeated song. In fact, new, free songs are being made faster than you can collect them. Now imagine I gave you the same assignment, but in the year 1980. How many songs would you have been able to attain then? Answer: very little. Music is now free. Not all music, of course, but enough of it that you can put together a perfectly serviceable playlist of songs you like without spending a cent. And this trend is everywhere. After adjusting for inflation, video games are now cheaper than they've ever been. We get more TV networks for less money than at any point in history. As companies automate their production and distribution networks, shipping prices are dropping. Automation drops costs; if it didn't, people wouldn't bother doing it. That's automation's big payoff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/12/19 5:11:44 AM #179:	LinkPizza posted... Also, are you talking about the pyramid with the stuff like love, safety, esteem, etc. on it. Because it so, those all cant be solved with the Internet. Sure they can - not all, as previously mentioned, but most. Start at the bottom (which is how the pyramid works - you have to fill each row at the bottom before building your way to the next one) and let's go through it. Physiological? No, the internet's not going to do this for you. However, these are basic necessities that most everyone in the developed world already has guaranteed. If you are above the poverty line, you already have these covered. Safety and security? The internet can somewhat address some of this row, but others - like security of body or security of health - are no-goes. Love and belonging? Yes, the internet can do this. You can meet new friends online, keep up with family online, and there's plenty of dating sites to find sexual intimacy online. Esteem? Confidence, achievement, self-esteem, respect of and by others? Yes, those are all things you can accomplish online. Self-actualization? This is one the internet is particularly good at. So there you go - the internet can satisfy the majority of our needs, typically with zero cost. That's not something that could have been done for free in the pre-internet days. LinkPizza posted... And we have no plan, so were fucked. The technology is here. Doesnt mean we have to keep rushing headlong into it. We do, actually. Because if we don't, someone else will. China is one of the biggest boosters of AI and automation. Even if you were able to convince everyone in the West to just... stop producing AI (which will never happen, but I'll humour the hypothetical), all that would happen is the West would stagnate and experience a sharp economic decline while China leaps ahead of us. We know this because that exact thing happened, with the roles switched, when China's Qing dynasty decided they'd reached a level of technology where no further advancement was needed and sealed themselves off from the world. That resulted in the Opium Wars and being subjugated by Great Britain. So yes, this train doesn't stop. That's why we all need to start coming up with a plan moving forward, because just saying, "Why can't we just live the good life with the tech we have?" is a non-starter of an argument. LinkPizza posted... It doesnt make any sense to charge a human driver more who doesnt have accidents that are their fault. Sure it does - we do it all the time. Are you a male under 25? Congratulations, even if you've never had an at-fault accident or traffic ticket, you're going to be paying ridiculously high insurance rates! Why? Because, statistically, the insurance companies have identified you as being high-risk. By contrast, self-driving cars - once they have established themselves - are a known commodity. They are a system that works better than any human and, as such, are a low risk for any insurance company to cover. Hence, they will get better rates. --- 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:927324802] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Also, are you talking about the pyramid with the stuff like love, safety, esteem, etc. on it. Because it so, those all cant be solved with the Internet.</quote> Sure they can - not all, as previously mentioned, but most. Start at the bottom (which is how the pyramid works - you have to fill each row at the bottom before building your way to the next one) and let's go through it. Physiological? No, the internet's not going to do this for you. However, these are basic necessities that most everyone in the developed world already has guaranteed. If you are above the poverty line, you already have these covered. Safety and security? The internet can somewhat address some of this row, but others - like security of body or security of health - are no-goes. Love and belonging? Yes, the internet can do this. You can meet new friends online, keep up with family online, and there's plenty of dating sites to find sexual intimacy online. Esteem? Confidence, achievement, self-esteem, respect of and by others? Yes, those are all things you can accomplish online. Self-actualization? This is one the internet is particularly good at. So there you go - the internet can satisfy the majority of our needs, typically with zero cost. That's not something that could have been done for free in the pre-internet days. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>And we have no plan, so were fucked. The technology is here. Doesnt mean we have to keep rushing headlong into it. </quote> We do, actually. Because if we don't, someone else will. China is one of the biggest boosters of AI and automation. Even if you were able to convince everyone in the West to just... stop producing AI (which will never happen, but I'll humour the hypothetical), all that would happen is the West would stagnate and experience a sharp economic decline while China leaps ahead of us. We know this because that exact thing happened, with the roles switched, when China's Qing dynasty decided they'd reached a level of technology where no further advancement was needed and sealed themselves off from the world. That resulted in the Opium Wars and being subjugated by Great Britain. So yes, this train doesn't stop. That's why we all need to start coming up with a plan moving forward, because just saying, "Why can't we just live the good life with the tech we have?" is a non-starter of an argument. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>It doesnt make any sense to charge a human driver more who doesnt have accidents that are their fault. </quote> Sure it does - we do it all the time. Are you a male under 25? Congratulations, even if you've never had an at-fault accident or traffic ticket, you're going to be paying ridiculously high insurance rates! Why? Because, statistically, the insurance companies have identified you as being high-risk. By contrast, self-driving cars - once they have established themselves - are a known commodity. They are a system that works better than any human and, as such, are a low risk for any insurance company to cover. Hence, they will get better rates.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/12/19 5:12:03 AM #180:	LinkPizza posted... All Im saying is raising the price wont automatically push customers away of you have good benefits. Meaning companies can easily raise the price without always losing the customer like you seem to believe. You've already pointed out the hole in your own argument. If a company raises their prices, they need to provide some "extra" service in order to justify that raise or else yes, they will lose customers. Put it this way - if you're insuring someone for $1000 a month and I come along and offer them the exact same coverage and service for $800 a month, they'd be idiots not to take me up on it. If you charge more, you must provide more, or else you must drop your prices to match your competition. That's simple economics. LinkPizza posted... The problem is that insurance companies would probably rather not have to keep paying to get cars fixed. All the more reason for them to insure AVs, which have lower accident rates than humans, meaning less payout for the underwriters. LinkPizza posted... If youre talking about riding then for racing, its not only for rich people. I know people who arent rich, but have horses. Though, I live in a place with an abundance of farms. So, horses and other farm animals, and llamas are pretty common here. And manual drive cars will some day occupy that same niche. Expect them to follow the same general trend as horses, given that they have similar "careers". LinkPizza posted... Either way, people dont like their hobbies being taken away. Especially if its like all they like to do. Like I know people where their car is their only hobby, so... You'll still be able to be a car hobbyist in the future; it'll just be an anachronistic hobby, like ren-faires. LinkPizza posted... ve given plenty of good reasons. Literally every reason you give in the rest of this paragraph applies to every other city that has adopted AVs and they've found ways around them. These are not valid arguments. LinkPizza posted... Really? Because I havent heard anything about their planning. Then you're probably not all that tied in with what they're doing. --- 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:927324807] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>All Im saying is raising the price wont automatically push customers away of you have good benefits. Meaning companies can easily raise the price without always losing the customer like you seem to believe.