https://www.one-tab.com/page/Qxg2tgPaQ3WN79IFGOopJw
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://level1techs.com/video/l1-news-steve-buscemis-fast-food-ai-pocalypse-2017-04-17
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://level1techs.com/video/l1-news-steve-buscemis-fast-food-ai-pocalypse-2017-04-17
4 Likes
Those Tesla trucks surely create charging stations to places which otherwise would not have any reason to have them.
The Boring Company.
Summary
Tinfoil hat memory standard. 
1 Like
L1T news, the more you watch the worse you feel
The knowledge that McDonalds somewhere out there is using snapchat to try and hire someone makes me more sad than hive. Maybe Albert Camus was right, and its all absurd with no meaning.
jk, it sad however...... ignorance is bliss I suppose
Keep up the good work, papa bless
1 Like
You guys are paranoid. You act as if the CIA have overthrown multiple democratically elected governments and nearly initiated mutual assured destruction.
Oh, wait.
Also 50 minutes is not long ENOUGH!
(please don't make it shorter)
The issue of charging electric semi-trucks: https://www.scania.com/group/en/worlds-first-electric-road-opens-in-sweden/. Not something you'd have on all roads, but it could make sense to build for a few core roads. It should be cheaper than a railroad, and more flexible since the trucks can use it to get to the correct area and then detach and use batteries to go the last miles.
Only one screw on the table this week?
3 Likes
Regarding the Apple "iCar":
Honestly this could be a thing that undoes a lot of work that has been put fourth to achieve legislation for "right to repair" in the auto industry. It's already happening with the John Deere GPS thing. Fortunately Elon Musk is pioneering the electric car market. He's made much of his tech open source to actually create a feasibly competitive market. Unfortunately hipsters need cars too. JK
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if tech giants took over the auto market and locked it down. Tech giants and the govt are working together to employ spyware. The evidence is clear in Snowden's report. The payoff for tech giants is all the data that they can collect for the price of collection. Of course they use it and sell it; and it makes them lots of moneys. The payoff for the govt's security agencies isn't clear; but what is clear is they really really want it. One argument that keeps surfacing in the hearings is the notion that "third parties" could potentially "configure" the devices to spy on the consumer. The argument suggests that "third parties" can't be trusted with the "responsibility" of that much power. It's of course clearly projection; but the mindset in DC is one that would likely buy into it... that an millions in campaign contributions pretty much seals the deal.
David Brin wrote a book called "The Transparent Society" that addressed the topic of surveillance. It also coined the term sousveillance; a public response, which is essentially "watching the watchers". Brin suggests that there might be an emergent, private establishment that... watches the watchers. This was clearly the case shortly after he wrote the book and maybe even before. The problem is, neither are looking out for the interests of the individual. This may have more to do with the current economic instability than anything else but; all times can't be good times... and this outcome isn't what Brin was advocating.
(EDIT) I pretty much just started thinking out loud here. Wasn't sure if I should leave it in; but what the hey.
It seems like, the more communications tech that enters automobiles, the more likely it is that "authorized" service techs become a thing.
The defeaters appear to be, Open source technologies, Financial collapse in the US (which will probably happen before electric cars become dominant) and healthy growth of an electric car market (which keeps the stockholders happy and big tech competitive).
All bets are off when the market becomes saturated though. The equal and opposite response to the campaign contribution is subsidies.
This is pretty near term futurism. I doubt that strong AI will be all that far along before self-driving cars become a thing. Unemployment is probably going to be pretty bad before then. UBI could become a thing giving the state more power over access. There's probably going to be quite a bit going on; but fundamental change doesn't seem likely in that time span. Flying drone type vehicles could be a huge game changer with respect to the whole conversation. It might replace roadways and traffic lights with internal traffic control and accident prevention tech thus freeing up tax dollars. etc.etc.etc. etc.
(EDIT) OK back on track
There is probably going to be a great deal of competition between open products and proprietary products. Right to repair may be a choice of the individual when purchasing a product. That of course has it's pitfalls as plug-n-play and designed "user experiences" develop. I personally think that open will win in the long run; considering the impact of automation. The kids who build their own drones now may build their own transport drones in middle age. Maybe Apple should invest in something else. Who knows.
I reference crises because proportional change tends to follow. I've been making claims about crises lately; so here's some reference.
12:25 Kabylake-X Q4 2016 confirmed 
About Naples and Workstation parts, there's already been some rumors about a 16 Core Ryzen R9 part on X390 Chipset, but it's gonna use a different socket apparently.
Re: DefenseCode - Home
This sounds like the vulnerability I found last week. TWC has firmware updates by the user locked out. I tried searching to see if the Arris DG860A uses a Broadcom chipset, to no avail. Thank goodness there are smart people on the forum that helped me "fix" it until I can buy a new modem that allows me to keep the firmware updated.
2 Likes
...Theme from (totally) Microsoft Devs. 
Send_me_your_locatition
Discloser: The musician have no affiliations or intentions in spying you.
That Star Trek pun in the background deserves a frame. Seriously, it's worf it.
