minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

  "So how are people supposed to afford this education? How do they fill out the application for school if they don't have internet? How do they do their homework and write their term papers? "

   the libraries

remember-we can't be everything to everyone.  with all due respect tamu, you seem to be going "half empty"  no one said this is easy.  baby steps...we aren't going to solve this issue in a couple of years.  this really picked up steam 50-60+ years ago. did we have all these programs during the great depression? people can be resourceful when the have to be.  if we could get 10-15-20% change over the next 5-10 years, that would be huge.  it starts with attitude adjustments and bipartisanship.  the divisiveness being handed down over the past generations is so anti-productive.

The libraries. Another example of a free service provided to the poor.

You seem to be missing the point Rocket. You have made several comments about how poor people are poor by choice and that we shouldn't help them because it encourages them to stay poor.

[MU82]

Nads, how are yo holdin's doin' since da "Orange Menace" took office, hey?

I'd be happy to respond to this, but I speak English and I have no idea what you're asking.

[Tugg Speedman]

If this guy isn't worried about what dealers think he isn't going to be in his position for very long.

You don't understand the dynamic of the business. Dealer networks have immense leverage over manufacturers now and for the foreseeable future.

Do you think Ford wants to sell any new cars/trucks during the next 5-10 years?   If they do they need their dealer network more than their dealer network needs them.

A well-operated dealership pays all their operating costs through their service business. Selling cars is purely profit for these guys. If Ford pisses them off they will either switch their focus to used cars (better margins anyway) or to another manufacturer's business as the majority of dealership operators own multiple brands. 

Let me say it again.  Unless Ford wants to see their sales/profitability/stock price tank for the next 5-10 years, they will do what their dealer network wants. .

You realize you sound exactly like taxi driver 5 years ago, a retailer 10 years ago and a newspaper editor 15 years ago.

Telsa's stock price tells you what you need to do.  Follow your advice and its Kmart all over again.

[MU82]

This originally started as rocket gloating about higher minimum wages having a negative effect. (He'll say he wasn't gloating, but we know he was, especially given his many follow-up posts about how the high-living poor are just crushing the spirit of the downtrodden millionaires.)

Smuggles joined in to gloat right alongside rocket, but then shifted the conversation to driverless cars and other forms of automation - which might be causing more job losses than anything else, and surely will cause more and more over time. The so-called president thinks coal jobs are coming back but of course they aren't, in part because there are more efficient and safer ways to produce energy and in greater part because automation has taken over. Things that used to take hundreds of humans to do in the coal industry now take less than a dozen.

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of driverless trucks that are transporting the coal, each with a lazy union driver sleeping in the back, of course.

[Tugg Speedman]

You are flat out wrong, like always.  Uber's self driving Truck (originally the startup company Otto) testing involved exactly 1, and only 1 truck.  It drove 120 total miles in 2016.


Alphabet is also in the self-driving Truck category.  It has 1, and only 1 truck currently doing any on-road testing. 


You greatly exaggerated in your initial statements and then double and tripled down on those statements. 


Tesla hopes to unveil a self-driving Truck at the end of this year, like their cars, it will have self-driving ability but require a person at the wheel. 


Those who actually work in this field think that it will be at least 5, and likely closer to 10 years before the Semi market is significantly penetrated by self-driving vehicles.

Here is what I wrote ...

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only.  The problem is the rules say the driver must sit in the driver seat.  Instead, most are in the back sleeping.  So regulators are considering adding seat sensors so the driverless options only works with someone sitting in the front seat.  Again, it is cultural.

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.

[jesmu84]

Here is what I wrote ...

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.

Again though, you miss the point. Nearly everyone asked for your source on "thousands".

You didn't have one. Okay to admit

[forgetful]

Here is what I wrote ...

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.

Even your statement on 1000's of trucks is grossly inaccurate, and it is a simple numbers game to realize such a statement is absurd. 


The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000). 

A Semi costs around $150k without any special technology.  Outfitting it with current technology would cost a minimum of $250k (that is if autonomous technology could be translated directly to the Semi...it can't, and it is far more expensive right now).

That would put the price for even only 1000 test vehicles at:

$400M, just the vehicles themselves would cost $150M.

No business man is going to spend $400M on test vehicles so they can test 1000's, when there is no additional benefit (data wise) above 3-10 vehicles.  That is why typical test fleets are on the order of 3-10 vehicles, around a $2-5M investment. 

Right now there are at most 20-50 of these Semi's on the roads, mostly in California.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was as low as 5-10 total vehicles.

 

[MU82]

Again though, you miss the point. Nearly everyone asked for your source on "thousands".

You didn't have one. Okay to admit

I've read thousands of posts by Smuggles. Not sure he ever has admitted he was wrong. Maybe he has and I missed that one time. Instead, he says he's so sure about himself that he's smug. Which is how he got his name.