</quote> You've already pointed out the hole in your own argument. If a company raises their prices, they need to provide some "extra" service in order to justify that raise or else yes, they will lose customers. Put it this way - if you're insuring someone for $1000 a month and I come along and offer them the exact same coverage and service for $800 a month, they'd be idiots not to take me up on it. If you charge more, you must provide more, or else you must drop your prices to match your competition. That's simple economics. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>The problem is that insurance companies would probably rather not have to keep paying to get cars fixed. </quote> All the more reason for them to insure AVs, which have lower accident rates than humans, meaning less payout for the underwriters. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>If youre talking about riding then for racing, its not only for rich people. I know people who arent rich, but have horses. Though, I live in a place with an abundance of farms. So, horses and other farm animals, and llamas are pretty common here. </quote> And manual drive cars will some day occupy that same niche. Expect them to follow the same general trend as horses, given that they have similar "careers". LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Either way, people dont like their hobbies being taken away. Especially if its like all they like to do. Like I know people where their car is their only hobby, so... </quote> You'll still be able to be a car hobbyist in the future; it'll just be an anachronistic hobby, like ren-faires. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>ve given plenty of good reasons.</quote> Literally every reason you give in the rest of this paragraph applies to every other city that has adopted AVs and they've found ways around them. These are not valid arguments. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Really? Because I havent heard anything about their planning. </quote> Then you're probably not all that tied in with what they're doing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/12/19 5:12:52 AM #181:	LinkPizza posted... Theyre not perfect. And if I have to put my life into the hands of a machine, I want it to be perfect with no mistakes made. And nobody getting hurt or dying. Then you're going to have to stay home and never go outside, because every time you do you're putting your life into the hands of a machine, except it's a biological one rather than a digital one. And it's a biological one with an incredibly shitty accident rate compared to the alternatives. Upgrading to AVs makes things safer - that's simple fact. Your argument here makes absolutely no sense - what you've basically said in this paragraph is, "I have a 1 in 77 chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash; AVs are unsafe, because I could die in them, so even though my odds of dying are much lower [project rate would be about 1 in 300 - a quarter of the rate of manual vehicles], I'd rather stick with the current, substantially less safe system." Your argument is pure emotion and the facts simply do not support what you're saying. LinkPizza posted... I wont see, but you already know the reason why, as I shouldnt have to keep saying it. You may not, but enough other people will that it will sustain the change. There are holdouts to any new technology, and I say that as someone who still willingly owns a flip-phone. But it won't stop change or even slow it down. LinkPizza posted... Like I said, I dont know as I havent seen how theyd handle some do the drivers Ive seen... Thats all... And I'm explaining it to you. AVs are programmed to react to other drivers. If someone is driving aggressively or erratically, the AV can compensate. The AV does not expect human drivers to be flawless; in fact, it anticipates most of them doing dumb things, because human drivers do those things all the time and any AV that didn't compensate for that would be crashing constantly. LinkPizza posted... Because people waste multiple paychecks and rock it having enough to pay bills and such to buy them. I don't think you see what I'm getting at here. The average wage in India is $1,670 per year. In other words, even if you literally spent on nothing else, it would take five months worth of paycheques to afford a new iPhone on the average Indian wage; in actuality, you'd probably have to save up for years. Yet they're still commonplace. Why? Because manufacturers sell them cheaper there. Because that's what the market will support. LinkPizza posted... Which also sucks. Not owning a car sucks. Renting one would be worse. I'm pretty sure if you told someone who couldn't afford to buy a car, "You can either take transit or, for about the same cost, have a private car that will drive you to and from wherever you need to go, at whatever time you need," 90% of them would take the car. I don't see any reasonable argument for your statement that having to rent a car is worse than just straight-up not owning one. --- 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:927324824] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Theyre not perfect. And if I have to put my life into the hands of a machine, I want it to be perfect with no mistakes made. And nobody getting hurt or dying. </quote> Then you're going to have to stay home and never go outside, because every time you do you're putting your life into the hands of a machine, except it's a biological one rather than a digital one. And it's a biological one with an incredibly shitty accident rate compared to the alternatives. Upgrading to AVs makes things safer - that's simple fact. Your argument here makes absolutely no sense - what you've basically said in this paragraph is, "I have a 1 in 77 chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash; AVs are unsafe, because I could die in them, so even though my odds of dying are much lower [project rate would be about 1 in 300 - a quarter of the rate of manual vehicles], I'd rather stick with the current, substantially less safe system." Your argument is pure emotion and the facts simply do not support what you're saying. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>I wont see, but you already know the reason why, as I shouldnt have to keep saying it. </quote> You may not, but enough other people will that it will sustain the change. There are holdouts to any new technology, and I say that as someone who still willingly owns a flip-phone. But it won't stop change or even slow it down. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Like I said, I dont know as I havent seen how theyd handle some do the drivers Ive seen... Thats all... </quote> And I'm explaining it to you. AVs are programmed to react to other drivers. If someone is driving aggressively or erratically, the AV can compensate. The AV does not expect human drivers to be flawless; in fact, it anticipates most of them doing dumb things, because human drivers do those things all the time and any AV that didn't compensate for that would be crashing constantly. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Because people waste multiple paychecks and rock it having enough to pay bills and such to buy them. </quote> I don't think you see what I'm getting at here. The average wage in India is $1,670 per year. In other words, even if you literally spent on nothing else, it would take five months worth of paycheques to afford a new iPhone on the average Indian wage; in actuality, you'd probably have to save up for years. Yet they're still commonplace. Why? Because manufacturers sell them cheaper there. Because that's what the market will support. LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Which also sucks. Not owning a car sucks. Renting one would be worse.</quote> I'm pretty sure if you told someone who couldn't afford to buy a car, "You can either take transit or, for about the same cost, have a private car that will drive you to and from wherever you need to go, at whatever time you need," 90% of them would take the car. I don't see any reasonable argument for your statement that having to rent a car is worse than just straight-up not owning one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trialia 09/12/19 5:47:06 AM #182:	streamofthesky posted... It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern? --- Trialia ~ unfaithful-mirror.net PSN: Trialia_X, Xaedere (100%) \| XBL: trialia, Noquelle (100%) <cite>Trialia posted [p:927325283] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. </quote> That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 3:07:58 PM #183:	This is getting insane. To many post to reply to at once. Theres A LOT to quote. So, Im probably not going to quote each one. But Ill still try to hit all the points. When I say its not going to be cost-efficient here, it doesnt mean its not cost-efficient everywhere. I mean here specifically. Its like when you have a broom and say it works really good your hardwood floors. So, it should work good on your carpet floor since its also a floor. But it normally wont work well because even though theyre both floors, theyre different kinds of floors. And the same can be said for cities and towns. They are all different. The reason is can be more cost efficient is other places can be for a lot of different reasons. One reason is possibly the standing rule. As I said, standing on the bus is not only against our companys rules, but the city, as well. Other cities allow standing. That means that two SD buses that allow standing could carry a total of 32. Where one bus costing about the same can usually carry 32 sitting and some more standing. But not much more. Meaning that while there is less room, its not too much. Where it would be different here. Also, I know they could make a different size bus that could hold more. The problem becomes that the cost is probably much higher. And also, the drivers in town wouldnt help much when the bus has to make a turn, and get all the way over while drivers wont let them, etc... Also, the amount or buses, stops, duration or their routes, and other things dealing with that can change stuff. Our routes send out one bus per route and they are an hour long. Other places may already send out more buses or have shorter routes. And that could work with smaller SD buses. For other cities, replacing the buses may work well for them. Especially if they dont have too many people on board at once, and have either a shorter route, or multiple buses on the same route. Meaning they could save money buying enough buses for routes. Where for us, its different. $1M would get us enough SD buses for 1 or 1.3 routes (depending on 4 or 3 buses per route). Where the same amount of money used for regular buses gets us enough buses for 2 routes. Then theres the handicap. Which is a weird one. Because our rules for helping the handicap actually come from our parent company. They are a bigger company in transit and have very specific rules for making sure handicap passengers are safely strapped down. And I believe the person has to be 18 or older. Well, currently, at least. So, if they are putting handicap passengers on board, they have to have someone on there working to strap them down correctly. If they dont, then I dont see how the other SD buses are picking up wheelchair bound passengers on them. Meaning, the SD buses are self sufficient enough and would need at least one employee to do that. Which doesnt save money since were still paying someone. Theres also the possibility of something like a para-transit van following the bus (since they want to test it out) who is picking up the disabled passengers. Which means that the SD buses may not have been made with them is mind. I can speak for all transit companies. Only my parent company, and my siblings fathers company (works for them, not owns). That being said, there is one person who was making one that was made for people with disabilities. And will be testing later, I believe. The problem is it looked even smaller. And closer to a few spaces rather than the bus amount. And all I heard about was the ramp they added. Which anybody can do. But I think they still need someone to help the disabled person. Meaning they would still need a person, so... --- 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:927343642] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>This is getting insane. To many post to reply to at once. Theres A LOT to quote. So, Im probably not going to quote each one. But Ill still try to hit all the points. When I say its not going to be cost-efficient here, it doesnt mean its not cost-efficient everywhere. I mean here specifically. Its like when you have a broom and say it works really good your hardwood floors. So, it should work good on your carpet floor since its also a floor. But it normally wont work well because even though theyre both floors, theyre different kinds of floors. And the same can be said for cities and towns. They are all different. The reason is can be more cost efficient is other places can be for a lot of different reasons. One reason is possibly the standing rule. As I said, standing on the bus is not only against our companys rules, but the city, as well. Other cities allow standing. That means that two SD buses that allow standing could carry a total of 32. Where one bus costing about the same can usually carry 32 sitting and some more standing. But not much more. Meaning that while there is less room, its not too much. Where it would be different here. Also, I know they could make a different size bus that could hold more. The problem becomes that the cost is probably much higher. And also, the drivers in town wouldnt help much when the bus has to make a turn, and get all the way over while drivers wont let them, etc... Also, the amount or buses, stops, duration or their routes, and other things dealing with that can change stuff. Our routes send out one bus per route and they are an hour long. Other places may already send out more buses or have shorter routes. And that could work with smaller SD buses. For other cities, replacing the buses may work well for them. Especially if they dont have too many people on board at once, and have either a shorter route, or multiple buses on the same route. Meaning they could save money buying enough buses for routes. Where for us, its different. $1M would get us enough SD buses for 1 or 1.3 routes (depending on 4 or 3 buses per route). Where the same amount of money used for regular buses gets us enough buses for 2 routes. Then theres the handicap. Which is a weird one. Because our rules for helping the handicap actually come from our parent company. They are a bigger company in transit and have very specific rules for making sure handicap passengers are safely strapped down. And I believe the person has to be 18 or older. Well, currently, at least. So, if they are putting handicap passengers on board, they have to have someone on there working to strap them down correctly. If they dont, then I dont see how the other SD buses are picking up wheelchair bound passengers on them. Meaning, the SD buses are self sufficient enough and would need at least one employee to do that. Which doesnt save money since were still paying someone. Theres also the possibility of something like a para-transit van following the bus (since they want to test it out) who is picking up the disabled passengers. Which means that the SD buses may not have been made with them is mind. I can speak for all transit companies. Only my parent company, and my siblings fathers company (works for them, not owns). That being said, there is one person who was making one that was made for people with disabilities. And will be testing later, I believe. The problem is it looked even smaller. And closer to a few spaces rather than the bus amount. And all I heard about was the ramp they added. Which anybody can do. But I think they still need someone to help the disabled person. Meaning they would still need a person, so...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 3:08:32 PM #184:	Theres also the issue of the money to actually get it. We had to make a deal to get the two buses were getting right now. And its still costing a huge chunk or money. Though, its coming from somewhere else, sort of... And we dont get that much. We had barely enough for the three vans we got. Together, they were about $183K-$186K. Which is about $64K-$67K cheaper than one of the SD ones. And we still barely have enough with the ones that are breaking because theyre so old. These being smaller and is not being able to afford one, let alone more, means that trying to replace vans with them now would basically be impossible. And if we tried, we wouldnt be able to pick up most of our customers. Seriously. The only way wed be able to get more money would be if our town did what Washington state did, I think. I would have to ask my friend again, but I believe some city, or maybe the state, wanted to make a new public transportation system there. And so they raised all the taxes they could to the max. They made money to make the transportation system, and some extra to fix it. I think it took a couple of years. And that was in Washington state, which has a higher standard of living then where I am. So, not only would they have already been paying more in taxes than we do here at normal rates, but they would have being paying a crazy amount with raised rates. And it still took them years. Who knows how long it would take here. Not to mentioned ruining the people who live here. Plus, the city does care about SD buses. They said so themselves. And even if they did, they wouldnt put it in front of all the town re-building theyre doing. Most of the money for the next few years are already being spent on the whole town remodeling spree theyve been going on. My SO works close with them and tells me about all the stuff theyre planning. I actually do know of a way they could get enough SD buses. But it would take many, many years. Considering how poor he city is. Plus, the amount we would need plus spares is a lot. And we need spares. One reason is for accidents. Like recently, we had to switch out 2 buses because someone peed on one, and someone threw up on another. The very next day, we had to switch out 3 buses because someone pooped on one, then got onto another bus with poop pants. And someone peed on