1 Like
I'm worried that the Apple iCar's maintenance will just be the car driving off and you have to buy a new one.
1 Like
"This vehicle is now at the end of its service life. It will pilot itself to a recycling facility. Thank you for purchasing the Apple iCar 1,
Try the new Apple iCar 2 today!"
1 Like
We own an electric car (Nissan Leaf). We also own an SUV (ideally it would be a plug-in hybrid) I also spend a lot of time riding motorcycles. The Nissan Leaf; it’s fun to drive 100% torque at 0 rpm means instant acceleration no waiting for fuel to be injected gears to change down etc. The weight is carried low so handling is very good super stable. Our car is 2011-2 & since then the technology has improved and batteries are storing twice as much power in the same space extending range and this is continuing. The range anxiety issue normally isn’t an issue. Once you’ve worked everything out it’s basically the same as charging a phone. Most local journeys are in the leaf. Longer ones or if we need to tow a trailer then we use the SUV. If we didn’t have the SUV we’d hire a vehicle on the odd occasions that warranted a different vehicle. The Leaf costs about ¼ of running an equivalent petrol car, that’s until the Government finds a new way to tax me.
I’m going to quote from one source just to keep things simple. There is a British Si Fi programme called “Red Dwarf” Robert Llewellyn, Kryten from the show has a You Tube channel called Fully Charged all about Solar, Wind & Electric Technology. Lots of interesting stuff.
Think of self-driving cars as cruise control mixed with radar and GPS with you having the final say, maybe! And if you have the time and inclination follow the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfRqNAhAe6c&t=247s
Note how it reacts to pedestrians trying to self-destruct.
GKN a worldwide engineering concern has a part in 50% of cars worldwide and deals with 80% of car manufactures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt0-JMh6aS8 The bloke from there is worth listening to.
Big trucks will probably be electric but powered by a hydrogen fuel cell as the easiest way to make Hydrogen is from oil therefore the oil companies will probably promote this especially as the ban on diesel trucks from cities increases. In reality, all options will be used hopefully where appropriate and the future of motoring looks to still have some fun in it. Check this one out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXsQGWWz3Is
You are touching on a very interesting subject here (and a few more). It doesn't really bother me that I can't watch the authorities the same as they can watch me, but it bothers me I don't know what they see/know about me. I am not given a chance to own my own identity. As in to define and redefine it, in relation to the authority. In all my other relations, I get to choose how I will behave within that relation, what qualities I am going to show to and/or withhold from to other participants. Not being able to do so is dehumanizing and humiliating in the worst sense and being unable to define myself excludes me from redemption and any moral discourse - I no longer have an identity, they have my identity and I may easily interpret such a relation as one in which it no longer matters what I do and/or don't. And that is cutting it very close to madness.
I believe UBI (universal basic income, to make sure we are talking about the same acronym) will be a most difficult thing for employers to accept, because it significantly improves individuals (potential employees) negotiation position, as in, "I don't need to take this job, what will you do to attract me?", instead of "I really need this job, how should I bend over to get it?" . Today, the employer organizations will actively oppose such a change. One thing that robotization does solve is this exact conflict. However there will be some inertia before the realization enters the lobby.
Still, what will sell self-driving vehicles (and other autonomous technology) is the convenience. Convenience is traditionally (and sadly so) in most cases decoupled from integrity concerns. With Apple in charge of any product, there will be less ownership and less integrity over the product. I have an example to make. I don't really care about driving a car. I'm perfectly happy being driven. It is convenient, as I can focus on doing other things. Most people think the same way about a car. And most people think the same way about a computer. And probably about any other IoT thing. And market being what it is today, not unified and centered on individual needs but unified and centered on each individual product, we end up not having privacy/integrity all across the board, and trying to keep your privacy and keep the convenience is like trying to stop an anti-privacy/pro-convenience bison stampede by standing in front of it in a single line and holding hands. And everyone is quite willing to let one or another, or even most of the bisons pass. We (average consumers) are probably too much in a disagreement over what product(s) is important to make any difference. Again, it will be interesting to see how this pans out as things change.
While I am quite certain is Apple can deliver an appealing vehicle, for those inclined towards convenience and a sense of exclusivity, and it will almost certainly just work really conveniently until it no longer just works, and then you're just f*d until they fix it for you. As if nobody told them that not being able to do something about a problem yourself is deeply challenging to one's integrity, integrity being commonly extended to ownership. Privacy? Within a loose definition. Integrity? None.
1 Like
Regarding the Volkswagen scandal:
The funny thing is that most other car manufacturers do almost exactly the same thing. However, there they make use of some law technicality which makes it legal in their case. The end result is the same though...
This is a really interesting thought. There probably is a general issue that comes from the individual not being able to see their true roll in their interaction with authority. It's not the way that humans interacted with each other before "civilization". I could easily see it as de-humanizing.
Civilized societies are all some form of coercion. We all, no matter our position are painted into some kind of corner. There's probably a great deal of Pavlovian conditioning involved for everyone; as behaviors are passed down from generation to generation as well. That's how social structures develop. Sometimes I wonder if we can still be called human; as the genetic + evolutionary data doesn't really coincide with the collective behaviors of humans for thousands of years. De-humanizing appears to be very astute description.
