Stanford Economist: All Fossil-Fuel Vehicles Will Vanish in 8 Years

[Burticus]

This will probably never happen though, unless we somehow kill the stupid farm bill from continuously being renewed. It contains way too many corn subsidies.

You're right. And I'm sure the Big Oil companies have their schemes in action too. But it doesn't have to be all ethanol though... you can make methanol from practically anything.

Anyway I highly recommend the book, it's a great read. It's not an Ethanol sales pamphlet, he discusses just about every kind of alternative fuel. The chapter on why hydrogen is the worst fuel for cars in the world is pretty funny.

 

[Evil Scooter]

You do realize that the reason Solyndra failed was because China was deeply subsidizing solar panel production..

And what exactly was the Obama administration doing when it sunk a half billion taxpayer dollars into this sucking black hole? Solyndra failed because it entered a market (stupidly) with a product it could not compete with.

They correctly identified that this industry is going to be the future of energy, and wanted to kill off any companies in other countries by undercutting them using government subsidies, this way they could cancel the subsidies later, and have the market all to themselves for the rest of time. (sortof what Walmart does when they enter a new town. Undercut everyone else, drive them out of business, and then ramp up prices)

The gubberment is the worst entity to be picking winners and losers, this is just another example of it. As far as being the "future of energy".. that claim is old as the hills. And yet solar still can't stand on it's own two feet without gobs of taxpayer $$$. If it were an economically viable and sustainable industry people would be falling over themselves to get at it. There is a good reason that has not happened yet. Walmart is not playing with my $$$ and their system works (so far). Same cannot be said for solar implementation anywhere in the world. But the eco weenies have a fever.. and the only cure is...

And we let them succeed. The Obama administration tried to step in and save the U.S. industry from China's trade manipulation, but he was never able to get the necessary funding from Congress to do so properly, so instead it became like everything else touched by congress. A half-assed budget starved attempt, doomed to failure.

That's a hoot. Not that I believe solar's issues can be pinned on the Chinese. But let's go with that premise for a moment. It's congresses' fault Obama was an absolute failure dealing with the Chinese? His party had unfettered control of the entire gubberment with a sooper-dooper majority for the first 2 years of his presidency. Passed a Trillion dollar porkulus that did jack. If the only issue was $$$ he had it. The bigger issue was he was incompetent and like many in his party fell the only cure for every issue is tossing more taxpayer $$ at every issue.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

That's a hoot. Not that I believe solar's issues can be pinned on the Chinese. But let's go with that premise for a moment.

Well, if you don't believe in basic confirmed fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Just google something like "china" "solar panel" "dumping" and do some reading.

China dumped ~$50 billion in subsidies to Chinese panel manufacturers in 2010 to 2012 alone, (more has continued since). The European union actively tried to save their panel industry by putting duties on Chinese panels to prevent their dumping into the U.S. market, but because our Congress was completely paralyzed during most of the Obama years, we failed to do so effectively (there were some duties, but they were too little and too late to save the industry), and it killed off most of our panel production industry.

This has allowed Chinese manufacturers to sell panels across the globe under cost, driving most manufacturers in other countries out of business. Solyndra was just one of them. It was their stated goal to kill off all non-Chinese production so they could have the market to themselves.

Normally I would agree, with some rare exceptions, it is a bad idea for the government to pick winners and losers. That being said, when a foreign government is actively pursuing policies to try to kill an industry in your country, I feel like it is appropriate to push back and try to save that industry from foreign attack.

 

[KarsusTG]

In a preposterous-sounding forecast, one economist believes that electric vehicles will be take over en masse in as little as eight years, leading to a collapse of oil prices and the petrol industry. Traditional car companies that include Ford and General Motors will supposedly be forced to build EVs in a low-profit market or reinvent themselves as self-driving service companies, as the next-generation of vehicles will be “computers on wheels.” I like the idea of electric cars as much as the next guy, but come on now.

Seba’s premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel.

Is this another thing that 97% of all scientists agree on but not really agree on?

 

[Killahurtz]

I always wonder why people like vehicles like this. Old, stinky, lacking in modern amenities, shit for handling by modern standards, loud and obnoxious, vibrations and other nonsese, and piss-poor safety standards.

Regardless of how fixed up and renovated, whenever I see a 70's era muscle car still in operation, I can't help but think to myself "what a beater".

hahaha ...I say the same thing about the type of snowflake rice burner that people like you drive...or maybe your the kind that has a rickshaw with an Asian indentured servant pulling it you around in it , you know...so you can "feel good" about yourself...ha...that sounds about right!

 

[Killahurtz]

"unless we somehow kill the stupid farm bill from continuously being renewed. It contains way too many corn subsidies"...hahaha

surely you didn't play the Solyndra was a great investment card!...oh, but you did...wow

 

[bezant]

What you're listing aren't big issues. A failed engine, or a failed transmission are big issues. Almost anyway can replace shocks, springs, bushing and etc.

I'm surprised we still have meter men honestly. The only job with driving that can't be easily replaced is jobs like UPS, FedEx delivery men. But long hauling and taxi services can be done without a human. Probably better off too.

Electric vehicles aren't a 100% better option over fossil fuel. They have their advantages and disadvantages. But in terms of maintenance costs, and fuel costs, and electric vehicle is superior. Given that the cost of batteries goes down.

Not true. Drivers cannot be replaced. Not until we have AI smarter than man, the size of a pc, weighing less than 50 lbs.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

"unless we somehow kill the stupid farm bill from continuously being renewed. It contains way too many corn subsidies"...hahaha

surely you didn't play the Solyndra was a great investment card!...oh, but you did...wow

Big difference between defending an industry from an all out assault by the government of a foreign nation for it's benefit and throwing money into a dumb crop.

 

[Evil Scooter]

Well, if you don't believe in basic confirmed fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Just google something like "china" "solar panel" "dumping" and do some reading.

China dumped ~$50 billion in subsidies to Chinese panel manufacturers in 2010 to 2012 alone, (more has continued since). The European union actively tried to save their panel industry by putting duties on Chinese panels to prevent their dumping into the U.S. market, but because our Congress was completely paralyzed during most of the Obama years, we failed to do so effectively (there were some duties, but they were too little and too late to save the industry), and it killed off most of our panel production industry.

This has allowed Chinese manufacturers to sell panels across the globe under cost, driving most manufacturers in other countries out of business. Solyndra was just one of them. It was their stated goal to kill off all non-Chinese production so they could have the market to themselves.

Normally I would agree, with some rare exceptions, it is a bad idea for the government to pick winners and losers. That being said, when a foreign government is actively pursuing policies to try to kill an industry in your country, I feel like it is appropriate to push back and try to save that industry from foreign attack.

The touch of elitism is nice but makes your points no more factual than your so called "facts" as to why solar still cannot stand on it's own 2 feet. Feel free to pull the chute on the conversation at any time, I'm not holding a gun to yer head. Just try no to get too upset when people aint buying what you are peddling.

I don't need a google search to tell me solar still is not where it needs to be and is not much closer than it was 30 years ago to being viable. I'll leave you to your Google "facts" and stick with my own firsthand knowledge and observations of what has been happening in the industry.

The "marketplace" as you put it still is not flocking to solar without the gubberment incentives for a reason. The free market is the best bellwether of whether or not your technology is where it needs to be. We've got cheap panels available and the gubberment in many states and at the federal level takes every opportunity to throw money at solar and a slew of other bad ideas they like to call "renewables". yet all those industries cannot survive without massive infusions of taxpayer $$$. as you invited me to... Google it. The Chinese are not the root problem here.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The touch of elitism is nice but makes your points no more factual than your so called "facts" as to why solar still cannot stand on it's own 2 feet. Feel free to pull the chute on the conversation at any time, I'm not holding a gun to yer head. Just try no to get too upset when people aint buying what you are peddling.

I don't need a google search to tell me solar still is not where it needs to be and is not much closer than it was 30 years ago to being viable. I'll leave you to your Google "facts" and stick with my own firsthand knowledge and observations of what has been happening in the industry.

The "marketplace" as you put it still is not flocking to solar without the gubberment incentives for a reason. The free market is the best bellwether of whether or not your technology is where it needs to be. We've got cheap panels available and the gubberment in many states and at the federal level takes every opportunity to throw money at solar and a slew of other bad ideas they like to call "renewables". yet all those industries cannot survive without massive infusions of taxpayer $$$. as you invited me to... Google it. The Chinese are not the root problem here.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said solar was a good investment. In fact, I believe solar panels are a pretty poor investment and the wrong way forward. I'm simply defending defensive tactics against illegal dumping tactics used by China.

Solar power has potential, but not as individual home panel installs. That only makes economic sense due to subsidies.

Where solar makes sense is in large scale power plants, not with photovoltaic panels, but with mirrors aimed at boiling tanks hooked up to steam turbines.

In the above configuration they can be a decent addition to the power mix.

Photovoltaic panels will likely make sense at some point in the future, but they don't today. Because of the Chinese winning with their illegal dumping tactics - however - we won't have a part of that success when it comes.

 

[SuperSubZero]

I really want the Tesla Model 3 to do well. I hate that stupid big center touch screen thing, but I want it to do well to get other car makers to make 200ish-mile electric cars that look like actual CARS and not like 80's sci-fi movie props. If the Model 3 takes off (and helps get Tesla out of the red), it's only a matter of time until the major car makers convert their bread and butter sedans to electric models, and *then* things get interesting.

Heck, Ford is gonna do a Mustang Hybid, if they could make an all-electric Mustang that can go fast and get 200 miles on a charge in a Mustang price range, that would obliterate the gas-based coupe market.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I really want the Tesla Model 3 to do well. I hate that stupid big center touch screen thing, but I want it to do well to get other car makers to make 200ish-mile electric cars that look like actual CARS and not like 80's sci-fi movie props. If the Model 3 takes off (and helps get Tesla out of the red), it's only a matter of time until the major car makers convert their bread and butter sedans to electric models, and *then* things get interesting.

Heck, Ford is gonna do a Mustang Hybid, if they could make an all-electric Mustang that can go fast and get 200 miles on a charge in a Mustang price range, that would obliterate the gas-based coupe market.

Couldn't agree more.

Too many electric vehicles look like hippie-mobiles with special "green" styling just so people can show off at how green thy are.

Make an affordable electric car with 200+ mile range that looks like a car, and I'm in.

 

[Evil Scooter]

^^^ Maybe I misread.. but it sure looked like a defense of solar en masse you were pitching. Solyndra died for many reasons... gross mismanagement/incompetence probably at the front. At the end of the day it was a payback for obama's buddies. Chu should be sharing a cell with the guy who appointed him to the position. Instead he's at Stanford drawing a paycheck with the nutjob who penned this article.

The mirror and steam turbine setup. I'm down with those and geothermal turbines where viable and as long as they can be built and run minus the $$ taken from my hard earned smack by way of taxes. the one in operation down in Mojave desert zappin about 6000 birdies a year does not pass the first test.. lotsa taxpayer $$$ in there. I dont have an issue with it aside from my pocket being picked to build and maintain it . That and the lil known fact they use gas turbines to produce lectricity when the sun aint ah shinin' nuff. But the enviro wackoos dont even approve of that one or new ones with a larger scale.. gotta protect the desert dontyaknow.

 

[Tsumi]

I always wonder why people like vehicles like this. Old, stinky, lacking in modern amenities, shit for handling by modern standards, loud and obnoxious, vibrations and other nonsese, and piss-poor safety standards.

Regardless of how fixed up and renovated, whenever I see a 70's era muscle car still in operation, I can't help but think to myself "what a beater".

That's like asking why some people like to buy and play the old arcade machines. Or continue to play Starcraft instead of Starcraft 2. Or spend millions on old artwork when there is photography.

 

[Malcador]

and I am reading it from underwater because as Al Gore predicted...man-made climate change

 

[DukenukemX]

Not true. Drivers cannot be replaced. Not until we have AI smarter than man, the size of a pc, weighing less than 50 lbs.

