Hacker News Reader

This isn’t a new idea. In 1865 the economist William Stanley Jevons pointed out that increasing the efficiency of machines that burned coal would lead to more coal being burned, not less.

Making something more efficient makes it cheaper, unlocking new use cases and consumption by people who couldn’t afford it earlier. That’s what we call Jevons’ Paradox.

Jevons was worried that the UK would run out of coal entirely. This question, asked in 1865, is similar to the 20th century worry of Peak Oil.

> Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point at which we can long maintain it?

Jevons, William Stanley. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines. Macmillan and Co., 1865.

Even that wasn’t the first time introducing efficiency had the opposite intended effect: the cotton gin was invented to reduce the reliance on slavery, it of course famously had the opposite effect, increasing demand for slavery as cotton became even more profitable.

It wasn’t the first time it happened or noticed, but it’s the first time we know of that someone wrote a paper about it.

The Gutenberg press in the 14th century could have saved a lot of time spent copying books by hand. It did, but also triggered a Cambrian explosion of book publishing.

But more books was the intended effect of the Gutenberg press, we were discussing unintended consequences.

Was it? Or did they only intend to save the time it needed to make more books?

This is also the case in software, improvements in hardware performance simply cause software to consume more resources, and not meaningfully increase the overall productive capability of a system.

Yeah, Google making searches faster in the 2000s meant they need more data centers, not fewer.

> People stopped walking, using bicycles, etc...

Most big US cities are designed to be incredibly hostile to anything but cars. The only reason that people weren't already taking taxis all the time is that the legacy taxi system is also incredibly unfriendly to users.

> the sky will be filled with drones...

> and it will be hell.

Imagine that the drones would need to follow quite stringent routes for safety and noise avoidance. Also imagine that (currently) a <50-pound drone flying at 300 feet overhead has a lower sound volume than a passing delivery truck. Actually, don't imagine; it's quite true.

Why do you think it will be hell?

> Imagine that the drones would need to follow quite stringent routes for safety and noise avoidance

Does that matter if I can IPO the "future of delivery" for billions? Corporations consistently show us they are willing to eat fines as "the cost of doing business", especially if its a means to eating all competition.

I like the idea of quiet, localised drone delivery over trucks, but I also lament a future that has me looking into the sky to see no birds, only Ama-line™ drones dragging TikTok banners behind them.

The future probably has no birds anyway - nor can I halt the drone delivery progress, so I guess it's not worth thinking about.

> Does that matter if I can IPO the "future of delivery" for billions?

Unless there's a downside, not really. The downsides are often hidden from the IPO. But, let's go on.

> Corporations consistently show us they are willing to eat fines as "the cost of doing business", especially if its a means to eating all competition.

I concur with you. Being willing to eat fines, for just about any reason, is unethical in my opinion.

Being willing to destroy all competition is the opposite of my understanding of capitalism insomuch as I understand capitalism wants to encourage competition. And it's unfortunately very prevalent in societies that claim to love capitalism.

> I also lament a future that has me looking into the sky to see no birds, only Ama-line™ drones dragging TikTok banners behind them.

This is a valid complaint. I suggest that if you care about birds, with respect to drones, then you should become active in drone communities to determine the effects that drones have on birds. How do drone activities affect birds flying patterns or nesting habits? How do drones affect birds' food chains? Some birds have been known to have some level of intelligence and can mimic human behavior -- will birds mimic drone behavior?

> The future probably has no birds anyway - nor can I halt the drone delivery progress, so I guess it's not worth thinking about.

While I agree that, due to climate change, the future probably has far far fewer birds (perhaps even no birds), I think drone delivery is young enough that you can affect progress. There are government agencies that drone companies are beholden to; the FAA is certainly one of them, and the FAA (for things that fly) often works with the EPA (for things that affect the environment). There's plenty of avenues to affect the progress of drone delivery.

> I suggest that if you care about birds, with respect to drones, then you should become active in drone communities to determine the effects that drones have on birds. ...

Without meaning to be snarky, what is your intent in this comment? I cant move the mountain that is US domestic policy from here, which will inevitably infect my country -- where it turns out I'm equally unable to effect policy (yes, I do vote, I have campaigned, things get pushed through anyway).

It just reads as "Well if you care so much about birds, why dont you get into drones", which feels almost like a non sequitur. The birds were here before me, and before the drones. I cant imagine there are any studies done on the wide spread integration of birds and drones, we wont get any until after we have hundreds of drones in the air at one time. Then we'll be treated to repeated NYT articles labeled "Where have all the birds gone?", discovering that, in fact birds were ok with 1 drone on the weekend but have suddenly freaked out when there are 100s/km^3 of airspace.

I sometimes see one or two drone pilots in summer, but largely they're non-existent here which might be the cause of some of my distaste for the idea of their proliferation. When they're here, they're loud and annoying (and scare my dog!). Probably I'm just being a curmudgeon.

My take is that autonomous cars will help parking and perhaps reduce the need for taxis, though that won't help traffic, indeed.

For instance, if my car can drive itself then I no longer need to park it near where I'm going and I no longer need a taxi to drive me to airport/station.

Regarding drone deliveries, the locations where it can be done safely is limited and there may be further legal restrictions if they cause a nuisance. We also need to see the cost, I doubt it will be worthwhile to order one-off small things often.

Emissions are getting irrelevant as EVs take over and electricity is generated by renewables.

> People stopped walking, using bicycles, etc...

Of course they did - it's inconvenient.

> On average, ride-hailing trips generated far more traffic and 69% more carbon dioxide than the trips they displaced.

Some points from the study that came up with that figure:

(Bottom line up front: electrified ride-sharing can lower emissions by 70% compared to driving a combustion car and is a good solution)

> A pooled ride-hailing trip shared between two passengers is similar in emissions to a private vehicle trip, and about 33 percent lower polluting than a non-pooled ride-hailing trip. Electrifying ride-hailing vehicles would dramatically improve the climate emissions of ride-hailing trips. An electric ride-hailing trip would cut emissions by about 50 percent compared to a private vehicle trip; a pooled, electric ride-hailing trip would lower emissions by nearly 70 percent compared to a private vehicle trip (or about 79 percent compared with a non-pooled ride-hailing trip).

> On average, bus and rail travel have lower carbon emissions than car travel in either a private vehicle or in a pooled or non-pooled ride-hailing vehicle. However, using ride-hailing to connect to transit can be a good low-carbon choice. For example, a pooled ride-hailing trip connecting to the train, where the ride-hailing trip is a quarter of the total trip length, can be more than 50 percent less polluting than a private vehicle trip.

Why would this be hell? We aren't in the sky, are we? It's mostly empty there.

We are on the ground. Fewer cars will be needed to deliver things.

I think this is a massive improvement and will finally use an underutilized resource we have.

Yes, with noisy drones flying over houses, each with a single package.

And due to tech issues, drones falling out of the sky, smashing into houses, and dropping objects from height.. a small mass at high speed, hitting the head, can kill, blind, maim.

It's one thing to have planes, with maintenance schedules, flying. And those same planes are expensive, thus there is great incentive to not destroy them by accident. Not to mention, the build and quality control is generally high.

Now imagine endless "cheap is best" drones from China. A lost drone? Meh.

This is a disaster.

The drones are winged, so they don't produce nearly as much noise as their VTOL counterparts.

Safety will have to be engineered into these things(if it's not already) because it's enough for one high-profile accident to make the public lose trust and vote for banning them. The story is very much like with fully autonomous vehicles.

> Why would this be hell? We aren't in the sky, are we? It's mostly empty there.

This attitude is why the planet is polluted and ecosystems are regularly destroyed. I wonder, is something else in the sky? Does the sky have a purpose beyond being a place where humans happen to not be?

I'm curious, did you read the actual press release or the approval letters?

From the press release:

> The FAA authorized Zipline International, Inc., to deliver commercial packages around Salt Lake City and Bentonville, Arkansas, using drones that fly beyond the operator’s visual line of sight.

emphasis mine and

From the approval letters:

> Flight operations must minimize ground risk and not overfly the following, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator: Power plants, Open-air assemblies of people, Schools during times of operation (e.g., elementary, middle, high, preschool and daycare facilities), Moving vehicles, except transitory flight operations, Roadways or highways, except transitory flight operations, and Any other area deemed high risk by the operator during the flight route design process.

> For all current operations areas, and prior to conducting operations in a new area, the operator must complete a ground risk assessment and submit it to the FAA for acceptance.

> The operator must maintain a conflict management capability to ensure that the PIC is able to keep the UA clear of any manned aircraft and other UA.

> The operator may only conduct operations at a UA-to-PIC ratio of 1:1 unless otherwise authorized by the FAA.

> Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) are not authorized.

There's lots and lots of stipulations here. So what's your concrete complaint?

Their complaint is that they feel the sky will be filled with drones. And those stipulations do not address their concern in my view.

> but ... they did not take into account changes in human behavior. People stopped walking, using bicycles, etc...

That's known as "induced demand", and it's been known to exist in traffic since almost a century [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Read “The Machine Stops” if you haven’t, it’s awesome.

Wait till people are accused of “crime” and are cut off from the airship delivery service.

https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/...

But ride-sharing was never really a thing, was it? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use it.

Before the pandemic, Uber Pool and Lyft Line were quite popular as a cheaper point-to-point transportation option in my city.

I’ve had people tell me they used it. Don’t know the overall mix pre-pandemic and no idea if it has returned at all.

> A few days ago, i saw this article in SF Chronicle; a joint opinion piece from MIT professor Carlo Ratti: "Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/robota...
The basic gist was, convenience of ride-sharing / seduced us into over using cars. It was supposed to have the opposite effect
"...ride-hailing and ride-sharing could make our streets cleaner and more efficient. ... With minimal delays to passengers, we could match riders and reduce the size of New York City taxi fleets by 40%. More people could get around in fewer cars for less money. We could reduce car ownership, and free up curbs and parking lots for new uses"
but ... they did not take into account changes in human behavior. People stopped walking, using bicycles, etc...
"On average, ride-hailing trips generated far more traffic and 69% more carbon dioxide than the trips they displaced."
I think this is what will happen with these drone delivery services. As it becomes easier to order a box of bandaids and have it delivered in 4 minutes, people will change their behavior, we will be ordering more frequently one-off things from Walmart several times a week, and the sky will be filled with drones...

and it will be hell.

People have a right to convenience and a better quality of life. Urban planners have a similarly flawed argument — tearing down highways will reduce traffic because everyone will take public transport. It merely forces the lower class and poor to suffer through public transit. The upper middle class, and similarly the tenured academics and policy wonks who came up with this sort of nonsensical arguments, never have to suffer the consequences of their own policies. It is a great thing in America that everyone can easily buy a car and enjoy the freedom. If cities want better traffic, then spend more money renovating or widening roads, not forcing poor people into crowded and uncomfortable public transport.

this is a better argument for improving public transport than it is for widening roads.

Sure, if you deliberately are obtuse and think what others are saying are "widen the roads".

I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that?

GGP:

> If cities want better traffic, spend more money renovating or widening roads...

Why do you think tolerance of bad behavior is inevitable?

In one system near me I've ridden I've ridden hundreds of times and seen one example of really bad behavior ever and the person was kicked off.

In another in a big city they suffer from far more problems but even there most trips are trouble free.

In this system the dominant method of payment is by using a RFID card one swipes. Credit cards are not accepted and few use cash as it stands. If you are poor the cards are free.

One could strongly tie cards to identity, deprecate cash, and ban people who commit crimes on transit. Note if you don't have an ID you have a fingerprint.

Oh looks like you were caught smoking fentanyl 3 times on the bus no ride for you. Refuse to get off get a free ride to jail and unpleasant detox.

Most of the trouble is literally 0.001% of riders. It's not like most bus riders are offensive drug addicts.

This isn’t how every place is. Where I live over 20 percent of trips are done by bike and public transportation is clean and works efficiently.

You have a very skewed version of what things should look like. Travel more!

> I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that?

If you spend an hour in literally any medium-sized European city you can see that public transport doesn't have to be like that given proper funding and a critical mass of ridership.

What a weird statement. Here in Switzerland, public transport is great and arguably preferable to using a car (although quite expensive as everything here is). It's always a question of how much is invested. If, like in the US, little is invested in public transport then it is inevitably also going to be pretty bad.

> People have a right to convenience and a better quality of life.

That's a pretty bold statement. Where is this right stated, and who guarantees it? Who do I go to if I feel my convenience and QoL isn't high enough?

Is this an absolute right that is realized at all costs? Even if my convenience affects the health and safety of others?

> If cities want better traffic, then spend more money renovating or widening roads

Widening roads just induces more driving.

https://twitter.com/alanthefisher/status/1491148250543386625