Indeed the fabric of reality is. Intelligence can unlikely be measured in any other terms than the ability to negotiate the limitations of perceived reality. This includes internal and external changes to our situation, physically and socially. I believe the term situated intelligence is relevant to what we are talking about to a large degree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence,_situated_approach . One can also reverse the term to apply it to human individuals, but then we get stuck with the issues of identity, modification, and transcendence. What is the most intelligent, optimum move in each given situation?
Perhaps due to our technological advancements, we perceive more of the world, or at least differently, in such a way that the change is becoming more obvious, and also more ubiquitous and unavoidable. I am not so much convinced we should resist change, as that we need to have some sense of direction through it. Some meaningful way to continue to negotiate the reality to our advantage. To continue existing as intelligent beings, to continue to achieve, whatever it is, success. This negotiation-reward system is central to the human psychological wiring (and possibly any other thing that can be called a living thing).
As most of our cells change during a lifetime, our biology already presents us with the identity dilemma of grandfather's axe/Theseus ship (a personal favorite of mine), as in when do we stop being ourselves. We have already accepted aging and maturing as a part of our individuality. There never was much of a choice. Some of us accept further modifications and changes to our knowledge and behavior through education, and through work we conduct. Do we then become someone else? And if yes, then why shouldn't we? Is our comfort zone a given, should we accept being forced out of it? Can we refuse and still survive? Why should we attempt to refuse? Because of a conditioning?
Is not identity a matter of how we negotiate our (individual perception of) reality? And what others think we are just their view of us within their own (individual perception of) reality? Both of which we hope to have a beneficial (selfish or altruistic) impact on.
It is no coincidence the same questions are also relevant when talking about bodily enhancements through technology (indeed also aesthetic surgery). How much of my physical body can I exchange for artificial pieces of the same function before I cease being myself? Do I have to do it a little at a time to remain myself, or can I just replace it all at once, and what is the difference? I believe a similar question being posed on Star Trek regarding instantaneous teleportation - some people refuse it for the similar reason because it decomposes them to something else before putting them back together again. When am I not me?
What does change us, and what doesn't? Isn't change the most biologically natural thing to be a part of? What fights do we pick, what fights do we let go? Curious. And interesting.
When I walk this line of reasoning, many otherwise important things cease to matter. Are they not important, though? Is it really important who I am (I certainly think it is, but still...) and can I not be just happy that I exist (I certainly can't, because I am easily bored, but still...) ? There are many paths to defining and redefining one's identity, both ad-hoc and over time. We are ourselves machines which can be employed by ourselves towards a great variety of goals and joys.
In short, I kind of think that coercion is prerequisite to negotiation, which in turn is prerequisite to existence and identity.
1 Like
I was actually referring to the ancient sociopolitical Coercion. I should have capitalized.
It's difficult to disagree with the points that you've made though. Coercion would have had to have had some sort of precursor; or proto-form. Natural Selection is forceful coercion in and of itself; as the motive is survival.
Humans have a psychological need for an "authentic self". This appears to be a prerequisite to self-esteem. It's kind of a - you have to know thyself before you can like yourself - sort of thing. It probably means having the most appropriate self-image. Without a maximally normative perception however, there is likely to be some form of dissonance. Contexts may not be as important as having some connection to nature. Financial coercion isn't grounded in any form of naturalism or connection to any form of creation. It's just access being held back until the completion of some expected behavior. The problem is that expected behavior isn't being constrained to normative or novel function. As a result, extinction and existential risk go unmitigated. This probably produces quite a bit of dissonance when considering evolutionary predispositions; especially impulses.
This probably scales to changes over time. There really isn't a lot of meaning in the word self to begin with. The self is essentially a product of localized and mobilized interaction with the whole. That is really what individuality is. It's just different experiences with the whole. The Bohmian view seems to work really well with the current paradigm in the behavioral sciences. All understanding of humans comes from an understanding of the environment. The connection to the environment is in essence what the self is. Where that which is normative is obscured from human attention, and replaced with uncomfortable artifices, dissonance and suffering is almost certain.
All of the forms that humans might take in transcendence could be rooted in normative function. Natural Selection would still be the law; as any form, no matter how intelligent would still be subject to the laws of nature. Of course higher intelligence may result in more awareness of natural processes and may aid in exploiting them. The fact would probably still remain that any higher intelligence would still be coerced toward fitness.
I'm wondering if there is some deep psychological awareness that exists when behaviors become risky; and unease becomes apparent. The impulse to hoard is a perfectly natural and normal behavior in lean times; however, many cars worth tens of thousands of dollars sit in driveways, while boxes of useless junk sits in garages. It's not just people with houses full of old news papers and grocery bags. People seem to have something similar to a sixth sense when it comes to a survey of the environment. I'm thinking that there is a lot more unease than we are generally aware of.
It's all probably rooted in having a connection to nature that maximizes the probability of survival. I can't imagine any form of intelligence being comfortable without that... not one with a shot at longevity anyway.