It doesn't have to be smarter, and Google already has working self driving cars. Unless you're talking about robots that can drop boxes off in front of your home, which we don't have.... yet. With something like the Atlas robot I could see one being able to do it within 10 years, but it'll take another 5-10 years for companies to buy them.

 

[Tsumi]

Not true. Drivers cannot be replaced. Not until we have AI smarter than man, the size of a pc, weighing less than 50 lbs.

It doesn't need to be smarter than man for self driving cars. It just needs to know where to go (GPS), what is around it (sensors that already exist, not all weather capable yet), and how to execute manuevers in different scenarios (programming that has made significant progress).

 

[bezant]

It doesn't need to be smarter than man for self driving cars. It just needs to know where to go (GPS), what is around it (sensors that already exist, not all weather capable yet), and how to execute manuevers in different scenarios (programming that has made significant progress).

You are either 12 years old, or live in academia.

In your make believe world cars will easily navigate with the GPS and drive safely in multiple traffic conditions.

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

Now, in a communist country, or say in NYC (81% Obama, 79% Hillary), they could ban human drivers. In the free world, however that won't be possible.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You are either 12 years old, or live in academia.

In your make believe world cars will easily navigate with the GPS and drive safely in multiple traffic conditions.

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

Now, in a communist country, or say in NYC (81% Obama, 79% Hillary), they could ban human drivers. In the free world, however that won't be possible.

I'd be more comfortable driving down a street where LL other drivers were autonomous vehicles than one where all other drivers were human drivers.


I don't trust other drivers as far as I can throw them.

 

[Tsumi]

You are either 12 years old, or live in academia.

In your make believe world cars will easily navigate with the GPS and drive safely in multiple traffic conditions.

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

Now, in a communist country, or say in NYC (81% Obama, 79% Hillary), they could ban human drivers. In the free world, however that won't be possible.

How hard would it be to code "Object moving close to car, immediately slow down." Taking evasive maneuvers would be a bit more difficult but not outside the realm of immediate possibility. You imagine self driving cars being like human drivers cutting in and out to get to their destination as quickly as possible. I see self driving cars as ones that follow an orderly fashion, and will not rush to get to a destination. If a human driver causes a self driving car to take more time to get to its destination, so be it. The person sitting in the self driving car would probably be distracted with something other than paying attention to the car's progress (i.e. work matters, general internet stuff, etc).

 

[M76]

You are either 12 years old, or live in academia.

The irony is so thick I can barely move in it.

In your make believe world cars will easily navigate with the GPS and drive safely in multiple traffic conditions.

They already are, and GPS is just one single device that is needed for it among others.

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

In real life most humans are dumb as fuck, and they text, and they get distracted, they have terrible reaction times, they can't drive in formation (even professional test drivers).
And in unpredictable situations most humans make a rash decision that is 50-50% if it will be a terrible mistake or life saving. I don't want to rely on that. I'd rather rely on a software that either does nothing or when it does something it is a better alternative to doing nothing.
If you study dashcam recordings you can see that most crashes could be avoided if the human didn't react at all, or if the reaction wasn't completely batshit crazy. Like veering off the road crashing into pedestrians rather than hitting the car in front of them. And a thousand other situations.

Now, in a communist country, or say in NYC (81% Obama, 79% Hillary), they could ban human drivers. In the free world, however that won't be possible.

Oh I see now, you need your driving as proof of your dick size.

 

[bezant]

How hard would it be to code "Object moving close to car, immediately slow down." Taking evasive maneuvers would be a bit more difficult but not outside the realm of immediate possibility. You imagine self driving cars being like human drivers cutting in and out to get to their destination as quickly as possible. I see self driving cars as ones that follow an orderly fashion, and will not rush to get to a destination. If a human driver causes a self driving car to take more time to get to its destination, so be it. The person sitting in the self driving car would probably be distracted with something other than paying attention to the car's progress (i.e. work matters, general internet stuff, etc).

