https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/...e_code=1.XlA.eD2h.V_fwMhZoHIa1&smid=url-share
Robot Taxis Stop in Traffic in Chinese City, Stranding Travelers

China’s regulators told automakers in early December to delay their plans for the sale of cars with a wide range of self-driving features. The authorities pulled back following a crash of a Xiaomi SU7 a year ago killed three women, all university students. The car disengaged from self-driving mode and asked the driver to take control of the vehicle one second before it hit a concrete construction barrier at 72 miles an hour.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/4-t...ocial&utm_campaign=insider-realtesla-sub-post
4 Tesla owners react to their FSD dreams getting crushed: 'It feels like a bait and switch'

Some Hardware 3 owners are done waiting for the software they paid thousands of dollars for years ago.

Tesla is already facing several lawsuits in the US from owners who say they were misled by the company's FSD marketing, and the backlash is starting to go global.

Earlier this month, Tesla finally received the green light to launch FSD in the Netherlands, marking the tech's debut in Europe after a yearlong campaign to woo regulators.

However, the rollout in the Netherlands excluded Hardware 3 owners, prompting Mischa Sigtermans, an executive at Amsterdam-based Ryde Ventures, to start a website to gather European Tesla owners for potential legal action.

 

 

Does Waymo have any accountants on staff? Or are they AI, too?

 

I wholeheartedly believe I will see this in my lifetime, assuming I have a couple decades left. (Self-driving, not flying!)

The way I see it, the technology to accomplish it is essentially here already. Some refinements may be needed, but no breakthroughs. Computers are plenty powerful already and there are enough sensors and what-not that nothing critical awaits discovery, to enable automated driving.

There are 3 hurdles I see: 1) Liability, 2) The transition phase - during which there is less than 100% automation, and 3) Societal momentum.

If you hand over any driving function to an automated system, there is a shift in liability. If an accident happens while the car is in charge, the driver can rightly claim he his not responsible. So handing over functions to automation is going to be dictated by insurance companies. Suppose the insurance company is looking at an automated braking system. Initially they would probably refuse to pay any claims that might possibly be related to using such a system. Over time they realize that the automated system is superior to human drivers, and the situation reverses. If your car has automated braking and you have an accident while not using it, the insurance company will shrug its shoulders and say, "what the hell were you thinking, controlling the brakes yourself?". How dare you.

The day will come when driving manually will be equated with driving drunk. You're placing other drivers at unnecessary risk and you will be removed from the road.

The transition phase will be hard to get through. A driver needs to be either in full command or not. You can expect a driver to have no input for an hour and then jump in to prevent an accident in a fraction of a second. So I think we'll see a lot of automated assistance to drivers before we actually turn the driver into just another passenger. This period will also be needed to let people become accustomed to the technology.

The average car on the road in the U.S. is 11 years old. So even a full shift to a new technology today won't be fully implemented for a decade or more. Accepting the transition will probably be a generational issue and take 2-3 decades to complete.

What do you consider 'refinements' versus a 'breakthrough'? I was a Track & Field Sprinter (400 meters, 200 meters, and 100 meters) during all of my Junior High and Senior High years. So, I understand your 3 hurdles analogy.

"In the words of a twenty-first century Lloyd's underwriter, 'insurance is the mortar between the bricks of commerce'. It provides contingent capital which is transformed into cash in times of crisis, allowing entrepreneurs and companies to trade with smaller quantities of conventional capital than are prudently necessary in their particular, perilous trading environments. In so doing, insurance transforms many of the uncertainties of capitalism into fixed costs. Further, it does so remarkably efficiently, a fact confirmed by its surprising resilience, and by the steadiness of its structure. As this volume shows, the basic instrument of premium-based marine insurance remained almost identical over the entire four-century period covered by the contributors, beginning about four hundred years before Lloyd's emerged as a distinct, branded insurance market in 1769. Today underwriters there, elsewhere in London, and in the other marine insurance centres of the world trade in a financial product which continues basically unchanged from that which was used centuries before, right down to the wording of the contract, called a policy" (p. 3, Leonard).
MARINE INSURANCE: Origins and Institutions, 1300-1850, edited by A.B. Leonard, Palgrave Studies in the History of Finance Series, 1st ed. 2016 (9 Nov. 2015), Palgrave Macmillan, 337 pages, ISBN: 978-1137411372.

