Read the article, that's literally the first thing they explain
Besides which, it's very obviously a train if you just look at it. It's a small monorail train specifically designed for this purpose using existing infrastructure.
These pods are only used on rails with very low ridership. They would switch to a train if ridership increased.
Look at it this way: you can have a train that has a capacity of 100 people, but it only runs once a day due to the low demand, and only 2 people want to ride it at that time of day..Or you can have 10 pods, which do not require as much railway maintenance, and they can carry the 10 people who actually want to use this railway, completely on demand.
Yeah, a train is better if you want to move ten thousand people a day at peak hour. But this is a cheaper way to move ten people at different times across a day. And it's a cheaper way of inducing the demand that would justify the more efficient kind of expansion.
Isn't it better to have a train that runs when you want rather than having to wait potentially hours for the scheduled commuter train. Isn't this better?
FUCKING DOING OUR JOB AS TRANSPORT MODELLERS AND DOING A FUCKING COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET FUCKING MODE SHIFT FROM RURAL USERS UNLESS YOU RUN A FUCKING METRO STYLE 10 MINUTELY SERVICE WHICH IS FUCKING UNFEASIBLE WITH THE FUCKING RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
IN THE FUCKING UK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FUCKING ABANDONED RAILWAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF FUCKING COAL MINING THAT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE FUCKING DEMAND NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY SETTING UP AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK SIGNALLING SYSTEM TO BRING THEM UP TO MODERN FUCKING SAFETY STANDARDS, ALONGSIDE REPLACING THE FUCKING RAILS, SLEEPERS AND BEDS.
IF INSTEAD YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING PUBLICALLY OWNED FLEET OF FUCKING ELECTRIC 'MINI TRAINS' THAT PEOPLE COULD USE FOR INFREQUENT BUT NECESSARY TRIPS, THAT COULD REMOVE A FUCKING SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MODE SHIFT, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING RAD
Yknow, I don't think anyone's ever made a bike powered version of those insane £200 electronic masturbators there are memes about these days... Eco wank anyone?
I'm very skeptical about that. It's an expensive augmented swimming device that says it's faster than fins but doesn't prove it with stats or even just a side-by-side video...?
Why would I want this as opposed to an electric one that I hold in my hands, that can zoop me across the ocean without consuming extra oxygen from physical exertion?
That raises a lot of ethical concerns. It is not possible to prove or disprove that these synthetic homunculi controllers are sentient and intelligent beings.
I think we should still do it, we probably will never understand unless we do it, but we have to accept the possibility that if these synths are indeed sentient then they also deserve the basic rights of intelligent living beings.
Slow down... they may deserve the basic rights of living beings, not living intelligent beings.
Lizards have brains too, but these are not more intelligent than lizards.
You would try not to step on a lizard if you saw it on the ground, but you wouldn't think oh, maybe the lizard owns this land, I hope I don't get sued for trespassing.
I'd wager the main reason we can't prove or disprove that, is because we have no strict definition of intelligence or sentience to begin with.
For that matter, computers have many more transistors and are already capable of mimicking human emotions - how ethical is that, and why does it differ from bio-based controllers?
It is frustrating how relevant philosophy of mind becomes in figuring all of this out. I'm more of an engineer at heart and i'd love to say, let's just build it if we can. But I can see how important that question "what is thinking?" Is becoming.
Good point. There is a theory somewhere that loosely states one cannot understand the nature of one's own intelligence. Iirc it's a philosophical extension of group/set theory, but it's been a long time since I looked into any of that so the details are a bit fuzzy. I should look into that again.
At least with computers we can mathematically prove their limits and state with high confidence that any intelligence they have is mimicry at best. Look into turing completeness and it's implications for more detailed answers. Computational limits are still limits.
I think a simple self-reporting test is the only robust way to do it.
That is: does a type of entity independently self-report personhood?
I say "independently" because anyone can tell a computer to say it's a person.
I say "a type of entity" because otherwise this test would exclude human babies, but we know from experience that babies tend to grow up to be people who self-report personhood. We can assume that any human is a person on that basis.
The point here being that we already use this test on humans, we just don't think about it because there hasn't ever been another class of entity that has been uncontroversially accepted as people. (Yes, some people consider animals to be people, and I'm open to that idea, but it's not generally accepted)
There's no other way to do it that I can see. Of course this will probably become deeply politicised if and when it happens, and there will probably be groups desperate to maintain a status quo and their robotic slaves, and they'll want to maintain a test that keeps humans in control as the gatekeepers of personhood, but I don't see how any such test can be consistent. I think ultimately we have to accept that a conscious intellect would emerge on its own terms and nothing we can say will change that.
I find it strange that many people here are against this when the alternative is a surgical treatment that often can't be easily reversed, and even when it is, often lowers the likelihood they will have a kid.
Chemical solutions are way better in that regard because if they are done right they don't damage any tissue and their affects are temporary.
Oh yeah, I'll just tell my wife that we're never having sex again because we've now got enough kids. I'm sure this will be a healthy and emotionally viable way of strengthening our relationship over the next 30 years or so until the menopause.
Fuck yes, sexual repression what a banger idea that is modern and haven't even been considered for literally thousands of years and proven abusive to exactly every human being on the planet
I'm not against it but you'd have to be crazy to trust a guy who doesn't want to use a condom because he swears he's on the pill. It seems like it opens up a wild new avenue for sexual assault.
The reality is that the consequences of sex are asymmetric. I suppose this is an interesting option for couples in a relationship though.
I don't think they really understand that there isn't much market for swimming fast, but there is a good market for swimming/snorkeling lazy, which is where this may actually exist as a product.
newatlas.com
Top