Because this would likely require a large change in city infrastructure.
Who will be building this? Who will pay for it? If it is the city how will you convince the city's taxpayers to pay for it? If it is a profit-seeking corporation, how will you convince a city to let you cause the disruption, construction, etc. to let you do this?
For other cars, what advantage does this bring to other car manufacturers and why would they agree to cooperate with competitors? Of course there is the obvious benefit that this would help all the players, but why does that marginal benefit outweigh the risk of commoditizing a brand new market / product and eliminating the chance to establish a market share lead.
I am partly raising these hypothetical questions because I think companies are trying to "tough it out" and do it without such changes to city infrastructure first and see how that turns out.
I appreciate your simple approach, but you might be disregarding the societal and business factors in favor of making the engineering challenge simpler.
Also GPS tracking systems are only accurate to about 20m, not enough to avoid hitting stuff. And transmit over the cell network so don't work if you can't get signal.
Although if you're going to be adding to infrastructure, you could just as well add differential GPS transmitters around the place and get the accuracy down to sub-1m[1] although that's still not really safe enough for cars...
[1] (and I believe you can get it down to ~3cm if you have enough data.)
Let's say your car ROMB received info about the white truck, while your car cameras and vision recognition systems see just a cloud and any truck in 100 m range.
ROMB purpose is not to replace cameras or LIDARs, but to extend gathered info.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but if I recall correctly nukes are used against Venezuela when they disagree with launching supplies to the Ark project. There are further hints of looming conflict (e.g. Ivy's fiance mentioning the nuclear sub he was in was on high alert).
I also believe there were numerous delays of supplies and disagreements even within NASA / the U.S. space program. Not too certain of all the world powers cooperating, although admittedly their cooperation on the Ark project at all may seem odd, but doesn't seem out of place with the status quo and how world powers "get along" in regards to the ISS?
It definitely is better than GP's book, where the powers that be completely fail to work together - in Seveneves, the Ark project actually succeeds!
There is definitely some conflict, I just don't think there was enough of it. Part of it may just be the fact that there's not much focus on what's happening on the ground, so we just don't hear about how it's being dealt with.
I was most conflicted about how normal people would deal with it. Eg I would expect mass riots and looting, very little of which happens according to the book - only in Venezuela apparently. And the nukes are used on their military, about a few days before everyone is going to die anyways, so I don't really see it as that big of a deal - nukes just don't mean as much in such a scenario.
I'm also surprised at there being only a single Ark project - I'd have thought at least one nation, say China, would want to strike out on their own.
Somewhat related, I remember reading some research that talked about how during natural disasters you get very little in the way of riots and looting. Rather people have a strong urge to cooperate [1].
It doesn't mention it in the linked article, but I also remember hearing that the idea that people get very violent can cause serious issues as resources go into military-police rather than relief efforts.
It makes sense when you think about it evolutionary. The groups that fell apart when the going got tough were not the ones that survived!
Thanks for the article, it makes a lot of sense. Note that in this book, the doomsday scenario is predicted to happen 2 years in the future, so it's not quite the same as a natural disaster that has already happened. So I don't think it would look quite the same in terms of violence and how we've evolved. It's more like, imagine 30% of the population suddenly lose their jobs or something like that, you could probably see riots happening today.
I'm really not an authority on this, but to answer the question of "do I need a PhD", my view is that it depends on which 'part' of HCI you want to do.
Do you want to work on Project Soli at ATAP? Which part, the actual hardware / Radio antenna design? Then a PhD in analog design might be required to be qualified. Do you want to do the signal interpretation / analysis to detect gestures? Maybe a strong background in signals, filtering or even machine learning may be required.
HCI work can involve a lot of specific specialization which often requires these research / industry giants to demand a strong testament of your qualifications. Although not required, a PhD is often an easy way for them to see that.
If it is the more 'high-level' stuff, I'm not sure, as sometime a 'PhD in HCI' itself may be required (although I don't know too much what a 'PhD in HCI' entails)
Those who are interested in some discussion about games may find extra credits youtube channel interesting.
This particular episode mentions the previous study on violent video games, and talks about how maybe video games actually help make people more empathetic:
A phone's native location capabilities (as they are currently) are limited to GPS pretty much - which is often insufficient for figuring out if a customer is inside the JC Penny or Macy's in a large shopping mall
Even better (for stores), they want to be able to see if you are walking past the Men's Shirts section and perhaps send you a notification that the specific shirt you were looking for in the past is now on sale - thus individualized local content!
I just heard of them from a friend who will be joining and I was skeptical at first. Their model seems to be to attach/install peripherals to a non- self-driving car and turn it into a self driving car. That way they can compete on a level with Google (optimistically) but don't need to manufacture vehicles.
Huh? I never said that they didn't sell breakout boards. My point is that either module is basically useless without a breakout board, which raises the cost, especially compared to the $20 Photon we were originally discussing.
Me too, but I think we'll have to keep waiting. I was one of these people who "thought I had the balls" to use piezo using this chip: http://www.linear.com/solutions/1506
Not only did this not sustain enough current, but taking up more space (doubling the size of my board) also hurt it to the point of it being too clunky (e.g. See linqet http://m.connectedly.com/linquet-review-smart-tracking-devic...)
Believe it or not, BTLE isn't a holy grail for power, batteries are still a better bet when it comes to long life. One method that might work is inductive charging, which is what the pebblebee dragon does (http://www.pebblebee.com/products/bluetooth-dragon). Also notice how big the pebblebee is too- but that's because it has many other sensors.
But yeah, there are several devices in this business, and they are all trying to do a variety of things, and energy harvesting just isn't cutting it at the moment.
Interesting idea, but I suspect there would be a lot of retailers who would vehemently oppose this e.g. Apple opposing anything that might make their customers aware of where the labor and materials to make their iPhone come from.
Your concluding statement about this knowledge affecting your choices would probably be a nightmare for these retail giants who might fight tooth and nail to stop this.
Who will be building this? Who will pay for it? If it is the city how will you convince the city's taxpayers to pay for it? If it is a profit-seeking corporation, how will you convince a city to let you cause the disruption, construction, etc. to let you do this?
For other cars, what advantage does this bring to other car manufacturers and why would they agree to cooperate with competitors? Of course there is the obvious benefit that this would help all the players, but why does that marginal benefit outweigh the risk of commoditizing a brand new market / product and eliminating the chance to establish a market share lead. I am partly raising these hypothetical questions because I think companies are trying to "tough it out" and do it without such changes to city infrastructure first and see how that turns out.
I appreciate your simple approach, but you might be disregarding the societal and business factors in favor of making the engineering challenge simpler.
Edit: grammar