Self-flying cars can fly very fast… until they meet two obstacles: transport optimization and… other self-flying cars.
Why stop at self-DRIVING cars when we could have self FLYING ones?
- Six months ago, I wrote that “the REAL name of self-driving cars must become something like SOMT: Shared, On-Demand, Micro… TRAIN”. Today, I realized I should explain better a part of that concept, because I received on Twitter the following, sensible critique: “Well, by definition a train runs in predetermined courses. I find it hard to imagine how it could work in practice to have a transport that is both separated by pedestrians etc and does not run in predetermined courses”.
Ford has applied for a patent that would let criminals attach themselves to your vehicle and hijack you and your kids wherever they want.
- Picture this: you’re driving home from work, doing something completely useless.. No, wait: the correct, complete quote from “Cars of the Future Will Sell Your Data” is: “Picture this: You’re driving home from work, contemplating what to make for dinner, and as you idle at a red light near your neighborhood pizzeria, an ad offering $5 off a pepperoni pie pops up on your dashboard screen.“ Apparently, this picture should prompt you to ask yourself: “Are you annoyed that your car’s trying to sell you something, or pleasantly persuaded?
According to many people, a huge, if not THE main long-term problem with self-driving cars is how to write software that concretely “helps those cars make split-second decisions that raise real ethical questions”. The most common example is the self-driving car variant of the Trolley Problem: “your self-driving car realizes that it can either divert itself in a way that will kill you and save, say, a busload of children; or it can plow on and save you, but the kids all die. What should it be programmed to do?”
In my opinion, this way to look at the problem is greatly misleading. First of all…
Somebody says that it is “Time to buckle up: Why the possibilities of connected cars are endless”, because: