Comments by "Chaos Corner" (@chaos.corner) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

Not being familiar with London, I once used the underground to travel what looked like a really long distance (and taking a fair amount of time to do so) for what was, in reality, only a few blocks over and could have been walked in five minutes. Perhaps something similar happened here.
19
It's been that way for a while. It's a shame cause I like his content. He possibly needs an editor or a script editor at least.
7
@thegreenpickel Too ambitious. They should have started with a Superloop.
6
Yeah, I was going to say the same. They are usually a lot more compact too.
3
@davecom3 For sure. It's one of the oldest and in constant heavy use and a political football so it's easy to see the reasons for that. I'd say New York's was worse but that's not saying much.
3
@sorh I've also done it the other way where what looked like a few stops actually turned out to be several miles. The underground map is great for readability but not necessarily for navigation.
3
@reaperinsaltbrine5211 Bear in mind that these satellites are not geostationary so if you have service for those in areas with extremely low density population, you also have it for all those along the rest of the orbit too at very low extra cost.
2
Water from the air? Around here, we call that rain.
2
@JGM0JGM Yeah, I don't think that would actually work too well.
2
@TheWatchernator There will be ways to deal with it. Probably insurance included in the cost of using the self-driving (if that's a service of the company) or the driver of the car (if the self-driving is part of the car). It's still a long way off though but that means there's plenty of time to work these things out.
2
@alqualonde2998 Current prices are not really outlandish at all. I can't remember what I was paying for satellite back in the day but it was probably more. I would expect prices to come down too.
1
@alqualonde2998 Yes, that's definitely a good price. Mine costs about 8x that for a similar connection. Some price difference is justified by different circumstances but the vast majority is not. Still, those high prices do make Musk's effort more into viable territory. Not that it's necessarily there.
1
He went against the SJWs. The most hateful and vindictive group in the west.
1
@willtruthteller4694 Elon comes out with a lot of bullshit. I don't have a problem with that because not every new idea is a gem. It does make fodder for debunkers though.
1
"Every particle has 'on average'" the same energy? Well, that's what 'on average' means. That's like saying that everyone is 'on average' the same height. (Hint - Maxwell-Botzmann distribution). I know you know this stuff.
1
I look forward to the creepypasta.
1
@superflyguy521 That's to get to your inside pocket, I think.
1
@DarkRaven4561 Pressure tube transportation for small objects has been amazingly successful for more than a century. It's only natural people would think of expanding it to human sized cargo. It's just a shame the engineering is so tricky. It might still work one day with appropriate materials and in the right geography.
1
Internet providers don't (mostly) pay each other for connections, they have mutual peering agreements.
1
That's jaw dropping with the thermal expansion stuff. Did he buy his PhD? I worked with people getting optics PhDs and this kind of thing would have been second nature to them. I know we all have the occasional brain fart but this goes way beyond that.
1
I think a lot of these people read that stupid Tim Ferris book. I can't believe so many people simp for him.
1
The irony if this made solar roadways feasible...
1
I once read that what I just saw with that wasn't possible. Either I misunderstood, missed context or new info has come out.
1
@tricky778 OK
1
Their material was not levitating anyway as it was still in contact with the magnet. That pyrolitic graphite looks like it is though which is interesting as I once read that wasn't possible with regular passive magnets (superconductors being a special case and levitating toys requiring control electronics). I guess I have some learning to look into.
1
@drunkenhobo8020 That makes sense. I might try and track down what I originally read as it may be I just forgot some context.
1
I get distilled water from my basement dehumidifier and use it in my wife's business. Saves about $1 per gallon. Drinking water comes from the faucet where the local utility does a good job of making it potable (those of you who get awful tasting drinking water from your local utility have my commiserations).
1
@michaelsommers2356 It can't right now either. What's your point?
1
@anzaca1 Maybe. That sounds a bit like histrionics to me (I'm actually just more skeptical that self-driving will actually be usable anytime soon). We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
1
@DyeJoeBlue There are also reasons to believe it will be safer than a normal real person because normal real people were not designed to be piloting a ton of metal travelling at speeds in excess of 10 times what we're typically capable of propelling ourselves. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome but pessimism isn't really warranted.
1
@zwerko By improving the technology?
1
@michaelsommers2356 That was not really my implication. It was a suggestion about how accidents would be covered. Cars already consist of a combination of human and manufacturer provided systems, either of which can malfunction at any time resulting in damage, injury or death. After that, there are two issues, liability and culpability. Liability to be handled by insurance, culpability to be handled by existing or newly enacted laws, presumably. This isn't nearly as complicated as you want it to be.
1
@michaelsommers2356 To be clear, it will be accepted that AI will make some mistakes. Just as it is accepted that people will make mistakes and that manufacturing defects happen. If/when AI becomes accepted, those numbers will be much lower than for human drivers and other factors will make it an attractive proposition too.
1
@michaelsommers2356 Well, TheWatchinator asked "who's responsible?". I was looking at the financial aspect. So I'll repeat that that wasn't my intended implication. Clearly if you're looking for culpability, that is another issue, probably to be settled in courts and will likely come down to whether due diligence has been carried out.
1
@michaelsommers2356 I agree. And I do personally think that it is a lot further off than many think. I do think it is ultimately attainable though. Of course, Skynet may murder us all well before then.
1
But hold on... what if we combined this material with... solar roadways?
1
My car jump starter literally has a battery pack like that inside. Unfortunately, I left the connector plugged in and they all puffed up.
1
@christiangeiselmann It was from The Hamptons
1
If you're not going to go full vacuum, that's probably not too unreasonable. I think it would be interesting to see if this could be done with the vehicles being entirely unpowered but using pressure differentials to drive them. You'd need some kind of lock system on the tubes though, I think.
1
@link7417 True but I think there might be some effects worth investigating that might mitigate the issue a bit. Travelling waves, "regenerative braking" type energy preservation and similar. Possibly not worthwhile though and the repeated mechanical stresses would take their own toll (though planes fly thousands of times).
1
Careful. Might get Mehdi unhappy with you stealing his pitch.
1