These are all me:

  • @cerevant@lemmy.world
  • @cerevant@fanaticus.social
  • @cerevant@lemm.ee

I control the following bots:

  • @philly_philly@lemmy.world
  • @philly_bot@fanaticus.social
  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle







  • No doubt your logic is based on the carbon footprint of two cars - the old ice and the new BEV.

    Where that logic falls down is the old ICE becomes a more affordable efficient used car that can replace an older ICE that it blowing blue smoke. Further, new BEV become used BEV in a few years. Used BEV are becoming quite affordable and cost effective. They are also far outlasting their projected battery life.

    Finally, demand for BEV increases R&D on more efficient storage technologies that are cheaper and have a smaller environmental footprint.

    Yes, more and better public transport should be a thing. But the US is just too big - and in many cases too empty - for ubiquitous public transport to be cost or environmentally efficient.


  • Yeah, I’ve been working in aerospace, automotive, industrial and rail safety for over 20 years. You don’t get to say “this software does thing” and then in the safety manual say “you don’t get to trust that the software will actually do thing”.

    Further, when you claim the operator as a layer of protection in your safety system, the probability of dangerous failure is a function of the time between the fault (the software doing something stupid) and the failure (crash). The shorter that time, the less safe the system is.

    Here’s a clue: Musk doesn’t know anything about software safety. Their lead in autonomous technology has less to do with technical innovation and more to do with cutting corners where they can get away with it.