They are testing this crap in TX and the roads here are shit, worse after/during rain events. Have seen multiple times where a traffic light goes out or the lines are not legible and the “autonomous” vehicle just sits there with its hazard lights on.
This is an interesting to me. From the perspective of an internet builder, systems vulnerable to shutdown from individual bad actors are obviously insecure and "not scalable". But too much time in this environment can make us forget that the actual world is about a zillion times less hostile than the internet.
As an educator, I worked with a computer security savvy 13 year old who knew my software background and would occasionally disclose vulnerabilities in the district's systems to me. He was incredulous that the network could be so insecure.
I asked about the security systems governing walking around in the hallway - was there any physical impediment preventing one person from punching, kicking, throwing a rock at another? Of course not - the security is socially constructed. Norms, consequences, etc, that on balance seemed to work out pretty effectively. I tried to make a case that security inside a local network of the size and scope of our school board was also ~90% social construction, but the student really struggled with it. There was a strong belief that because it was computers, you were expected to exploit it if it were vulnerable.
First paragraph is about the IT security mindset bleeding into real life, third is about the IT adversarial mindset corrupting our disposition toward technical equipment generally.
Given how immersed current generations are / have been in the adversarial landscape of the web, should we expect an uptick in the level of generalized adversarialism? Will xyst's (and my student's) assessments of these systems become true? Have they already and I'm just a knob?
That doesn't mean we purposely try to lower trust. But in the rare event it happens, I feel like it's a good safeguard. Strong foundations in many ways can often enable greater trust too I think.
Because walking around wearing medieval armors to protect from strangers randomly "punching, kicking, throwing a rock at another" would be so annoying.
I'm really interested by this question. My initial thought is that most teens and young adults (like previous generations) aren't savvy about computer security and Student XYZ is the exception rather than the norm.
IME, the IRL adversarialism is driven by political/ religious fanaticism rather than a hacker mentality -- they're not tech savvy, they're just determined.
That said, the reality is often less important than the perception of reality, particularly _fear_. Businesses and government are reacting to fears which are outsized to the reality, like Terrorism and School Shootings. They're adopting an adversarial mindset as defenders, even in the absence of an uptick in generalized adversarialism.
I don't particularly love US car culture, but this is an absurd take. A single broken-down train will block all trains behind it on the same track. Unexpected damage to a runway can choke an airport.
So are we to believe that the only "scalable" form of transportation is bicycles, because it's easy and fast to move a broken or crashed bicycle out of the right of way? Yeah, right.
“When intentionally broken, this transport doesn’t work. So it is not scalable.”
There are many ways to scale car-centric transportation that have been done successfully in countries other than the US. Public transit is one example.
Autonomous buses could solve a lot of the car issues in the US. Not if we keep putting cones in front of them though.
Every form of mass transit suffers from single outsized impacts of failures.
When the Korean airline airplane crashed into the end of the SFO runway it disrupted 10s of thousands flying into the Bay Area.
The right course of action is to make messing with automated cars like this a crime just like it is with the railways.
It takes them 30 minutes in this video.
Also your linked video is splitting along the length of the rail instead of cutting directly across it which would take minutes if not seconds.
Watch how long it takes to cut the top of that rail. You must not have ever used an angle grinder before if you think you’re cutting train tracks in seconds.
It took me at least a minute to cut through a single leaf spring for a truck if not longer.
Thirty minutes is nothing. We don’t classify severity of crimes based on how long they take to accomplish. A murder is a murder whether you shot a person once or spent hours carving them up.
I have used an angle grinder and it takes me about 10 seconds to cut through rebar. I would assume a rail is like 25 pieces of rebar put together so my naive assumption would be under five minutes.
I believe the point being made is the difference in level of intent required and the known (or hoped for) outcome from the action.
Grabbing a traffic cone from a nearby construction zone and chucking it in front of an autonomous car at a traffic light is harmless to the health of everyone involved, but is a pain in the rear for many. Meanwhile, it makes a statement, and some chunk of everyone's annoyance gets directed at the autonomous car company.
On the other hand, cutting a section of railroad takes concerted effort and a lot of premeditation if the individual hopes to get away with it. More importantly - the person cutting the track hopes/expects to cause death and destruction.
The two actions are wildly different, and should be treated as such.
From the article,
> protest against the city being used as a testing ground for this emerging technology.
What awareness are they raising, exactly? Are you/they suggesting that people in the Bay Area don't know that these driverless cars exist? Or is it that they're fragile/not complete yet? This is a genuine question, because I, obviously, don't understand.
I see this similar to someone laying in the road, blocking human drivers, and saying they're raising awareness of the fact that drivers can be blocking if someone put effort into blocking them. I don't get it. Help me.
Without any risk to themselves, or anyone else.
I don't think anyone will see this point of "not enough testing", when a car should not continue with a stop sign, road cone, or human on the hood, under any condition. I think most everyone will see this as expected and desired behavior, with a clear demonstration of safe handling of a dumb situation caused by some angry idiots.
Here's a question for anyone with this perspective: What should a fully tested, fully qualified, car do in this situation?
I see the "correct" answer as: immediately disable automation, and prompt a human for remote control.
What's your "correct" answer?
This is all opinion that could only be settled be a poll of those who became aware of this situation. I'm having trouble finding any, but this one from NY [1].
[1] https://observer.com/2014/12/majority-of-new-yorkers-want-pr...
Okay, fine: it should deploy an embedded all-purpose maintenance drone to exit the vehicle and move the cone to a safe and out-of-the-way location.
It's a good thought experiment, and I think goes to show that we can't really have Level 5 Autonomous Vehicles without an embedded all-purpose maintenance drone. I mean the dream is for humanless robotaxis to drive themselves to their next fare, right? They shouldn't need a human to come out in order to remove a harmless 5-pound object. I mean how about any number of other things that might happen onto its hood? A plastic bag, or a half-eaten happy meal? These are routine urban annoyances that require 15 seconds of attention and an eyeroll at most.
A car on a public street is mixing it up with everyone else, and the dividing line for what constitutes "messing with" them is not clear at all. What if I wear a shirt that confuses their algorithms? Shine a light that does it? Drive, bike, or walk in a pattern that does it?
Except a real driver can recognize when a cone should and shouldn't be there.
Putting cones out for no other purpose beyond stopping them moving seems to me unambiguously "messing with" them (though I don't think we need additional laws to address it.)
How is this thing with the traffic cones not "going out of their way to interfere"?
> the dividing line for what constitutes "messing with" them is not clear at all.
If you're deliberately jamming up traffic by any means, it's perfectly clear which side of the line you're on.
If a golf cart picks a fight with a train moving at speed, I guarantee you the train will win.