These trains are also less than 7% faster in theory, so they were always going to have an improvement under 7%, and of course rolling down the rails was never the only thing the trains did and it was always going to be less than the improvement in top speed anyway. Even on a perfect RoW the difference would have always been underwhelming.

https://www.google.com/search?...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
https://www.scientificamerican...
You can't even internet and you want us to believe you can logic.

Welcome to Capitalism. First time?

If it's less bright than full moonlight then it most likely won't have an effect.

And the customer also acted properly by using a working strategy to convince the system to pass them to a human.

I've been in stores where they literally have paid someone to tell people to use the self checkout. "The self-checkout is open", they will say. I respond "No thanks," usually without a quip about being expected to work without pay, but admittedly not always. Then they look irritated with me because I'm helping to threaten their job, while they're helping to threaten multiple jobs.

In a world with UBI, I would go ahead and use the self checkout for small numbers of items when I'm not in a spectacular hurry. In this world, that's putting people on the street. Same for talking to the ordering AI. And same for talking to the poorly automated phone tree, while we're at it.

False. Those items' costs are priced into the products, and having to account for them just means more opportunities for errors which increases costs and makes the business less competitive (if you increase prices to compensate) or less profitable. The human workers have been told how to limit those items and the software should also be told how to limit those items. If the software can't do that reliably, then it's the problem.

I posted a link. You haven't posted shit. The link directly contradicts what you said. Put up or fuck off.

They didn't know what they were talking about, they lied about their powers of prognostication, or both.

Self-driving cars may one day obsolete human drivers, I even believe that they potentially could in my lifetime. But I don't think it will happen soon, and I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile goal either. Instead we should eliminate most of the need to drive, and get down to lighter vehicles (think SxS or NEV) for most of the remaining (rural, recreational, emergency) use. We could delete a lot of highway lanes and run rail up the center of those rights of way, and keep the rest for local trucking.

I streamed Snowrunner over 1GbE from my 5900X/4060Ti 16GB desktop to my 3250U MiniPC using Steam (both run Linux) and I found the visual quality to be much poorer than running locally. Will 2.5GbE make it any better?

Cars can function if you have shitloads of road, there's no reason why car-sized vehicles can't work if you make the track a lot cheaper. The Vegas loop doesn't work because it uses shitty cars on tires on roads in tunnels. Morgantown PRT has too-expensive track requirements that you can't conveniently mix with other forms of transport.

I've often said that we've had the tech for self steering since the 1800s, and that really reduces the tech needed for self driving, as you have pointed out here.

I still will go ahead and spend my karma pointing out (as I have done previously) that we could be building PRT on an ultralight rail to make use of these technologies on a scale similar to existing automobiles, and even keeping the automobile companies in the loop on it, but big oil won't have it because it makes it easy to cut out the fossil fuels and also the tires, which are mostly made from oil as well. You can have all the same advantages of cars, plus some, and also have most of the advantages of trains. But no, everyone wants the illusion of freedom (that evaporates immediately as soon as the road is damaged by weather or a landslide, or clogged by a pileup.)

A citation and logic. Both are pretty neato in my book.

What do you have besides insults and appeals to authority which don't even come with the identities of the supposed authorities?

I googled "stellantis level 2 driver assistance reads road signs -stla" (I added that last on there to avoid getting a shitload of stories about the cancellation this story is about) and the top result is about the Jeep Compass and how it can read road signs. Learn to internet, bro.

Why do you think the cars you've driven are relevant?

Because speed limits can be changed faster than the database gets updated.

You fell for the demo?

They only even claimed it worked up to 37 mph, and further only claimed it would work up to 59 mph. Nobody had to place this condition on them, they placed it.

There is essentially unlimited demand for this technology when it works.

There is no demand for the technology if it does not work.

What they are telling us is that it does not work.

Given that it's Stellantis, it comes as even less than no surprise.

All product makers oppose that, because it would be sales suicide when found out, and because it would also make the device less secure and that's a point of competition.

But on the flip side, if any of them were required to do it, it could be illegal for them to tell us about it. So Apple and Google and anyone else too could actually be doing it while shouting about how it's a bad idea, and we wouldn't be allowed to know.