Insurance companies do not trust people to fix problems themselves because that would destroy insurance risk mitigation, minimization, and management, right? How does a (self-driving) automated driving vehicle not equate to drunk driving and placing others at unnecessary risk? If an automated vehicle crashes, does it remove itself from the road and fix its own brakes? Would that not increase insurance risk and policy claims in both cases? Furthermore, if the driver has no input for an hour, and then jumps in to prevent an accident in a fraction of a second, would that not show the superiority of man's intelligence over a self-driving machine? Would the automated vehicle lock itself to prevent man from jumping into it in the fraction of a second? How do you know it takes a fraction of a second to jump in? Have there been actual studies testing and proving this real-life scenario? And, how much mining occurs to produce and maintain one of these (self-driving) automated vehicles?

 

Depends on a few factors, you can't leave stuff in shared cars and the robot car may be full of other people's rubbish or worse. On the other hand you may be able to order a vehicle to suit your needs, e.g. a single seater for commuting and a van for moving large volume items

Good point about not leaving stuff "in shared cars and the robot car may be full of other people's rubbish or worse." This reminds me of the Uber car situation I looked into 15 years ago, when I rented a townhome in Dorchester Center, MA while taking campus classes at Northeastern University for the Yellow Ribbon GI Bill Program. I was tempted to order a vehicle to suit my needs because I was in the process of looking for another apartment rental. The deal breaker for me was the background check.

 

I think if the human is no longer the driver, there will be much less interest in owning the car, as opposed to paying for a ride when you need one. Suppose I have an app on my phone that I could tell I need a ride. If I could rely on a robot car coming along within a few minutes, why would I pay to keep my own car? I'm not just talking about a city with cabs, I'm talking about even out here in the rural areas.

Interesting points. I am not convinced that there would be "much less interest in owning the car, as opposed to paying for a ride when you need one." When I flew to Boston, MA for a week long vacation (after permanently leaving the military in October 2010) to scout out apartments and the campus during Veteran's Day weekend, I learned that walking from point A to point B is actually faster than waiting on a robot car and public transportation. Even with WiFi in the city, there are connectivity problems. I experienced connectivity issues with my laptop trying to connect to the Borders bookstore wirelessly on the street. I ended up using the wireless service inside of Borders. The connectivity issue would be much worse in the rural areas because WiFi has significant signal problems in the forested areas.

 

Interesting points. I am not convinced that there would be "much less interest in owning the car, as opposed to paying for a ride when you need one." When I flew to Boston, MA for a week long vacation (after permanently leaving the military in October 2010) to scout out apartments and the campus during Veteran's Day weekend, I learned that walking from point A to point B is actually faster than waiting on a robot car and public transportation. Even with WiFi in the city, there are connectivity problems. I experienced connectivity issues with my laptop trying to connect to the Borders bookstore wirelessly on the street. I ended up using the wireless service inside of Borders. The connectivity issue would be much worse in the rural areas because WiFi has significant signal problems in the forested areas.

Interesting
Does USA not have universal mobile phone data ?

 

Interesting
Does USA not have universal mobile phone data ?

I know there are dead spots still here in Florida. But no one lives there (woods and swamp).

T-Mobile now allows texting over StarLink with a modern phone for a monthly fee.

 

Interesting
Does USA not have universal mobile phone data ?

From my understanding, no, "the U.S. does not have universal mobile phone data coverage, as access varies by region and demographic. While most Americans have smartphones and broadband internet, lower-income households are less likely to subscribe to home broadband, indicating disparities in access." (Pew Research Center)



"Mobile Phone Data Coverage in the U.S.
Overview of Coverage
The United States does not have universal mobile phone data coverage. Access to mobile data varies significantly based on geographic location and demographic factors.
Factors Affecting Coverage

• Regional Disparities: Some areas, particularly rural regions, may have limited or no mobile data service.
• Demographic Differences: Access to mobile data is influenced by income levels. Lower-income households are less likely to subscribe to home broadband, which can correlate with limited mobile data access.

Current Statistics

• Smartphone Ownership: Most Americans own smartphones, but this does not guarantee equal access to mobile data services.
• Broadband Subscription: While many have broadband internet at home, disparities exist, particularly among lower-income groups.

This indicates that while mobile technology is widespread, it is not uniformly accessible across all segments of the population in the U.S."



"Explore More

The best mobile phone data coverage in the U.S. varies by carrier, but generally, Verizon offers the most reliable overall coverage, while T-Mobile leads in 5G coverage and experience. AT&T provides a balanced option, particularly strong in urban and business areas. For specific regions, check the latest coverage maps from each carrier or use tools like the FCC map for detailed comparisons.(wilsonamplifiers.com; timetransfers.com)

Lower-income Americans are increasingly relying on smartphones as their primary means of internet access, with 27% of adults earning less than $30,000 a year using smartphones only for internet connectivity, a significant rise from 12% in 2013. In contrast, wealthier households are more likely to have multiple devices and broadband services, highlighting a growing digital divide based on income levels. (Pew Research Center; apptegy.com)

Limited mobile phone data coverage in rural communities can hinder economic development, reduce access to essential services, and exacerbate digital exclusion. This lack of connectivity can also delay emergency responses and limit opportunities for residents and businesses. (totemtowers.com; alumatower.com)"

 

I know there are dead spots still here in Florida. But no one lives there (woods and swamp).

T-Mobile now allows texting over StarLink with a modern phone for a monthly fee.

Interesting. Did you know that texting uses electric poles/ phone lines to send messages? In addition, I just heard that Tesla/ Starlink's CEO, Elon Musk, is one of 14 technology CEOs who met with President Trump and Xi in China to sell America's farmland to China. T-Mobile's satellite-powered texting capabilities involves the use of a telephone handset that communicates directly to satellite systems interfacing with the PTSN. (https://www.gl.com/pstn_network.html)

 

T-Mobile's satellite-powered texting capabilities involves the use of a telephone handset that communicates directly to satellite systems interfacing with the PTSN.

That's what I said.

 

Hello,

From a dutch magazine:
https://www.ad.nl/auto/tesla-rijder...stic-poppen-auto-denkt-dat-je-oplet~ad14a0e6/

Translation:
Tesla drivers trick autopilot with plastic dolls: car thinks you are paying attention

Tesla drivers in China have found a remarkable way to bypass their car's safety checks. For a few tens of dollars, they buy small plastic heads of celebrities that are placed in front of the camera inside the car.

Erik Kouwenhoven

June 16, 2026, 06:15 Last update: 08:07

As a result, the system thinks the driver is looking alertly at the road, while in reality, they are sitting on their phone or even taking a nap. In any case, they are not doing what is explicitly intended, namely paying attention to ensure the Full Self Drive system does not make any mistakes. The trick was widely shared on social media last week.

Miniature heads of, among others, actor and former wrestler Dwayne Johnson are being offered on Chinese online stores for the equivalent of 10 to 40 dollars. The figurines are attached near the rearview mirror or against the windshield, exactly where Tesla’s interior camera expects to see the driver's face. System no longer issues warnings

Tesla uses this camera to check whether drivers are paying sufficient attention to traffic. If someone looks away for too long, the system issues warnings and can disable driver assistance functions. Tesla's most advanced self-driving features are not yet available in China; therefore, drivers must always remain actively attentive.

Bertus

 

arnt humans great at finding new ways to put themself in danger !
why would you do this ?

 

arnt humans great at finding new ways to put themself in danger !
why would you do this ?

Hi dr.
I don't mind humans putting themselves in danger, with a bit of luck they will take themselves out, it is when their stupid actions put the rest of us in danger is what I object too.

You ask: why would you do this ?

The answer is simple, we as humans, carry a high number of stupidity genes in our makeup.

One basic assumption we have, is that we are exempt from the laws and restrictions that apply to others.

E

 

arnt humans great at finding new ways to put themself in danger !
why would you do this ?

This has been going on for a long time although nobody took notice because it was not considered "dangerous".
Engineers for a long time have been 'assuming' what is better for humans in almost all areas of consumer products. They were not dangerous though because it was just a matter of built in settings for things that don't pose any real danger to humans, just annoying. Then when software started to take over, forget it, now we have to wade through a ton of stupid stuff like creating a 'new' account with 'new' password just so you can use the stupid thing, and some firmware that does not allow you to do simple things with the product that anybody might want to do. I've seen so much stupid stuff that I wonder why I buy anything new anymore.

I just got a new weigh scale yesterday and it wants me to log onto their website and create a new account and log in with a new password. It's a friggin' weigh scale that measures body weight so you can monitor over time.
I just returned TWO step monitors that want you to walk like an elephant in order to be able to detect your steps. There are 100 settings and 'features' so you can check all kinds of stuff, BUT, it MUST be able to detect your steps otherwise you get NOTHING at all. Of course it can't do that because they did not think to add a sensitivity adjustment so you can adjust it to be a little more sensitive. The first one I got was not able to detect the steps properly, so I sent it back, the second one did the same thing, sent that back too. The third one was a little better but a different model. I got a cheaper one and it was sensitive enough, but the display did not work right it was missing one segment in the 7 segment LCD. When does this nonsense end? Apparently never.

