News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer... by agumonkey on Thursday October 15, 2015 @02:47AM (#10391727)
As a website commenter I'm not sure I should predict anything. To explain a bit more my previous message, as complex as going to the moon was, it seems a problem scientists knew how to define. One vehicle, 2 planets, the system is describable.

Traffic with lots of agents potentially interacting with every other agent, hence my chaos analogy, lots and lots of variable, ... is blurry.

There's successful research to describe multi agents collision avoidance but I've never seen it used on the field yet.

ps: reminds me airplanes vs car accident rates. Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air. Nobody would crash a car alone in the desert.

Re:Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer... by kqr on Thursday October 15, 2015 @07:54AM (#10392584)
> Even if flying is inherently complex in itself, there's almost no traffic and almost no obstacle in air.

Different aircraft are by and large keeping to the same standard routes, altitudes and holding patterns, which is why mid-air collisions are a thing. (The reason they keep to standards is to make air traffic control easier.)

Re:Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer... by agumonkey on Thursday October 15, 2015 @09:01AM (#10392846)
Aight, I pushed it, but how is air density ? and direction, I'm sure routes are designed to avoid blending traffics (incoming) as much as possible.
Re:Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer... by paulsutter on Thursday October 15, 2015 @03:41AM (#10391860)
Good point on air vs car accident rates.

By the way, I find that making a prediction causes me to net out the different aspects of an issue quickly, and snaps me out of the mode of enumerating pros and cons. That's why I asked.