Uber Troubles For Uber

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

I'll disagree. I've seen and known many who have lifted themselves up and out, and others who've been lifted up and out, and still others who - no matter what is done for them - will never have the ability to get up and out.

That's not because they begin living in 20 storey house, rather than in personal cottage.
That's due to reasons which forced them to move from the personal cottage to a 20 storey house.

[LordFerret]

4 minutes ago, YNM said:

on house sizing ... those massive mansions you guys are having

I'm curious, do you consider 1505sq/ft (single level) a mansion? I don't. I find it comfortable... although I'll always wish for more storage space for, you know, junk. lol

 

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

That's not because they begin living in 20 storey house, rather than in personal cottage.
That's due to reasons which forced them to move from the personal cottage to a 20 storey house.

Give me a few examples of those reasons, if you would please.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Give me a few examples of those reasons, if you would please.

Loss of job is enough.

[YNM]

6 hours ago, LordFerret said:

I'm curious, do you consider 1505sq/ft (single level) a mansion ?

Absolutely. (This account is absolutely wrong - I miscalculated something.)

I lived through my childhood up to my teens in a house with only 72 sq m (775 sq ft) plot. It is two-storey but the second level only adds like 1/3 of the first level, and we left just enough room for the carport and tiny garden which means about 1/4 of the plot isn't really part of the house. Cramped with stuff as they might be, I loved it, it is small and easy.

Now, we (well, currently only my parents as I have moved away) have moved somewhere else where the plot is about 50% larger. Sure it is slightly better but I still miss the old one.

Edited March 25, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, LordFerret said:

I'm curious, do you consider 1505sq/ft (single level) a mansion?

How many people?
Is it a "living" area (bedrooms and other non-technical rooms) or total area (including kitchen, closets, toilets)?

1505 ft² = 140 m². Not a palace, but a large flat/house for a standard family of 4. 
2..3 times as much as appropriate, 15..20 times as much as appropriate for a Martian crew.

4 hours ago, YNM said:

I lived through my childhood up to my teens in a house with only 72 sq m (775 sq ft) plot.

A Martian training facility.

4 hours ago, YNM said:

It is two-storey but the second level only adds like 1/3 of the first level

... with a cupola.

Edited March 25, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

@kerbiloid@LordFerret@tater

EDIT to my earlier post :

It turns out my old house plot was 6*15 m (90 sq m, ~970 sq ft) and not 6*12 m (72 sq m).

My parent's current house land plot is 9*15 (135 sq m, 1453 sq ft).

So 1500 sq ft building is no mansion.

BUT I still missed the old one.

 

HOWEVER, buildings of those sizes when accompanied with lots and lots of garden areas (so land size is larger by about and above thrice the building footprint size, so a >=4500 sq ft plot) could count as mansions.

Edited March 25, 2018 by YNM

[tater]

Then I live in a sea of "mansions."

[kerbiloid]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

Then I live in a sea of "mansions."

Feel like a lord!

[tater]

If everyone is a lord, no one is a lord... which is fine by me.

[LordFerret]

I am thy LordFerret... obey and send treats to me.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by LordFerret

[LordFerret]

9 hours ago, YNM said:

Absolutely. (This account is absolutely wrong - I miscalculated something.)

I lived through my childhood up to my teens in a house with only 72 sq m (775 sq ft) plot. It is two-storey but the second level only adds like 1/3 of the first level, and we left just enough room for the carport and tiny garden which means about 1/4 of the plot isn't really part of the house. Cramped with stuff as they might be, I loved it, it is small and easy.

Now, we (well, currently only my parents as I have moved away) have moved somewhere else where the plot is about 50% larger. Sure it is slightly better but I still miss the old one.

That's ok, we're not doing rocket science here.

 

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

How many people?
Is it a "living" area (bedrooms and other non-technical rooms) or total area (including kitchen, closets, toilets)?

1505 ft² = 140 m². Not a palace, but a large flat/house for a standard family of 4. 
2..3 times as much as appropriate, 15..20 times as much as appropriate for a Martian crew.

A Martian training facility.

... with a cupola.

It's total area. As a child growing up there, occupancy was 4 people... 5 if you count my dog, which holds greater truth than you'd believe.

 

Diverting back on topic, Uber...
I was reading a few sources last night which stated Uber's AI cars were below performance, that the AI's performance was 'struggling', and that Uber knew this... but apparently did nothing about it, nor did they openly admit it to anyone. At least that's what I'm getting from what I'm reading. I'm sure today's news will hold and cover more of this, if not by Monday.

Also the notion of Toyota taking up Uber's partnering offer(?) of putting AI in its cars. I have to dig more on that one. If Toyota does run with such a thing, I know they have the ability and facilities to do it right... which just might save Uber's ass.

[LordFerret]

Looks like it's not going to be Toyota, but a company called 'Grab'.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/25/uber-is-said-to-have-agreed-to-sell-southeast-asia-business-to-rival-grab.html

So this takes Uber out of the southeast Asia market (again - their 2nd exit). I don't think Grab will have much to do with the AI self-drive aspect, just the ride-share business end of things. To me, this is a sign of Uber collecting soon to be needed capitol, and possibly a sign you're witnessing the end of Uber (and if not, certainly the end of its AI-driven idea). IMO

[YNM]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Then I live in a sea of "mansions."

You do. You really do.

9 hours ago, tater said:

If everyone is a lord, no one is a lord... which is fine by me.

 

Diverting back...

8 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Uber's AI cars were below performance, that the AI's performance was 'struggling', and that Uber knew this... but apparently did nothing about it, nor did they openly admit it to anyone.

"Public Testing".

*shudder*

8 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Toyota taking up Uber's partnering offer

Not much different IMO. Scandinavian manufacturers have been very concerned with occupant safety, but apart from possibly Top Gear creation, no manufacturers have tried such stuff for the poor sod they might hit.

Things from Japan tends to be small though.

58 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Looks like it's not going to be Toyota, but a company called 'Grab'.

Not the AI then. Grab has been a main competitor to our local contender, and they have loads more money.

Unless they're going to have AI cars down here... I really hope no.

Edited March 26, 2018 by YNM

[LordFerret]

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Loss of job is enough.

I'm sorry but 'loss of job' simply isn't enough to put one into the projects or 'poor house'. I don't know about you, but anytime I've ever lost a job I've gotten right back up and gotten another... and even at one point in my life, fed up working for others, started my own business. Then again, I suppose for some, the reason why they lost their job might have a lot to do with the straights they end up in... I would be tempted to ask what caused the job loss: drugs, alcohol, habitual tardiness, under-qualified / position dissolved, sickness / health issue, etc.? Some of them are just unfortunate, while others are simply self-inflicted... create your own hell and deal with it.

[YNM]

3 hours ago, LordFerret said:

I'm sorry but 'loss of job' simply isn't enough...

I think it's "loss of jobs" in this sense :

 

But given the current conditions, I wonder when would such stuff ever really arose.

Edited March 26, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, LordFerret said:

I'm sorry but 'loss of job' simply isn't enough to put one into the projects or 'poor house'. I don't know about you, but anytime I've ever lost a job I've gotten right back up and gotten another..

Spoiler

(Personally I live in multistorey buildings all my life, as most of people here, and would reject cottage living with all my forces (unlike many of them , lol).
Urbanization is a greater good. Our species evolution moves us from forest to village, from village to city, we should not oppose her. I have seen a lot of people moved from rural places to urban, but yet heard about none of them who wanted to return back irl, not just in words.
Watching Hollywood movies, btw, I mostly see "our parents living on farm/in a small town, we should visit our parent's home" rather than "empty cities, populated villages", btw. So unlikely American situation differs much.)

Obviously I don't mean one particular loss of job, but a situation when there is no free job to pay such bills like before.
As if any other reason forced the former agricultural workers and peasants move to the cities we know.
As if any other reason makes people close their business in a town and move to a city.

[YNM]

31 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Urbanization is a greater good.

Not really. Urbanization means increased need of built environment. Urbanization means a basic need to transport something from as far as needed. There's also the problem of most urban areas being located in relatively fertile lands, leaving behind less desirable lands to do other things.

 

It is true, however, that all the modern wizardry we have at our disposal only arose because urbanization happens, and for some of them, they absolutely needs one to even exist.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

Urbanization means increased need of built environment.

Urbanization means 10 kilometers of street instead of 100 km of rural/suburban road. And an order of magintude lesser amount of pipes, wires, etc.
Because instead of driving 20 km more, you just have to lift the goods 20 meters up.
It allows to carry goods 10 times closer and faster, quickly diversify .routes, customers, and providers.