[Tugg Speedman]

I was wrong. ... thousands applies to UPS alone.

Truckers Gain an Automated Assist
Computers relieve drivers of some big-rig duties; systems aim to cut accidents, save fuel

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/truckers-gain-an-automated-assist-1438939801

One core technology is the truck’s collision-mitigation system, whose cameras and radar beams scan the roadway. When they detect another vehicle, an onboard computer adjusts the throttle or applies the brakes to maintain a safe distance.

Freightliner says that about 46% of its Cascadias sold this year have the anticollision system, up from 24% a year ago. Brake-system manufacturer Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC says sales of its collision-avoidance system have been rising an average of 24% annually for three years. Bendix rival Wabco Holdings Inc. expects sales of its comparable system to grow 32% this year, after last year’s 49% jump.

United Parcel Service Inc. has ordered 2,600 heavy-duty trucks this year with Bendix’s system, and plans to eventually expand that to its entire fleet of more than 16,000 highway trucks. The system also provides blind-spot alerts and warnings when a vehicle drifts out of its lane—safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies.

[forgetful]

I was wrong. ... thousands applies to UPS alone.

Truckers Gain an Automated Assist
Computers relieve drivers of some big-rig duties; systems aim to cut accidents, save fuel

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/truckers-gain-an-automated-assist-1438939801

One core technology is the truck’s collision-mitigation system, whose cameras and radar beams scan the roadway. When they detect another vehicle, an onboard computer adjusts the throttle or applies the brakes to maintain a safe distance.

Freightliner says that about 46% of its Cascadias sold this year have the anticollision system, up from 24% a year ago. Brake-system manufacturer Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC says sales of its collision-avoidance system have been rising an average of 24% annually for three years. Bendix rival Wabco Holdings Inc. expects sales of its comparable system to grow 32% this year, after last year’s 49% jump.

United Parcel Service Inc. has ordered 2,600 heavy-duty trucks this year with Bendix’s system, and plans to eventually expand that to its entire fleet of more than 16,000 highway trucks. The system also provides blind-spot alerts and warnings when a vehicle drifts out of its lane—safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies.

Yeah, quadruple down why don't you.  Those vehicles are not remotely anything like what people have been discussing here.  They are neither autonomous nor can they even be driven without a person constantly manning the wheel. 

It is a collision avoidance system analogous to what is on most higher end vehicles. 

If you had said initially that thousands of Semi's have collision avoidance systems that can detect a possible collision before it happens, everyone here would have said, of course there are...what's your point.

You specified vehicles similar to Tesla's autopilot mode, that can largely drive themselves but require people to be in the driver's seat...indicating that most end up napping in the backseat.

Anyone who takes a nap away from the wheel in these vehicles is going to crash...and crash quickly.

Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.

[StillAWarrior]

Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.

It's quite apparent to anyone who reads these boards that he is literally incapable of admitting he's wrong. And I'm using that word in the traditional sense - not the way it's frequently used these days.

If this discussion keeps going, he's likely to start citing statistics about power steering or automatic transmissions.

[Tugg Speedman]

Yeah, quadruple down why don't you.  Those vehicles are not remotely anything like what people have been discussing here.  They are neither autonomous nor can they even be driven without a person constantly manning the wheel. 

It is a collision avoidance system analogous to what is on most higher end vehicles. 

If you had said initially that thousands of Semi's have collision avoidance systems that can detect a possible collision before it happens, everyone here would have said, of course there are...what's your point.

You specified vehicles similar to Tesla's autopilot mode, that can largely drive themselves but require people to be in the driver's seat...indicating that most end up napping in the backseat.

Anyone who takes a nap away from the wheel in these vehicles is going to crash...and crash quickly.

Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.

What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years. 

[StillAWarrior]

What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them. There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

First of all, that might be the definition you're using now, but it is absolutely not the definition you were using that led to this entire discussion.  You've moved the goal posts.  Noted.

Second of all, that's not even remotely what the article describes.  An alert when you're leaving the lane is not autonomous in any normally used sense of the word.  I frequently drive a work car that has this feature (as well as the predictive cruise control that adjusts speed to traffic).  While it's leaps and bounds ahead of technology of years past, it's not even remotely "autonomous."  Even you would acknowledge that these features, as helpful as they are, are not even remotely at the level of what Tesla is offering (which is approaching  actual autonomy - but still doesn't allow the "sleeping in the back" that started the whole thing).  As forgetful said, anyone who goes in the back to sleep (your initial claim...as much as you're trying to deflect from that fact) will crash, and crash quickly.  In fact, anyone who takes their hands off the wheel will likely crash about as quickly as they would in a car that is not equipped with the feature -- they'll just have an alert telling them that the crash is coming.