No. A human driver will cause accidents. Period. That's how it is in the real world. Imagine wintry conditions. Ice on the road. Traffic is slow. A guy wants to go to work. He is late. He will cut in. The self driving can will have to slam its brakes and the car behind it happens to drive too closely and there you go.

 

[bezant]

Y

The irony is so thick I can barely move in it.

They already are, and GPS is just one single device that is needed for it among others.


In real life most humans are dumb as fuck, and they text, and they get distracted, they have terrible reaction times, they can't drive in formation (even professional test drivers).
And in unpredictable situations most humans make a rash decision that is 50-50% if it will be a terrible mistake or life saving. I don't want to rely on that. I'd rather rely on a software that either does nothing or when it does something it is a better alternative to doing nothing.
If you study dashcam recordings you can see that most crashes could be avoided if the human didn't react at all, or if the reaction wasn't completely batshit crazy. Like veering off the road crashing into pedestrians rather than hitting the car in front of them. And a thousand other situations.

Oh I see now, you need your driving as proof of your dick size.

You just proved my point.

 

[bezant]

I'd be more comfortable driving down a street where LL other drivers were autonomous vehicles than one where all other drivers were human drivers.


I don't trust other drivers as far as I can throw them.

And that is my point. It is difficult to code for dealing with human drivers. They do not follow the rules. Do not drive safe. And, they take chances.

 

[Ieldra]

And that is my point. It is difficult to code for dealing human drivers. They do not follow the rules. Do not drive safe. And, they take chances.

When autonomous cars can drive around in streets like that, then we can comfortably say they are ready to deal with human error lol

 

[YARDofSTUF]

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

"Take chances" sounds like something bad drivers do, that lead to accidents. A smart and aware driver may always be better than an AI car, but are all drivers smart and aware? And the ones that are, are they always 100% on their game?

Eventually AI will do a better job driving, The tech may be there within 8 years but the guy in the article is definitely crazy in thinking all cars will be electric in that time.

 

[bezant]

"Take chances" sounds like something bad drivers do, that lead to accidents. A smart and aware driver may always be better than an AI car, but are all drivers smart and aware? And the ones that are, are they always 100% on their game?

Eventually AI will do a better job driving, The tech may be there within 8 years but the guy in the article is definitely crazy in thinking all cars will be electric in that time.

Every driver calculates odds in his head. So, a smart/experienced driver will take chances that a granny would not. A self driving car will HAVE TO drive safely. I was driving today and saw that nobody kept the safe trailing distance. People don't want others to cut in front of them, so they drive closer to the driver in front.

My original statement still stands: Not true. Drivers cannot be replaced. Not until we have AI smarter than man, the size of a pc, weighing less than 50 lbs.

 

[Endgame]

Every driver calculates odds in his head. So, a smart/experienced driver will take chances that a granny would not. A self driving car will HAVE TO drive safely. I was driving today and saw that nobody kept the safe trailing distance. People don't want others to cut in front of them, so they drive closer to the driver in front.

My original statement still stands: Not true. Drivers cannot be replaced. Not until we have AI smarter than man, the size of a pc, weighing less than 50 lbs.

Just needs the right kind of law enforcement to contain human error and unsafe driving. Plugin GPS tracking device that interfaces with radar in car if you want to drive somewhere, and is filed with a credit card.

Oh, you're speeding? Bam, $75 fine billed directly to credit card.

Oh, you're following at an unsafe distance? Bam, $100 fine.

Car detects you're slide on ice due to unsafe lane change in conditions? Bam, $100 fine.

You would either be broke or would be a safe driver within the course of a month.

 

[bezant]

Just needs the right kind of law enforcement to contain human error and unsafe driving. Plugin GPS tracking device that interfaces with radar in car if you want to drive somewhere, and is filed with a credit card.

Oh, you're speeding? Bam, $75 fine billed directly to credit card.

Oh, you're following at an unsafe distance? Bam, $100 fine.

Car detects you're slide on ice due to unsafe lane change in conditions? Bam, $100 fine.

You would either be broke or would be a safe driver within the course of a month.