Edited March 26, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Urbanization means 10 kilometers of street instead of 100 km of rural/suburban road.

No urbanization means rural roads everywhere, no motorways for goods vehicle needed.

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And an order of magintude lesser amount of pipes, wires, etc.

If anything, you just need tiny power generation and water collection in each settlement.

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Because instead of driving 20 km more, you just have to lift the goods 20 meters up.

But you need to collect the vegetables from hundreds of miles. Not the case in small settlements with fields around them.

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It allows to carry goods 10 times closer and faster, quickly diversify .routes, customers, and providers.

Which you need none of in a small settlement.

Here's an example. Just small things like that distributed evenly all over the world.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

No urbanization means rural roads everywhere, no motorways for goods vehicle needed.

?

Spoiler

 

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

If anything, you just need tiny power generation and water collection in each settlement.

And thousand of these smalls for thousand settlements. While a single but a thousand times bigger facility is almost always cheaper, mass production law and square-cube law.

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

But you need to collect the vegetables from hundreds of miles.

1. Just several percents of population are required for this if farming is mechanised.
2. Former "peasants" are in fact workers servicing urban machinery, using urban fertilizers, urban fuel, consuming urban everything. They are just living near the plowland, so that's they who do this.

While village was feeding city there was hunger every several years.
Since ~1930s-1960s city feeds village.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

No, this.

8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

While a single but a thousand times bigger facility is almost always cheaper, mass production law and square-cube law.

No need for massive unsightly windfarms, just a single windmill. Or even better, PVs as roofs.

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

1. Just several percents of population are required for this if farming is mechanised.

Still needs to transport it afar.

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Since ~1930s-1960s city feeds village.

Because everything is bloody imported.

[kerbiloid]

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

32 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

No, this.

I'm afraid typically this.

Spoiler

and this

Spoiler

 

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

No need for massive unsightly windfarms, just a single windmill. Or even better, PVs as roofs.

?
An energy plant (hydro, coal, oil, nuclear) and a power network across the country.
It's much easier to put several thick megavolt cables to several big cities than loose electricity spreading it around or making placebos like windmills and solar panels.

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

Still needs to transport it afar.

1. Most of technological processes run compactly inside urban areas. And their resources don't require long travels.
2. It's much easier to deliver huge portions of good between several big cities and then spread them around, than have a peer-to-peer trading network between countless villages.

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

Because everything is bloody imported.

From urban areas in another country.

Upd.
And btw those huge portions of goods are delivered by railroad, which is much cheaper than carry them by trucks.
You can't put a railroad to every village.

Edited March 26, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

From urban areas in another country.

What, do you mean people are having vineyards in the middle of Paris ? Do you think your wheat cames from St. Peterburg basilica ? Your beef from Kremlin ? Our rice from the National Monument (or truer to the imports, Thai palaces) ?

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

An energy plant (hydro, coal, oil, nuclear) and a power network across the country.

You're lost mate.

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

You can't put a railroad to every village.

And you don't have to !

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, YNM said:

You're lost mate.

I don't think so.

32 minutes ago, YNM said:

What, do you mean people are having vineyards in the middle of Paris ? Do you think your wheat cames from St. Peterburg basilica ? Your beef from Kremlin ? Our rice from the National Monument (or truer to the imports, Thai palaces) ?

I mean that Chinese facilities makng goods are placed in million(s) people cities, rather than in on-road workshops.
And Turkish peasants do not cultivate ground with oxes and harrows, but with city-made machinery. They feed these "oxes" not with straw, but with city-made petrol. They fertilize the ground not with manure, but with city-made fertilizers. And unlikely they wear self-made shirts and sandals, they buy city-made clothes in a shop.

They even use seed material created by city laboratories.

(And they sell their goods mostly to city customers).

Edited March 26, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

@kerbiloid

Imagine a stone-age village.

They didn't need to have any form of connection to other villages; They are self-sufficient.

 

Obviously bad stuff happens - and I think that is the point of a larger "system" (large villages - town, large towns - cities). Because they relies on a geographically spread areas, it is less likely for disasters to struck the whole thing alltogether. This need for a more redundant, more reliable systems makes for large cities, and in a sense, nations.

But you could still live with that old technology.

Obviously, more efficient means are needed, which gave to the rise of modern technologies.

 

So while on a personal scale a town seems terrifying compared to small villages, on larger scales they are better.

 

Until we hit their limits, just like all the crumbled civilizations.