You were right about one thing, however, we did get to see a tortured definition of autonomous.

[Tugg Speedman]

First of all, that might be the definition you're using now, but it is absolutely not the definition you were using that led to this entire discussion.  You've moved the goal posts.  Noted.

No, this is my original statement ...

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only. 

The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

Anytime you want to get back to the issue of technology impacting jobs, I'm ready.

[StillAWarrior]

No, this is my original statement ...

The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

Anytime you want to get back to the issue of technology impacting jobs, I'm ready.

Putting aside the fact that you're quoting only part of your original statement, your newly truncated original statement is still ridiculously wrong.  Those UPS trucks cannot drive themselves.  Even on an interstate.  And you know this.  Everyone knows it.  We're all simultaneously amused/annoyed/worried by your inability to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

Incidentally, your constant shifting of the goal posts shows that you know you were wrong.  I suspect that is as close to an admission that we're going to get.  You made your original statement.  You were asked for a source for the whole statement -- even the sleeping in the back thing.  You shifted the goal posts and provided links to articles about just a couple of test trucks and one very short autonomous trip.  When it was pointed out that the links didn't support your initial claim, you moved on to talking about Teslas.  These initial efforts by you to focus on actual autonomous vehicles reveal that is what you were talking about.  When it was pointed out that Teslas are not semis, you started focusing on fairly common safety features that are being put in semis that are not even close to your initial autonomous vehicle claims.

Now go ahead and express your amazement that I'm still posting about this.  We've grown accustomed to that and realize that's how you concede defeat.

[mu03eng]

Autonomous vehicles are coming, of that there is no doubt. However the timeline is at least out beyond 5 years and it has nothing to do with dealerships luddites or whatever, it has to do with data.

Autonomous vehicles generate and rely on 40 terabytes of data for every 8 hours of driving. To put that into perspective a 787 flying from NYC to London(roughly 8 hours) will generate a half a terabyte of data.

There are roughly 87,000 commercial flights a day in the US, which would generate 43.5 petabytes of data; it's probably lower than that, as flights are shorter and less data intensive they the latest model 787 but it provides a good marker. If we translate that into the number of autonomous vehicle hours supported by that data payload it works out to roughly 1,087 vehicles on the road if they average 4 hours of travel each day.

Let's put another marker, it's been estimate that all of YouTube requires roughly 400 petabytes of a data a year to stay up and running. The average American drives 1.4 hours a day (511 hours a year conservatively) which means roughly 20 petabytes of data a year per car. So 20 cars could be supported on the data storage that supports all of YouTube.

It's estimated that Google has 15 exabytes of data storage available to it in 15 data centers around the globe. That's a million terabytes which would be consumed in an hour if 200,000 autonomous cars were driving.

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.

[StillAWarrior]

The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

That's getting close to an admission you were wrong (albeit blaming someone else).  Progress.  Good work.

However, if you're being honest, I do think you know how many have done it.  None.  You know as well as I do that if those UPS drivers leave the wheel they're going to crash pretty quickly.  You also know that the test drivers in the truly autonomous vehicles stay at the wheel during the tests.  What you described in your initial statement is surely coming.  And soon.  It's just not here quite yet.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

So, how about that minimum wage?

[StillAWarrior]

Autonomous vehicles are coming, of that there is no doubt. However the timeline is at least out beyond 5 years and it has nothing to do with dealerships luddites or whatever, it has to do with data.

Autonomous vehicles generate and rely on 40 terabytes of data for every 8 hours of driving. To put that into perspective a 787 flying from NYC to London(roughly 8 hours) will generate a half a terabyte of data.

There are roughly 87,000 commercial flights a day in the US, which would generate 43.5 petabytes of data; it's probably lower than that, as flights are shorter and less data intensive they the latest model 787 but it provides a good marker. If we translate that into the number of autonomous vehicle hours supported by that data payload it works out to roughly 1,087 vehicles on the road if they average 4 hours of travel each day.

Let's put another marker, it's been estimate that all of YouTube requires roughly 400 petabytes of a data a year to stay up and running. The average American drives 1.4 hours a day (511 hours a year conservatively) which means roughly 20 petabytes of data a year per car. So 20 cars could be supported on the data storage that supports all of YouTube.

It's estimated that Google has 15 exabytes of data storage available to it in 15 data centers around the globe. That's a million terabytes which would be consumed in an hour if 200,000 autonomous cars were driving.

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.

Interesting information.  Thanks.  That is an aspect of the movement to autonomous vehicles that I hand't spent a lot of time thinking about.

[ATL MU Warrior]

What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years.

My God, you need to educate yourself on basic safety features currently available in cars. 

