Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Seems like a good idea to me... (Score 4, Insightful) 307

Why would a developer build anything but the priciest luxury rentals? There is no economic incentive to build small places for small rents. There ain't no such thing as a free market for *renters*. Every advantage and price increase trick is on the side of the the property owners.

Developers will never, ever build enough units to drop rental prices. That would be stupid. They will build to keep supply high for the highest incomes, and let the lower price units dribble away into condos, which keeps rents high and induces more pricey condo contrstuction.

There is no incentive whatsoever to build cheap apartments. A decentive, really, because the neighbors will fight to the death anyone who tries to put low-income people in their Zillow Zone.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 255

How much of all this is just misanthropy.

Plenty of CEOs drinking and operating companies; plenty of sociopaths, too. Such are planning to replace tens of millions of people and crash a good chunk of the planet into depression. I'll be impressed when the CEOs get replaced by AI.

Circuits are by definition the opposite of real world. The Pittsburg taxis have drivers. The Ohio trucks have drivers. And they are crashing plenty; they just are not telling us about it.

Comment Re:Yes they did (Score 1) 47

Image a game you watch being played by the computer instead of you. The joystick moves, apeing the computer's decisions. You can override if the character does something idiotic. Now, how long til your brain shuts off, and you react too late when the character runs into a sword.

Now: imagine it's a car. You are in it. Your hand hovers over the wheel, trying every second to outguess the computer. You have a quarter second to react. You fail. You die.

Comment Re:Trouble down the road (Score 1) 255

Indded. We'd be committing everyone - poor, old, rich, young - to constantly rebuy cars on a schedule that automakers decide. They could obsolete cars at will. Or set up subsciption services - brake control, GPS maps, charge us for our own surveillance.

What is unbelievable is they think that cars are retired every five years or so, so obsolence won't be a problem. They know perfectly well that people keep cars for ten - fifteen years because, well, they're bloody expensive. They want that option gone. We'll be on an upgrade cycle like PCs, and enormously profitable one.

Cars, esp. electric cars, can easily last twenty years. Change the batteries, the motor bearings, seals, and it can keep going. That is a huge problem for car manufacturers. Computer controlled everything fixes all that for them.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 2) 255

Those things on the road are not self-driving cars. They are apps that can, with human oversight, kinda imitate a human driver in careully orchestrated conditions. But there are *no* self-driving cars out there. And Google just gave up.

The real goal is self-driving trucks and taxis. They want to fire all the drivers and keep all the money, so there is a lot of *want* on the part of capital. But we haven't built an AI that can match a trained human. If we have such, they'd have shown the robots proudly whipping around the streets, unpiloted. There aren't. Maybe someday we can do it, but right now we're being bamboozed by billionaires who are bamboozling themselves.

Missouri rule: Show me.

Too many things a toaster can't do. The most important: actual human thought.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama