its supply is extremely stable (eliminating inflation and deflation; manipulation of the money supply)
On the contrary, the stability of the supply leads to deflation when the economy grows, which is most of the time. You have more value in the economy but the same amount of money to represent that value.
I think you're thinking of diamonds, the value of which deBeers has been fiddling with pretty much forever.
Also useful in industry (though not the one DeBeers sells).
Obviously it's possible for a fire to affect the bus, but I think that probably falls into the "almost certainly" category. Slowly back a car into a school bus 1000 times and how many times do you think the bus would catch fire?
Re: Re: Re: I think the rest of us will be more reasonable.
I think a reasonable expectation is that they would be 1-2% of what they are now.
It's interesting to consider the future historical perspective. Assuming we get near 100% driverless cars, which seems very likely over time, that could save somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 lives every year just in the US. How will we view people who feared or opposed this change? If progress is artificially slowed for some reason, how many more people will die because of it? This seems like the most obvious automotive safety improvement since the seat belt (and of course the auto makers opposed that because it would make cars more expensive).
What will it take for the automotive (and other companies) to learn that hiding their failures, which inevitably come out, is worse than coming clean in the first place.
If they haven't learned by now.... every time it comes up, the calculus is, do we go public and definitely take a hit, or try to keep it secret and maybe get away with it? THIS TIME guys, we will succeed in keeping it a secret.
By allowing every automobile owner to access and copy automotive software in the name of research, the proposed exemption undermines existing research efforts and, ultimately, wrests control of such research from those in the best position to actually improve the security and safety of our automobiles: the automobile manufacturers and their suppliers, who have the utmost responsibility to ensure that vehicles are safe and secure.
It's a really bizarre claim. Are they saying that manufacturers and suppliers can't do security research until they're sure nobody else is doing it? "Wrests control"? I guess in the sense that they wouldn't be the only ones doing the research, so they wouldn't have control over all research efforts. But then they don't go on to explain what the problem with that is. Not in any way that makes sense at least.
It is valuable because people think it is. Just like other forms of money.
Gold does have some uses in industry. But as currency I think the main difference is more gold is hard to come by, or at least keeping up with the world economy by mining more gold is hard. That makes gold standard money tend to be deflationary by nature (though by no means stable as the price of gold can fluctuate), which is a bad thing. Fiat currency opponents don't seem to want to address that issue.
I don't know anything about the project, but what if it's like this?
1. Build a brain analog 2. Give it some inputs that we think might cause schizophrenia in humans 3. See if it exhibits schizophrenic behavior
Then the quality of the experiment would depend on how good the brain analog is, but it isn't circular reasoning. That is to say step 1 doesn't include programming in responses to the stimuli planned for step 2.
The worst case scenario is that your city revenues drop $100 million due to decreased fines etc, but your city costs drop $300 million because you don't need to employ as many people or buy as much equipment.
Did you reverse your numbers? That sounds like a pretty good scenario. Or are you saying the massive layoffs are a major problem?
Re: I think the rest of us will be more reasonable.
I expect more than a 50% reduction, given that computers don't get sleepy or drunk or angry, each of which are big contributors to accidents.
I expect a lot more than that. Over 90% of car accidents are due to driver error currently. There will obviously be a few caused by malfunctioning software or hardware, but there will be layers of redundancy and double checking (I hope anyway), and my feeling is that the accidents caused by autonomous cars will very rarely be fatal.
Nobody believes self driving cars will be accident or fatality free,
Unfortunately there will probably be people pushing for exactly that standard. "Even one robot car-caused fatality is too many!" Ignoring the tens of thousands of auto deaths we're suffering every year without them.