Enforcement is an issue - happens only to you, not to the other drivers.

 

[Endgame]

Enforcement is an issue - happens only to you, not to the other drivers.

Tie it to license renewal. Retrofitting older cars cheaply is the biggest issue, but even if the DMV paid for the retrofitting, they would likely recoup the cost within a year.

 

[travisty]

You are either 12 years old, or live in academia.

In your make believe world cars will easily navigate with the GPS and drive safely in multiple traffic conditions.

In real life you have the human factor. A smart driver will run circles around your self driving cars, take chances, and generally make the conditions unpredictable.

Now, in a communist country, or say in NYC (81% Obama, 79% Hillary), they could ban human drivers. In the free world, however that won't be possible.

You must live in a cave blind to the world around you. Autonomous driving will far surpass humans in the next few yeas. In 10 years time there will be no jobs where humans actually drive. Computers which can drive for a fraction of the cost 24 hours a day will make it not even a question; AI is the better option for companies.

We have reached the point of inversion. The exponential growth of AI will cause huge displacement over the next 5 to 10 years

You can choose not to believe this but you will not stop this from happening.

 

[lcpiper]

This is one of the big problems with EV's Our grid is nowhere near capable of sustaining the energy needs should a large number of electric vehicles hit the road.

Part of this is can be offset by time of use billing, so EV users charge their vehicles during low demand hours, but if we see large scale EV adoption, something grid-wise is going to have to change, as that won't be enough.

I feel this is the biggest impediment to mass adoption of EV's.

Many mention charge times as an issue, but we are pretty close to solving that. Current Tesla supercharging stations operate at 480V at 120kw max per car, and can bring your battery from drained up to about 50% in ~20 minutes. This is obviously not currently competitive with filling up a gas car, but considering how quickly charge times have been shrinking, I feel like in the next couple of generations this will start to become a non-issue, possibly even in the 8 year timeframe the author mentions.

I think the optimum approach is that they do the trolley car thing. I think EVs are going to have to have the capability to leach power on the go. As long as we are rebuilding the grid, why not go for broke, cut your battery need down to what it takes to run for awhile off-grid, while traversing grid to grid, and of course while the car is idle so your radio's anti-theft doesn't kick in ...

Think wireless charging on a grander scale.

 

[lcpiper]

You must live in a cave blind to the world around you. Autonomous driving will far surpass humans in the next few yeas. In 10 years time there will be no jobs where humans actually drive. Computers which can drive for a fraction of the cost 24 hours a day will make it not even a question; AI is the better option for companies.

We have reached the point of inversion. The exponential growth of AI will cause huge displacement over the next 5 to 10 years

You can choose not to believe this but you will not stop this from happening.

You are wrong. Very wrong.

There will never ever come a time when the US Military does it's work from home and I am not talking about soldiers.

Perhaps in some far off sci-fi future all our soldiers will be robots and drones but we are not really there yet. Until that day arrives, we still need medics, cooks, and soldiers. Army networks are not likely to ever be connected to the internet so unless they are going to issue me a workstation so I can hit a secure DoD network from home .... (not happening btw because they are not going to have individuals take classified home or access it from outside of a SCIF'ed building, ).... there will still be workers computing to work.

Besides, even if you have all this figured out and you have all the possibilities covered, just because we can do it, doesn't mean we are going to want to do it.

Have you ever considered that all those "bosses" in the world, most of them like to have their asses kissed. They get passed the point where money is what makes them go, it's ego, power.

The experience just isn't the same when it's not so intimate. That lips on ass feeling, once you experience it, there's no going back. Even if it costs some money.

So your future model doesn't take into account everything and in fact, it leaves out a whole lot of reality that just is not what some visionaries ever are willing to face. They have this view of the world and think that it's complete when it is simply not a complete picture by any stretch.

AI is not going to grow exponentially because there is so much more to the world that these people are virtually ignorant of.

So that's the way I see it. I think this is wild bullshit, and where the fuck is my flying car?

 

[thejokker]

Is this another thing that 97% of all scientists agree on but not really agree on?

