from the world's big
Elon Musk promises fleet of 1 million Tesla ‘robotaxis’ in 2020
Even if the company call pull it off, are Americans ready to trust fully autonomous cars?
- Tesla held an investor event on April 22, during which CEO Elon Musk promised the company will soon roll out a robotaxi network to rival companies like Uber and Lyft.
- Some experts say Tesla is overselling its ability to provide truly autonomous vehicles.
- About 71 percent of Americans are still fearful of self-driving cars, up 8 percentage points from 2017.
At an investor event on April 22, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made a characteristically bold promise: By 2020, the company will have a fleet of 1 million fully autonomous cars as part of a "robotaxi" network.
"I feel very confident predicting that there will be autonomous robotaxis from Tesla next year — not in all jurisdictions because we won't have regulatory approval everywhere," Musk said. "From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we'll have over a million robotaxis on the road."
Tesla owners will be able to earn money by making their cars available on a ride-hailing app similar to Uber, Musk said. The company would take a cut of the revenue – maybe 25 or 30 percent – and would also provide cars itself in areas where not enough people own Teslas.
The timeline is ambitious and potentially unrealistic, considering none of Tesla's cars are currently fully autonomous. Of course, much of the public thinks such fully self-driving are available right now. One reason? Tesla has long offered a "full self-driving capability" feature that's not yet a full self-driving feature; it can perform minor driving tasks, like guiding the car to an on-ramp, on its own, but can't yet provide Tesla owners a fully hands-off autonomous experience.
This 3D reconstruction shows the immense amount of depth information a Tesla can collect from just a few seconds of… https://t.co/xRWwHw1orG— Tesla (@Tesla)1556058270.0
Tesla removed this feature from its website in October 2018, saying it was causing too much confusion. In February, Tesla reinstated the option, and last week Musk said that all "Tesla cars being produced right now have everything necessary for full self-driving," adding that the cars would receive this capability through future software updates, which cars can receive without any needing any updates to the existing hardware. (That's provided the cars have Hardware 3 installed; Tesla said it plans to install the new hardware for free in cars owned by customers who had purchased the full self-driving feature.)
Still, some experts say it's an unrealistic promise that's perpetuating consumer confusion.
"Claiming its vehicles will soon be 'feature complete' for full self-driving is one more step in the unconscionable practices that Tesla is already engaged in with Autopilot — overselling its capabilities and reliability when marketing its vehicles and then blaming the driver for not reading the manual and paying constant attention when the technology inevitably fails," Dean Pomerleau, of Carnegie Mellon University, who once rode in a minivan that steered itself across the U.S., told CNN.
Are Americans ready to ride in self-driving cars?
Even if Tesla sticks to its ambitious timeline, it's unclear how many Americans will be willing to ride in autonomous cars. According to the latest American Automobile Association survey, 71 percent of Americans fear autonomous vehicles, which is about the same number as last year, and up eight percentage points from 2017.
Why is public fear increasing even though self-driving technology is ostensibly improving? It might be due in part to widely covered accidents involving autonomous cars in the past several years, suggested Greg Brannon, AAA's director of automotive engineering.
"It's possible that the sustained level of fear is rooted in a heightened focus, whether good or bad, on incidents involving these types of vehicles," Brannon said in a statement. "Also it could simply be due to a fear of the unknown."
Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?
Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: N = R* × fP × ne × f1 × fi × fc × L. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.
Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.
- A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
- Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
- Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.
A pile of recycled cardboard sits on the ground at Recology's Recycle Central on January 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images<p>A large part of the reason is speed. In a competitive market, pure players use the equation, <em>speed + convenience</em>, to drive adoption. This is especially relevant to the "last mile" GHG footprint: the distance between the distribution center and the consumer.</p><p>Interestingly, the smallest GHG footprint occurs when you order directly from a physical store—even smaller than going there yourself. Pure players, such as Amazon, are the greatest offenders. Variables like geographic location matter; the team looked at shopping in the UK, the US, China, and the Netherlands. </p><p>Sadegh Shahmohammadi, a PhD student at the Netherlands' Radboud University and corresponding author of the paper, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/tech/greenhouse-gas-emissions-retail/index.html" target="_blank">says</a> the above "pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there."</p><p>The researchers write that this year-and-a-half long study pushes back on previous research that claims online shopping to be better in terms of GHG footprints.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They have, however, compared the GHG emissions per shopping event and did not consider the link between the retail channels and the basket size, which leads to a different conclusion than that of the current study."</p><p>Online retail is where convenience trumps environment: people tend to order one item at a time when shopping on pure player sites, whereas they stock up on multiple items when visiting a store. Consumers will sometimes order a number of separate items over the course of a week rather than making one trip to purchase everything they need. </p><p>While greening efforts by online retailers are important, until a shift in consumer attitude changes, the current carbon footprint will be a hard obstacle to overcome. Amazon is trying to have it both ways—carbon-free and convenience addicted—and the math isn't adding up. If you need to order things, do it online, but try to consolidate your purchases as much as possible.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.