another. And the next day, one had to be switched out again because someone peed on it... Then we also need spares for when they break down. Which is another thing. Well need to have people trained on fixing them. The GM isnt going to fire the maintenance guys we have. So hell probably hire an outside contractor for a while (or even a maintainer who knows how to fix them full time), while getting ours current guys trained on the new one, one at a time. As the others will still need to be here to fix the ones well still have, as it would take like a decade or more to actually get enough SD buses. Then, there are the parts. Right now, we sometimes buy buses parts. We also have a stock-pile of them from years of getting a little here and there. The new buses would probably need very different parts, which are probably pretty expensive considering they are probably more advanced and newer. Not to mention, we dont have a stockpile already, costing us much money. Then theres the issue of space. We barely have enough for what we already have. Getting more is too much. We do have more land that can be made into a parking lot. The reason we havent yet is because... The money! So, that would be more money that we need, but dont have. --- 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:927343676] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Theres also the issue of the money to actually get it. We had to make a deal to get the two buses were getting right now. And its still costing a huge chunk or money. Though, its coming from somewhere else, sort of... And we dont get that much. We had barely enough for the three vans we got. Together, they were about $183K-$186K. Which is about $64K-$67K cheaper than one of the SD ones. And we still barely have enough with the ones that are breaking because theyre so old. These being smaller and is not being able to afford one, let alone more, means that trying to replace vans with them now would basically be impossible. And if we tried, we wouldnt be able to pick up most of our customers. Seriously. The only way wed be able to get more money would be if our town did what Washington state did, I think. I would have to ask my friend again, but I believe some city, or maybe the state, wanted to make a new public transportation system there. And so they raised all the taxes they could to the max. They made money to make the transportation system, and some extra to fix it. I think it took a couple of years. And that was in Washington state, which has a higher standard of living then where I am. So, not only would they have already been paying more in taxes than we do here at normal rates, but they would have being paying a crazy amount with raised rates. And it still took them years. Who knows how long it would take here. Not to mentioned ruining the people who live here. Plus, the city does care about SD buses. They said so themselves. And even if they did, they wouldnt put it in front of all the town re-building theyre doing. Most of the money for the next few years are already being spent on the whole town remodeling spree theyve been going on. My SO works close with them and tells me about all the stuff theyre planning. I actually do know of a way they could get enough SD buses. But it would take many, many years. Considering how poor he city is. Plus, the amount we would need plus spares is a lot. And we need spares. One reason is for accidents. Like recently, we had to switch out 2 buses because someone peed on one, and someone threw up on another. The very next day, we had to switch out 3 buses because someone pooped on one, then got onto another bus with poop pants. And someone peed on another. And the next day, one had to be switched out again because someone peed on it... Then we also need spares for when they break down. Which is another thing. Well need to have people trained on fixing them. The GM isnt going to fire the maintenance guys we have. So hell probably hire an outside contractor for a while (or even a maintainer who knows how to fix them full time), while getting ours current guys trained on the new one, one at a time. As the others will still need to be here to fix the ones well still have, as it would take like a decade or more to actually get enough SD buses. Then, there are the parts. Right now, we sometimes buy buses parts. We also have a stock-pile of them from years of getting a little here and there. The new buses would probably need very different parts, which are probably pretty expensive considering they are probably more advanced and newer. Not to mention, we dont have a stockpile already, costing us much money. Then theres the issue of space. We barely have enough for what we already have. Getting more is too much. We do have more land that can be made into a parking lot. The reason we havent yet is because... The money! So, that would be more money that we need, but dont have.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 3:10:55 PM #185:	Also, Ive talked to some people about this outside of Gamefaqs. To see why they said. I noticed something, though. There were two different groups of people who also noticed certain things. One group of people are people who have worked at another bus station other than here. They mentioned how this bus station is really behind on the times. Other bus stations have bigger buses, and already had things like tablets cameras on them. One lady said the station she worked at in a big city had cameras on their buses in 2007. We only got them in our vehicles last year. Like 11 years later. We only got tablets like a few years ago. A lot of people mentioned that this station is far behind. Which could also explain why we wouldnt get the buses here for a while. Another thing they notice, that other people not working at the bus station also mentioned, in things about the town. The whole town, not just the station, is behind in the times. Which could explain why the bus station is, as well. Not to mention how poor the town is, as I mentioned. Ive also mentioned the council we have in other post. This is the same council that declined Six Flags building here, even though it would have made bank. We have like 3-4 colleges and a military base. It would have been packed all the time. But they didnt want people coming to the town. Or for the town to grow. Our town could actually have a bunch of money of they did that. Those reasons were the same reason they didnt build a train station. Our town had even bought the rights to Hooters in town, just so they could stop them from building one for a while. And we only recently got some other fast food places due to the council dying out and being replaced. For the emergency button, theres still the problem of them not being able to press it. Trying to press a button when youre on the floor having a heart attack or seizure isnt easy. And there may not be people on the bus, like for last stops, or first stops. And even if there are people, they may not care. And now theres a lawsuit and somebody lost a family member... As for the cameras, we do have them. Though, they arent live feeds. Which would actual cost a bunch. I think thats why they didnt get them. Because of cost. We only got them last year, too. But now we adding another person to pay. And then being on the bus is still needed for spills and the likes. And Im not talking about drinks, but bodily fluids. Which people would not want to be stuck on a bus with that. Though, a driver can put down the litter litter type stuff, so... The reason they wont want half the routes different in the constant complaints. As I said, the self driving routes will have to go more often. 3 or 4 buses as a time. Meaning they get a pick up every 15-20 minutes, depending on amount of buses. While the others are still once an hour. Theyll complain to us and the city. And the city wont like the constant complaints. And well need to fix it. Which means back to once an hour. Which is not going to work with the tony SD buses. Again, were not those other cities. But we can use less backups for manual as we have less buses out. With only 8 buses out, we can have 3 back ups ready. And usually a couple more. With more buses, we need more back-ups. Meaning we need more spares. Having the same amount of spares that we have for manual buses for the SD ones wont work because like 5 spares for 32 buses could end bad if enough go stop working. About 5 for 8 is more than 50% extra. And sometimes, they all get used... Weve even had times where they had to keep using the buses with issues because we didnt have enough manual spares. Or had to switch to another buses with less issues or an issue that was drivable until the end when they could get things. --- 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:927343795] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Also, Ive talked to some people about this outside of Gamefaqs. To see why they said. I noticed something, though. There were two different groups of people who also noticed certain things. One group of people are people who have worked at another bus station other than here. They mentioned how this bus station is really behind on the times. Other bus stations have bigger buses, and already had things like tablets cameras on them. One lady said the station she worked at in a big city had cameras on their buses in 2007. We only got them in our vehicles last year. Like 11 years later. We only got tablets like a few years ago. A lot of people mentioned that this station is far behind. Which could also explain why we wouldnt get the buses here for a while. Another thing they notice, that other people not working at the bus station also mentioned, in things about the town. The whole town, not just the station, is behind in the times. Which could explain why the bus station is, as well. Not to mention how poor the town is, as I mentioned. Ive also mentioned the council we have in other post. This is the same council that declined Six Flags building here, even though it would have made bank. We have like 3-4 colleges and a military base. It would have been packed all the time. But they didnt want people coming to the town. Or for the town to grow. Our town could actually have a bunch of money of they did that. Those reasons were the same reason they didnt build a train station. Our town had even bought the rights to Hooters in town, just so they could stop them from building one for a while. And we only recently got some other fast food places due to the council dying out and being replaced. For the emergency button, theres still the problem of them not being able to press it. Trying to press a button when youre on the floor having a heart attack or seizure isnt easy. And there may not be people on the bus, like for last stops, or first stops. And even if there are people, they may not care. And now theres a lawsuit and somebody lost a family member... As for the cameras, we do have them. Though, they arent live feeds. Which would actual cost a bunch. I think thats why they didnt get them. Because of cost. We only got them last year, too. But now we adding another person to pay. And then being on the bus is still needed for spills and the likes. And Im not talking about drinks, but bodily fluids. Which people would not want to be stuck on a bus with that. Though, a driver can put down the litter litter type stuff, so... The reason they wont want half the routes different in the constant complaints. As I said, the self driving routes will have to go more often. 3 or 4 buses as a time. Meaning they get a pick up every 15-20 minutes, depending on amount of buses. While the others are still once an hour. Theyll complain to us and the city. And the city wont like the constant complaints. And well need to fix it. Which means back to once an hour. Which is not going to work with the tony SD buses. Again, were not those other cities. But we can use less backups for manual as we have less buses out. With only 8 buses out, we can have 3 back ups ready. And usually a couple more. With more buses, we need more back-ups. Meaning we need more spares. Having the same amount of spares that we have for manual buses for the SD ones wont work because like 5 spares for 32 buses could end bad if enough go stop working. About 5 for 8 is more than 50% extra. And sometimes, they all get used... Weve even had times where they had to keep using the buses with issues because we didnt have enough manual spares. Or had to switch to another buses with less issues or an issue that was drivable until the end when they could get things.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 3:12:26 PM #186:	The cost drops quickly, but not that fast. Especially with how expensive they already are. And especially when the city realizes that buying one of those is more expensive that buying 4 vans that are all bigger. And the city doesnt care about money that much. As I explained earlier, they didnt care about the Six Flags that could make them money. Nor the train station. And they wont start preparing. You can tell me to prepare all you want. The city makes the decision. So, you would have to tell them, not me. And they dont want to... I think someone used a little mini RC type thing to deliver pizzas. But I believe it was the same price as normal. The only thing that was different was probably no tip. But I believe it still had the delivery fee. So, it may or may not drop. And maybe not quickly enough. And thats still a pay cut for people who have higher paying jobs like lawyers and doctors. So, they have to take a pay cut and live a lesser than they had life because of that. Not to mention, you would have to get rid of everyones debt. Because if you didnt, well that would be fair to anyone. And everyone would riot. And who do we talk to? Because I personally dont know anyone who has that power. Nor do they listen to nobodies. And you need more than a bunch of gamers on a gaming site to start talking about it. The problem is most people arent going to care until its too late. And most think that future is way ahead and that theyll cross that bridge when they get to it. Even mobilizing some now wont get many interested. And even then, the government might say they have a plan or are working on it. And those might be lies to get us to stop asking about it. UBI wont change part time jobs. There just wont be any because the robots have them all. The problem is easily reversible or stopped. The problem is they wont, even if they know its a bad idea. The alternative would be to not have the robots take all the jobs away from us. People are gonna do what they want because it still pays off for them regardless. Theyll make money for helping with the building of the robot. They probably dont even care what happens to everyone else. Thats why they keep doing it. The first two you said no to, the love one, I also say it doesnt work for everyone. Some yes. But definitely not all. Some people cant find love. Some even have trouble with friends. Social anxiety makes it worse. We can all talk on the internet. I would consider most people on this site internet friends. But many dont. Some people can find love on the internet. Many cant, though. For keeping up with family, thats if they have access to the internet. Or enough access, I should say. Again, some can. Others wont be able to find enough esteem on the internet. Some actually get out down more. Like with cyber-bullying. Self-actualization sounds like it depends more on the person. So, what I said still stands. Sometimes, the internet can help, but not all the time for everyone. So, theres a problem with stopping, but theres also a problem with rushing. Hence, were fucked. But, if the SD cars are having accidents caused by human drivers who dont have insurance, or enough insurance, we have to start collecting from our insurance to finish getting our buses fixed. That happens enough times, the insurance rates rise. Because if they dont, the insurance companies start losing money. And since this is suppose to be their Golden Goose, they wouldnt want to do that. Insurance can, and most likely still, go up. They dont need to provide any. Most already do. It depends on how much more youre will to pay for each one. Someone might pay $5 extra for free towing once a month. But not $100 extra for the same. --- 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:927343852] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>The cost drops quickly, but not that fast. Especially with how expensive they already are. And especially when the city realizes that buying one of those is more expensive that buying 4 vans that are all bigger. And the city doesnt care about money that much. As I explained earlier, they didnt care about the Six Flags that could make them money. Nor the train station. And they wont start preparing. You can tell me to prepare all you want. The city makes the decision. So, you would have to tell them, not me. And they dont want to... I think someone used a little mini RC type thing to deliver pizzas. But I believe it was the same price as normal. The only thing that was different was probably no tip. But I believe it still had the delivery fee. So, it may or may not drop. And maybe not quickly enough. And thats still a pay cut for people who have higher paying jobs like lawyers and doctors. So, they have to take a pay cut and live a lesser than they had life because of that. Not to mention, you would have to get rid of everyones debt. Because if you didnt, well that would be fair to anyone. And everyone would riot. And who do we talk to? Because I personally dont know anyone who has that power. Nor do they listen to nobodies. And you need more than a bunch of gamers on a gaming site to start talking about it. The problem is most people arent going to care until its too late. And most think that future is way ahead and that theyll cross that bridge when they get to it. Even mobilizing some now wont get many interested. And even then, the government might say they have a plan or are working on it. And those might be lies to get us to stop asking about it. UBI wont change part time jobs. There just wont be any because the robots have them all. The problem is easily reversible or stopped. The problem is they wont, even if they know its a bad idea. The alternative would be to not have the robots take all the jobs away from us. People are gonna do what they want because it still pays off for them regardless. Theyll make money for helping with the building of the robot. They probably dont even care what happens to everyone else. Thats why they keep doing it. The first two you said no to, the love one, I also say it