The 97% is a great sucker bet. If a liberal brings up the 97% thing bet them $100.00 they cannot show you the "scientific study" that it is based upon. Define Scientific as requiring the study to include data and methodology so other scientists can perform peer review which allows other third party scientists to validate the studies findings.

According to the Science Editor of the Wall Street Journal the study does not exist however there is a study out of New Zealand which is the original source of the 97% study. The problem is the company will not provide their data and methodology (claiming it to be a "trade secret") meaning the famous 97% study cannot be confirmed for validity and is not scientific. It is a great example of the dishonesty of liberal sacred cows and their anti-science bias despite claims to the contrary.

 

[Snowdog]

You are wrong. Very wrong.

There will never ever come a time when the US Military does it's work from home and I am not talking about soldiers.

He was talking about self driving cars, and you are saying he is wrong about the military.

Epic goalpost move.

 

[thejokker]

You must live in a cave blind to the world around you. Autonomous driving will far surpass humans in the next few yeas. In 10 years time there will be no jobs where humans actually drive. Computers which can drive for a fraction of the cost 24 hours a day will make it not even a question; AI is the better option for companies.

We have reached the point of inversion. The exponential growth of AI will cause huge displacement over the next 5 to 10 years

You can choose not to believe this but you will not stop this from happening.

Sorry but you are quite wrong. The problem is a huge data set representing "unintended consequences" and "unforeseen factors" that you are ignoring. "We" as hardware and gaming enthusiasts should be aware of the relative unreliability of all complex software programs. Self-driving software will be bug-free? Right...

What about the social problems and political consequences of eliminating the jobs of millions of truck and taxi drivers? Self-driving cars will break down and cause traffic bottlenecks. Software and hardware failures will result in accidents (and bottlenecks). Self-driving cars do nothing to eliminate the real cause of highway congestion: the roadways cannot handle the volume of drivers needing to use the roads. Unless this is a plan is to decease the cars on the road...

If you ban non-self-driving cars from the roadway in order to eliminate the problem of integrating autonomous and non-autonomous cars than you are dividing Americans into the wealthy who can afford the new cars and everybody else who cannot afford the new cars (and eliminating all the used cars which today is an important stepping stone to car ownership). The insidious reality of self-driving cars is that the elites will have the new cars and we "peasants" will be forced into public transportation.

 

[Design1stcode2nd]

How can you make a preposterous statement like this and still keep your job? Well other than being in politics, if I made an assessment like this I'd be shown the door the next day.

 

[lcpiper]

He was talking about self driving cars, and you are saying he is wrong about the military.

Epic goalpost move.

I'll be specific for you;

He said this;

In 10 years time there will be no jobs where humans actually drive.

And I am saying this is unrealistic.

Not just as an absolute, but even as a generalized loose statement, it's completely wrong.

Understand, we were just talking the other day about the NSA and how it is all made up of DoD people, predominantly active duty military personnel fill those job positions. They work on networks that are not physically connected to the internet, and they don't telework. As long as the NSA, CIA, DoD, etc ... software development companies that have isolated networks, any job where you can't do it from home, and where AI will not be filling in for you, these jobs will require computing, and cars.

You see, the same people who dream up ideas like this are the same people who don't actually know anything about the military or even the government for that matter. In fact, they really don't know anything about the real world at all and are convinced they know it all. And so they say things like this.

So once again Snowdog, you have read what I wrote, and misunderstood my meaning.

EDITED: You challenge me to take more care when expressing myself. I suppose it's just me and I need to work on it.

 

[exlink]

80 years? Yes.

8 years? lmao no, not a chance.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Solar dude, solar! Free energy dude!

Solar just adds more problems. You'll likely need a storage battery and inverter. Your break even will be over 10 years just on the solar. So your $50,000 car is now $100,000 after solar and a battery pack. And that inverter is pretty damn expensive to replace every 10 years.

Also Solar Panels have a similar problem as LIPO Batteries. They use rare to semi-rare earth elements for which there isn't enough in the crust or refining capacity to make it possible for everyone.