I could go on and on for another hour at least, but I don't want to boar you anymore and you probably all know a lot of this already.

On a related note, the moon probe that was supposed to land on the moon (somewhat recently but not that recently) crashed because of some assumption the engineers made. That's now another pile of junk on the moon.

It's no wonder why we have not yet been contacted by higher intelligence life forms in the universe, it's because the know better
Either that, or they watch us and can't stop laughing long enough to start the trip out here.

 

Either that, or they watch us and can't stop laughing long enough to start the trip out here.

No, they're sitting in their ship on the launch pad trying to figure out how to launch without a Microsoft login.

Why is it assumed that -- if there's other intelligent life in the universe -- we're the dumbest?

I posit we should at least be within a sigma or so of average.

 

No, they're sitting in their ship on the launch pad trying to figure out how to launch without a Microsoft login.

Why is it assumed that -- if there's other intelligent life in the universe -- we're the dumbest?

I posit we should at least be within a sigma or so of average.

That's because the idea that the universe is maybe 14 billion years old and Earth has only been here for 4 billion, and mankind has been here for maybe only 200 thousand years, and for 180 thousand years we were probably dumb anyway with little or no scientific research, and Einstein's relativity was only around for less than 200 years, a tiny fraction of that 200,000 years. If there happened to be 'mankind' on another planet way out there somewhere and they were around for just 400000 years, they would be at least 100 years ahead of us, which is easy to imagine. Sure, there could be cavemen out there too (ha ha) but with the age of the universe and how things formed before we got here, it is likely that if there is intelligent life out there that it is more advanced. Their planet could have been around for 8 billion years.

 

That's because the idea that the universe is maybe 14 billion years old and Earth has only been here for 4 billion, and mankind has been here for maybe only 200 thousand years, and for 180 thousand years we were probably dumb anyway with little or no scientific research, and Einstein's relativity was only around for less than 200 years, a tiny fraction of that 200,000 years. If there happened to be 'mankind' on another planet way out there somewhere and they were around for just 400000 years, they would be at least 100 years ahead of us, which is easy to imagine. Sure, there could be cavemen out there too (ha ha) but with the age of the universe and how things formed before we got here, it is likely that if there is intelligent life out there that it is more advanced. Their planet could have been around for 8 billion years.

Imagine where humanity would be today if the ancient Greeks had continued on their path of enlightenment (from which Western Civilization had its start).

I suspect all intelligent civilizations had their ups and downs and rocky starts.

Aside from that, life requires at least a couple of generations of stars (from formation thru supernova) to create the right mix of heavy matter from which to develop. This narrows the window a bit.

 

Imagine where humanity would be today if the ancient Greeks had continued on their path of enlightenment (from which Western Civilization had its start).

I suspect all intelligent civilizations had their ups and downs and rocky starts.

Aside from that, life requires at least a couple of generations of stars (from formation thru supernova) to create the right mix of heavy matter from which to develop. This narrows the window a bit.

"Hey, Grok: Why did human intellectual progress pause after the Ancient Greek Civilization? Where would humanity be today if they continued their efforts on pace?"

Human intellectual and scientific progress did not truly "pause" after Ancient Greek civilization (roughly the Classical period, ~5th–4th centuries BCE); that view is a common oversimplification rooted in a Western-centric focus on the post-Roman "Dark Ages" in Europe.


Progress continued, shifted, and sometimes slowed due to political, economic, social, and cultural factors, but it built on Greek foundations across regions and eras. The Hellenistic period (post-Alexander the Great, ~323–31 BCE), the Roman era, the Islamic Golden Age (~8th–14th centuries), medieval China/India, and Byzantium all saw significant advancements. The real acceleration into the modern world came later with the Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution in Europe.

Key Continuations and Achievements

• Hellenistic Era: This was actually a high point for Greek-influenced science and technology, fueled by royal patronage in places like Alexandria. Achievements included:
  • Euclid's systematization of geometry.
  • Archimedes' work on levers, pulleys, buoyancy, and mechanics.
  • Aristarchus proposing heliocentrism (centuries before Copernicus).
  • Eratosthenes accurately calculating Earth's circumference.
  • Advances in medicine (Herophilus and Erasistratus with dissections, understanding of nerves and pulse).
  • The Antikythera mechanism (an analog computer for astronomical predictions).
  • Practical tech like water clocks, odometers, and improved engineering.
• Roman and Later Periods: Romans excelled in practical engineering (aqueducts, roads, concrete, architecture) but were more applied than theoretical. Greek knowledge was preserved and transmitted via Byzantium and translated/preserved/expanded by Islamic scholars.
• Islamic Golden Age: Scholars in the Abbasid Caliphate and beyond translated Greek works (via the House of Wisdom in Baghdad), then advanced them dramatically. Key contributions: algebra (Al-Khwarizmi), optics and early scientific method (Ibn al-Haytham/Alhazen), medicine (Avicenna's Canon), refined astronomy, chemistry, trigonometry, and more. This bridged antiquity to the Renaissance.