doesnt work for everyone. Some yes. But definitely not all. Some people cant find love. Some even have trouble with friends. Social anxiety makes it worse. We can all talk on the internet. I would consider most people on this site internet friends. But many dont. Some people can find love on the internet. Many cant, though. For keeping up with family, thats if they have access to the internet. Or enough access, I should say. Again, some can. Others wont be able to find enough esteem on the internet. Some actually get out down more. Like with cyber-bullying. Self-actualization sounds like it depends more on the person. So, what I said still stands. Sometimes, the internet can help, but not all the time for everyone. So, theres a problem with stopping, but theres also a problem with rushing. Hence, were fucked. But, if the SD cars are having accidents caused by human drivers who dont have insurance, or enough insurance, we have to start collecting from our insurance to finish getting our buses fixed. That happens enough times, the insurance rates rise. Because if they dont, the insurance companies start losing money. And since this is suppose to be their Golden Goose, they wouldnt want to do that. Insurance can, and most likely still, go up. They dont need to provide any. Most already do. It depends on how much more youre will to pay for each one. Someone might pay $5 extra for free towing once a month. But not $100 extra for the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 3:13:01 PM #187:	As for keeping the same company, sometimes its up to the parent company. Or how long theyve been with said company. Ive had insurance companies claim to honor certain things. Or help with certain things just to get me to change. Then try to use a loophole to get around it. Also, with the company you have, you know how they work already. Like how much you price goes up. Or maybe know people there that help you out more. A new company could work very different. Maybe prices go up more, or the people are rude and unhelpful. So, there could be a reason not to switch just because somethings lower. And it depends on how much lower. It I could pay $100 or $95, its not much of a difference... But with human drivers, they could still crash, which still means them paying. And many people rather just drive them. Not even racing. And theyll probably do their best to keep on doing that. And using it for daily life. They are valid arguments. You just think every city is cookie cutter version of another. And that false. And tbh, I still havent heard how they strapped down the handicap. Or in the normal SD buses have handicap spaces. As someone else is making them because of a lack of them... I also havent heard of a workaround to just make money appear... Probably not. And you know who else isnt tied in with what theyre doing? The general public. As in, the people who need to know... Right. But I trust myself more than a random machine that only makes calculations, and would most likely kill me to save someone else it thinks it worth more. Id rather make that choice myself... Maybe there. They are not cheap here. Unless $1,000+ is cheap for you. But thats not true for most people. Thats a good chunk of my paycheck, if not all of it... Because you cant do the same things as you could with owning a car. Renting a car means not being able to pick up big stuff to take home while on break. Like because of my work hours, I usually pick up dog food on he way. But I couldnt leave it in a rented car as it might drive off to pick someone else up. I can just go to the store on the way home and leave all my work stuff in a car because it might go pick up another person. Basically, it would slow down stuff and cause you to have to change everything around. Id rather own a car. Or take transit as its either $1.50 for fixes, or $2.50 for transit. Less for school and 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:927343875] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>As for keeping the same company, sometimes its up to the parent company. Or how long theyve been with said company. Ive had insurance companies claim to honor certain things. Or help with certain things just to get me to change. Then try to use a loophole to get around it. Also, with the company you have, you know how they work already. Like how much you price goes up. Or maybe know people there that help you out more. A new company could work very different. Maybe prices go up more, or the people are rude and unhelpful. So, there could be a reason not to switch just because somethings lower. And it depends on how much lower. It I could pay $100 or $95, its not much of a difference... But with human drivers, they could still crash, which still means them paying. And many people rather just drive them. Not even racing. And theyll probably do their best to keep on doing that. And using it for daily life. They are valid arguments. You just think every city is cookie cutter version of another. And that false. And tbh, I still havent heard how they strapped down the handicap. Or in the normal SD buses have handicap spaces. As someone else is making them because of a lack of them... I also havent heard of a workaround to just make money appear... Probably not. And you know who else isnt tied in with what theyre doing? The general public. As in, the people who need to know... Right. But I trust myself more than a random machine that only makes calculations, and would most likely kill me to save someone else it thinks it worth more. Id rather make that choice myself... Maybe there. They are not cheap here. Unless $1,000+ is cheap for you. But thats not true for most people. Thats a good chunk of my paycheck, if not all of it... Because you cant do the same things as you could with owning a car. Renting a car means not being able to pick up big stuff to take home while on break. Like because of my work hours, I usually pick up dog food on he way. But I couldnt leave it in a rented car as it might drive off to pick someone else up. I can just go to the store on the way home and leave all my work stuff in a car because it might go pick up another person. Basically, it would slow down stuff and cause you to have to change everything around. Id rather own a car. Or take transit as its either $1.50 for fixes, or $2.50 for transit. Less for school and work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/12/19 5:28:50 PM #188:	Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern? So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party.... <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:927349682] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. </quote> That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern?</quote> So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party....</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trialia 09/12/19 6:26:30 PM #189:	streamofthesky posted... Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern? So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party.... Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate. --- Trialia ~ unfaithful-mirror.net PSN: Trialia_X, Xaedere (100%) \| XBL: trialia, Noquelle (100%) <cite>Trialia posted [p:927352077] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. </quote> That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern?</quote> So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party....</quote> Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 8:09:08 PM #190:	Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern? So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party.... Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate. Not all of them. I thought I mentioned that, but maybe I didnt. Most of our wheelchair bound people are not able to get out of their seats, though. At least, they say they cant... As for saying the handicap, that was most likely a mistake. I usually say our handicap passengers. For the wheelchair on board thing, theres a rule where you have to say that. All of them have a different way of saying it based on which station you are at. --- 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:927356236] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. </quote> That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern?</quote> So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party....</quote> Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate.</quote> Not all of them. I thought I mentioned that, but maybe I didnt. Most of our wheelchair bound people are not able to get out of their seats, though. At least, they say they cant... As for saying the handicap, that was most likely a mistake. I usually say our handicap passengers. For the wheelchair on board thing, theres a rule where you have to say that. All of them have a different way of saying it based on which station you are at.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trialia 09/12/19 9:10:13 PM #191:	LinkPizza posted... Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... Trialia posted... streamofthesky posted... It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern? So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party.... Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate. Not all of them. I thought I mentioned that, but maybe I didnt. Most of our wheelchair bound people are not able to get out of their seats, though. At least, they say they cant... As for saying the handicap, that was most likely a mistake. I usually say our handicap passengers. For the wheelchair on board thing, theres a rule where you have to say that. All of them have a different way of saying it based on which station you are at. No, you misunderstand me. Nobody is "wheelchair bound", not even those of us who cannot get up unaided or are paralysed (the latter being only about 15% of wheelchair users, btw), because the term implies (among other things) continual and unceasing presence in the chair. We don't generally sleep in them, Link! As for the other, whether there's a rule where you are or not (there isn't here), that honestly doesn't make it any less dehumanising or offensive. Actually a bit worse, tbh. --- Trialia ~ unfaithful-mirror.net PSN: Trialia_X, Xaedere (100%) \| XBL: trialia, Noquelle (100%) <cite>Trialia posted [p:927359094] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>It will be painful at first, but we need a big recession to get another crack at fixing the historic wealth and income imbalances and unfair tax laws/loopholes that SHOULD have been fixed after the last recession but were stymied. Tax shelters need to be addressed, corporate profits need to be taxed at point of sale (no more "I sold $3 billion in goods to Americans...in Ireland...where my corporate HQ is....yeah..."), capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as income, and extremely high income brackets with large tax rates to match need to be established. </quote> That would be one of the major motivators for Brexit among politicians on our side of the Atlantic: the EU is due to pass legislation that would have a massive impact on the kind of rich people who do everything they can to avoid ever having to pay a penny in taxes, by reducing the ability of tax havens to launder money from other countries that are part of the EU. It's due to come into force in early 2020. See a pattern?</quote> So, Brexit was just a populist smoke screen orchestrated by the rich in the UK so they could avoid paying taxes by mobilizing the unwitting masses into doing their bidding for them? So...your right wing parties really are just like our Republican party....</quote> Pretty much, minus the hyperreligious element, though the DUP seem to want to bring that back into popularity too... Also, Link, we're wheelchair users, not "wheelchair bound", which is outdated & kind of offensive if you dig into the origins of the term. Unless actual bondage is involved. As for "the handicap" when you were talking about a person, oh hell no. If I liked you any less I'd have unloaded big time on you over that one. I know you're trying to reply to a lot at once, but FFS, dude, we're people, not impairments or objects. That's worse than the bus drivers who say on their radios that they've got "a wheelchair" on board! Do remember that we, too, are people. Even, and especially, in the context of your debate.</quote> Not all of them. I thought I mentioned that, but maybe I didnt. Most of our wheelchair bound people are not able to get out of their seats, though. At least, they say they cant... As for saying the handicap, that was most likely a mistake. I usually say our handicap passengers. For the wheelchair on board thing, theres a rule where you have to say that. All of them have a different way of saying it based on which station you are at.</quote> No, you misunderstand me. Nobody is "wheelchair bound", not even those of us who cannot get up unaided or are paralysed (the latter being only about 15% of wheelchair users, btw), because the term implies (among other things) continual and unceasing presence in the chair. We don't generally sleep in them, Link! As for the other, whether there's a rule where you are or not (there isn't here), that honestly doesn't make it any less dehumanising or offensive. Actually a bit worse, tbh.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/12/19 9:50:52 PM #192:	Trialia posted... No, you misunderstand me. Nobody is "wheelchair bound", not even those of us who cannot get up unaided or are paralysed (the latter being only about 15% of wheelchair users, btw), because the term implies (among other things) continual and unceasing presence in the chair. We don't generally sleep in them, Link! As for the other, whether there's a rule where you are or not (there isn't here), that honestly doesn't make it any less dehumanising or offensive. Actually a bit worse, tbh. Ah. I see. When I said wheelchair bound, Im just talking about people who cant move around on their own or without them. Or people who cant freely get up. Thats what I meant. As for the other thing, its a rule of our parent company (a bigger known bus company), so we have to follow it. Its even mentioned in multiple training videos, IIRC. Though, I know our drivers usually use code. That being said, they are trying to help. As they normally ask which bus they are getting on so the other driver can be ready by lowering the ramp and stuff early. So, Idk about your drivers. Maybe theyre new. Or came from a place that did require to say so. Or maybe theyre just rude... --- 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:927360935] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>No, you misunderstand me. Nobody is "wheelchair bound", not even those of us who cannot get up unaided or are paralysed (the latter being only about 15% of wheelchair users, btw), because the term implies (among other things) continual and unceasing presence in the chair. We don't generally sleep in them, Link! As for the other, whether there's a rule where you are or not (there isn't here), that honestly doesn't make it any less dehumanising or offensive. Actually a bit worse, tbh.</quote> Ah. I see. When I said wheelchair bound, Im just talking about people who cant move around on their own or without them. Or people who cant freely get up. Thats what I meant. As for the other thing, its a rule of our parent company (a bigger known bus company), so we have to follow it. Its even mentioned in multiple training videos, IIRC. Though, I know our drivers usually use code. That being said, they are trying to help. As they normally ask which bus they are getting on so the other driver can be ready by lowering the ramp and stuff early. So, Idk about your drivers. Maybe theyre new. Or came from a place that did require to say so. Or maybe theyre just rude...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CharlesBronson 09/18/19 9:48:30 AM #193:	darkknight109 posted... That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening. Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system. Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out. Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore. Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure. If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today. Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more money. Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. <cite>CharlesBronson posted [p:927604955] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>That sounds like a financial management problem, not an issue with UBI. Also, if what you said was true, people on unemployment would be blasting through their benefits cheques in days, then starving to death. That clearly isn't happening. Again, you don't seem to understand what UBI is. There's literally no reason you couldn't do this with a UBI system. Then we better start talking about it and figuring it out. Well, what's your alternative? Again, these jobs are going away. It's not that people want jobs but will arbitrarily be bared from having them; it's that the jobs will literally cease to exist. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that I can't make a living as a carriage driver or lamplighter anymore. Well, that's the upside of automation - the costs of entertainment will similarly be going down. We're already seeing the windfall of this. Take a look as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and ask yourself how many of them can be fulfilled using nothing but a high speed internet connection. Answer: everything except the bottom row, usually for free (especially if you're willing to play fast and loose with piracy laws). There is more content available for free than at any point in human history. Everything from video games to music to movies to stories - all online, all with zero cost to the end user. Youtube alone has more video content than you could watch in 1000 lifetimes. Our ancestors could only dream of something like this. And, as robots continue to improve, costs will continue to drop, and more things will be available for free. Which is, of course, ignoring the fact that UBI money can also be spent on leisure. If you don't like it then you better start coming up with a different one. Because - and I cannot stress this enough - this technology is here and now. Saying "let's not do this" is meaningless, because we are doing it. Right now. It's happening today. Sure I can. It would make zero sense to charge a "driver" who has far fewer accidents and fewer claims than a human driver more money.</quote> Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gloBal enemy 09/18/19 9:51:06 AM #194:	CharlesBronson posted... Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. ahahah. I was wondering when someone would say that. --- If you can understand this, I'm 2/cosC for you. <cite>gloBal enemy posted [p:927605039] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>CharlesBronson posted... </cite> <quote>Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up.</quote> ahahah. I was wondering when someone would say that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/18/19 10:33:11 AM #195:	gloBal enemy posted... CharlesBronson posted... Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. ahahah. I was wondering when someone would say that. I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever... --- 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:927606480] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>gloBal enemy posted...</cite> <quote>CharlesBronson posted... </cite> <quote>Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. No one wants to read your walls of text and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up.</quote> ahahah. I was wondering when someone would say that. </quote> I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/18/19 10:37:01 AM #196:	LinkPizza posted... I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever... Thats not something anyone ever really plans to do --- More malicious than mischievous <cite>Mead posted [p:927606628] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever...</quote> Thats not something anyone ever really plans to do </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/18/19 10:41:10 AM #197:	Mead posted... LinkPizza posted... I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever... Thats not something anyone ever really plans to do Sometimes people do. Like when someone wants you to change their mind. Or someone isn't too sure about something, so ask to argue with someone to see another side. I wouldn't say it's super common. But some people actually do argue so that they have a reason to change their minds. --- 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:927606782] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I could've told him that from the beginning. I wasn't planning on changing my opinion at all. Like ever...</quote> Thats not something anyone ever really plans to do </quote> Sometimes people do. Like when someone wants you to change their mind. Or someone isn't too sure about something, so ask to argue with someone to see another side. I wouldn't say it's super common. But some people actually do argue so that they have a reason to change their minds.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trialia 09/20/19 3:03:28 AM #198:	FFS, Link, try to argue in good faith, please. UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous! As somebody on welfare who will probably be stuck with my situation for the rest of my life, I frankly find that particular line of argument and its implications more than a little infuriating. Re. the AV issue, I think both of you have some good points, and I think that I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis. Part of the problem is that you cannot think about this solely from a detached distance. You can't - you miss too much doing that, pure and simple. The human element is only predictable to a certain extent. Past that... --- Trialia ~ unfaithful-mirror.net PSN: Trialia_X, Xaedere (100%) \| XBL: trialia, Noquelle (100%) <cite>Trialia posted [p:927691447] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>FFS, Link, try to argue in good faith, please. UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous! As somebody on welfare who will probably be stuck with my situation for the rest of my life, I frankly find that particular line of argument and its implications more than a little infuriating. Re. the AV issue, I think both of you have some good points, and I think that I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis. Part of the problem is that you cannot think about this solely from a detached distance. You can't - you miss too much doing that, pure and simple. The human element is only predictable to a certain extent. Past that...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 09/20/19 5:24:39 AM #199:	Trialia posted... UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous! Sure they are, with UBI you are forced to take welfare. The only difference is the personal opinion of the speaker. Trialia posted... I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis. I would love to see what you consider "human bigotry". --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:927693409] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous!</quote> Sure they are, with UBI you are forced to take welfare. The only difference is the personal opinion of the speaker. Trialia posted...</cite> <quote> I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis.</quote> I would love to see what you consider "human bigotry".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/19 8:34:54 AM #200:	Trialia posted... FFS, Link, try to argue in good faith, please. UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous! As somebody on welfare who will probably be stuck with my situation for the rest of my life, I frankly find that particular line of argument and its implications more than a little infuriating. Re. the AV issue, I think both of you have some good points, and I think that I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis. Part of the problem is that you cannot think about this solely from a detached distance. You can't - you miss too much doing that, pure and simple. The human element is only predictable to a certain extent. Past that... To me, they sound pretty similar, tbh. I don't see how they're different. Unless you would like to explain it to me. Both have you getting paid by the government for basic needs, right? The only difference seems to be one in assitance (welfare) where the other will be needed (UBI). I can't say I'm an expert of welfare. But I looked up the definition for both. And, if anything, UBI sort of sounds worse from the definition, but seemed to be pretty similar For the AV issue, like I said, I think they can and do work in some places. My city isn't one of them. And I don't think you can say just because it works in A, B, & C, it'll also work for D thought Z... --- 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:927696442] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>Trialia posted...</cite> <quote>FFS, Link, try to argue in good faith, please. UBI and "forced welfare" are not bloody synonymous! As somebody on welfare who will probably be stuck with my situation for the rest of my life, I frankly find that particular line of argument and its implications more than a little infuriating. Re. the AV issue, I think both of you have some good points, and I think that I probably see that mainly because of the amount of human error and human bigotry that I have to cope with on public transport on a regular basis. Part of the problem is that you cannot think about this solely from a detached distance. You can't - you miss too much doing that, pure and simple. The human element is only predictable to a certain extent. Past that...</quote> To me, they sound pretty similar, tbh. I don't see how they're different. Unless you would like to explain it to me. Both have you getting paid by the government for basic needs, right? The only difference seems to be one in assitance (welfare) where the other will be needed (UBI). I can't say I'm an expert of welfare. But I looked up the definition for both. And, if anything, UBI sort of sounds worse from the definition, but seemed to be pretty similar For the AV issue, like I said, I think they can and do work in some places. My city isn't one of them. And I don't think you can say just because it works in A, B, & C, it'll also work for D thought Z...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/20/19 9:04:17 AM #201:	CharlesBronson posted... Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit. ...he says, six days after the last post in the topic. CharlesBronson posted... No one wants to read your walls of text Clearly you do, or you wouldn't have bothered responding to it. CharlesBronson posted... and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. If you think I was trying to change his mind, you clearly weren't paying attention and/or don't have much experience in actual debating. --- 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:927697216] in Upcoming r... [t:77974916]...</cite> <quote>CharlesBronson posted...</cite> <quote>Get a life. I come back from my 2 week suspension and you 2 are still arguing about the same shit.</quote> ...he says, six days after the last post in the topic. CharlesBronson posted...</cite> <quote>No one wants to read your walls of text </quote> Clearly you do, or you wouldn't have bothered responding to it. CharlesBronson posted...</cite> <quote>and obviously if you haven't changed his opinion after all this then you are not going to so just give up. </quote> If you think I was trying to change his mind, you clearly weren't paying attention and/or don't have much experience in actual debating.</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.