Anti-collision DOES NOT mean that the driver doesn't need his hands on the wheel or his feet on the pedals.  It means that if the driver doesn't react to an imminent crash, the vehicle will attempt to avoid it autonomously.  The car does not even remotely come close to driving itself.  Lane assist is if the car senses you drifting out of your lane, it responds either with a buzzer in the seat or by a corrective steer.  My $30,000 sedan has adaptive Cruise Control, which automatically adjusts speed if a slower car is in front of me.  I promise you I still need to keep my hands on the wheel.

None of these things are even remotely in the same universe as autonomous driving which is why nobody takes you seriously...

Oh, and I will bet whatever you like that in 5 years Ford is still selling the vast majority (you can define what that means -- at a minimum it's 90-95%) of it's cars via the traditional dealership model.  You don't have the first clue what it will take in terms of $$ and time to unwind it.

[ATL MU Warrior]

So, how about that minimum wage?

Who cares?  Cars are more fun to argue about 

[StillAWarrior]

My God, you need to educate yourself on basic safety features currently available in cars. 

Anti-collision DOES NOT mean that the driver doesn't need his hands on the wheel or his feet on the pedals.  It means that if the driver doesn't react to an imminent crash, the vehicle will attempt to avoid it autonomously.  The car does not even remotely come close to driving itself.  Lane assist is if the car senses you drifting out of your lane, it responds either with a buzzer in the seat or by a corrective steer. 

Neither of these things are even remotely in the same universe as autonomous driving. 

See, I didn't know that they were making corrections -- I thought they were just alerts.  The car I drive merely alerts when you leave the lane, but it's a couple years old (and not very expensive).  So, some of my comments above may have been wrong.

However, I stand by my statement that these fairly common safety features are not in the universe of autonomous driving.  I'd also invite Heisy to drop into Bendix's website (the company that UPS is using per the article) and see their description of their system.  It's purely an adaptive cruise control and braking feature.  There is no mention of steering.  However, UPS might well have something along those lines too...it's just not mentioned in the article.  Edited to add:  Bendix has another system that does provide a "rumble strip" alert when a truck is drifting from a lane.  So, UPS drivers who decide that their trucks are "autonomous" will receive an alert before they crash.  Good to know.

[ATL MU Warrior]

See, I didn't know that they were making corrections -- I thought they were just alerts.  The car I drive merely alerts when you leave the lane, but it's a couple years old (and not very expensive).  So, some of my comments above may have been wrong.

However, I stand by my statement that these fairly common safety features are not in the universe of autonomous driving.  I'd also invite Heisy to drop into Bendix's website (the company that UPS is using per the article) and see their description of their system.  It's purely an adaptive cruise control and braking feature.  There is no mention of steering.  However, UPS might well have something along those lines too...it's just not mentioned in the article.

I don't know how widespread the auto-correct (I think it's called Lane Assist) steering capability is...probably not very, but it is available on the top trim levels in most of vehicles the company I work with manufactures. 

We are in agreement that Heisy either doesn't know what autonomous driving is (unlikely) or is just being disingenuous to try to "win" an internet debate. 

[rocket surgeon]

The libraries. Another example of a free service provided to the poor.

You seem to be missing the point Rocket. You have made several comments about how poor people are poor by choice and that we shouldn't help them because it encourages them to stay poor.

i briefly scanned my comments and i didn't really see anything intimating that we "shouldn't help them"  as a matter of fact, i have proposed the opposite as we already have many "safety nets" in place to help them.  one of them is within your comment-libraries.  yes libraries are one of the free services we provide.  i also posted the site that lists all the grants available and where to find them.  you may be misunderstanding  my comments as i am for helping them, NOT providing them with a lifestyle.  what i mean by that is becoming dependant upon our "free services"  they were meant as a temporary aid until they can get back on their feet. 

"poor by choice"  not sure i said that either, but rather poor by choices made maybe.  bad decisions and then claiming victim status.  politicians love this one b/c it creates a full time job=advocacy for more of our money as opposed to helping them get out of their rut

[MU82]

This back and forth is SO classically Smuggles. Even when he admits he is wrong, he isn't really admitting it. It always comes with numerous caveats that provide a way for him to double, triple, quadruple or quintuple-down on his original error-filled thesis.

Smuggles, the problem is that even when you do make good points, you're like the boy who cried wolf. You exaggerate, fib and shift the goalposts so often that your credibility is shot. Not to beat a dead horse (none of us ever do that here on Scoop!), but the AAPL thing was a great example. You have made some real good stock calls. But you were SO certain, SO forceful in your insistence that AAPL at 90-ish was a bad investment, that it damaged any good stock calls you might or might not have made.

Not one of those trucks can drive itself. "Thousands." You're a trip.