Progress also occurred in China (e.g., gunpowder, printing, compass, bureaucracy-driven tech) and India (mathematics, zero, decimal system), often independently or with exchanges. Europe’s medieval period had universities, scholasticism, and innovations like the heavy plow and mechanical clocks, setting the stage for later breakthroughs.

Why It Felt Like a "Pause" or Slowdown (Especially in the West)

Several interconnected factors explain relative stagnation or loss of momentum, particularly in Western Europe after the Western Roman Empire's fall (~5th century CE):

1. Political Instability and Empire Shifts: Greek city-states fragmented; Alexander's empire broke into Hellenistic kingdoms that were conquered by Rome. Roman conquests disrupted some Hellenistic centers, and the Western Empire's collapse led to invasions, fragmentation, and loss of centralized patronage. Trade networks disrupted, libraries burned or neglected (e.g., parts of Alexandria).
2. Economic and Social Structures: Slavery provided cheap labor, reducing incentives for labor-saving tech. Economies were mostly agrarian with limited markets for mass production. Guilds and elites sometimes resisted disruptive innovation. Transport costs were high without advanced infrastructure everywhere.
3. Cultural and Intellectual Shifts: Over-reliance on Aristotle's authority in later periods sometimes stifled empiricism (though this is debated). Rise of Christianity in the West prioritized faith/theology over pagan science in some contexts, leading to loss of texts (though monasteries preserved some). Broader shifts toward dogma or practical survival over pure inquiry. In the East, similar dynamics occurred under different empires.
4. Knowledge Transmission Losses: Many texts were lost in the West (Latin replaced Greek); survival depended on copies and translations across civilizations. No printing press meant fragile preservation.
5. Missing Preconditions for Explosive Growth: No coal/steam-driven industrialization path readily available at scale; limited integration of theory and mass production; no widespread experimental scientific culture until later methodological advances.

Overall, it's less a total pause than uneven, decentralized progress amid cycles of empire rise/fall, with knowledge migrating (Greece → Hellenistic/Muslim world → Europe).

Counterfactual: If Greek Momentum Had Continued Uninterrupted?

This is highly speculative—counterfactual history involves many branching variables—but plausible projections based on trends:

• Faster Technological Accumulation: Sustained Hellenistic-style patronage and empiricism could have led to earlier mechanical innovations, better metallurgy, optics, and mathematics. The Antikythera device hints at proto-computing potential. Combined with Islamic/Chinese exchanges, this might accelerate navigation, engineering, and experimentation.
• Earlier Scientific Revolution: With uninterrupted building on Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, etc., heliocentrism, calculus-like math, and experimental methods might emerge centuries earlier. Printing-like tech (if diffused) would amplify this.
• Industrial-Like Breakthroughs: Possibly an earlier shift to mechanization, especially if cheap labor/slavery declined and fossil fuels or efficient water power were exploited. Rome/Greeks had basic steam devices (e.g., Hero's aeolipile), but lacked economic drivers and coal infrastructure. An "Industrial Revolution" analog could have happened in the Mediterranean or China centuries earlier, leading to sustained compound growth.
• Humanity Today: We might be centuries ahead—potentially spacefaring on a larger scale, with advanced medicine, energy, computing, and AI equivalents by now. Global population, GDP, and tech could be vastly higher due to earlier compounding (exponential growth is sensitive to start time). However, risks like earlier resource depletion, wars amplified by tech, or Malthusian traps could offset gains. Cultural/political butterflies (e.g., different religions, empires) make precise prediction impossible. Humanity might already be multi-planetary or have solved major diseases, but face new challenges.

In reality, progress is path-dependent and fragile. The actual timeline—despite slowdowns—produced the modern world through cumulative, global efforts. The Greek legacy was foundational precisely because it was revived and extended by others. Sustained peace, open inquiry, economic incentives, and institutions for knowledge-sharing seem key to avoiding pauses.