TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Stupid Smart Stuff

124 点作者 ivoflipse大约 11 年前

13 条评论

hawkharris大约 11 年前
In the 1950s, the rate of commercial plane crashes caused by human error was 71 percent. By the 1990s, with the introduction of new automated flight systems, the rate had decreased to 52 percent. [0]<p>Yes, there are horror stories about &quot;dumb&quot; transportation software that linger in the forefront of our memories. But ask yourself, What is the burden of proof for this technology? Do self-driving cars and aircraft automation systems have to work 100 percent of the time before we accept their usefulness?<p>If that&#x27;s the burden of proof, we will remain stuck with human drivers who are much more &quot;dumb,&quot; by a measure of the car accidents and plane crashes they cause.<p>The author&#x27;s argument against automation in these life-saving contexts is weak. His article would have been stronger if it stuck with points about watches and similar consumer products.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/airplane-crash-statistics/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statisticbrain.com&#x2F;airplane-crash-statistics&#x2F;</a>
评论 #7369685 未加载
评论 #7369805 未加载
评论 #7371515 未加载
awalton大约 11 年前
Taking one argument for horribly bad designed &quot;smart devices&quot; (the current generation of smart watches) and applying it to a different field altogether (airplanes and cars) is absolute utter bollocks.<p>First of all, most of all civil aviation disasters in history have been caused by human error[0] (or, in at least 4 incredibly famous examples, human intention). Yes, humans have lost their lives to technology failing, but the assertion that the pilots always are able to do something if they had just been more aware and given control of the dozens of subsystems that a commercial jet controls behind the scenes is rather ridiculous. The &quot;Shit Happens&quot; factor exists for any level of technology.<p>Or the idea that human beings can react faster than a computer can in the one or two seconds of a car accident. The same car that is able to detect the fact you&#x27;re trying to leave your lane when you accidentally fall asleep at the wheel and try to wake you up or keep you in lane, the same car that is able to fire airbags in the milliseconds after a major deceleration or impact event. The same car that prevents your brakes from locking up and tries to prevent your car from hydroplaning when you decide to speed over that puddle of water because you&#x27;re late and speed limits are just a government ploy or some other bogus Libertarian rationale.<p>People will die driving in self-driving cars. This will happen some time in the future - it&#x27;s an inevitability. But it is incredibly difficult to believe that figure will be anywhere near the scale of the ~35,000 automotive deaths per year in the United States we average now.<p>If we take the obviously huge leap to compare air travel&#x27;s legendary reliability thanks in a big part to autopiloting, equipment redundancy, regular inspections and maintenance, and so forth to self-driving cars, we&#x27;d believe the deaths to be on the order of 35 or less a year. Cars may never be that reliable due to other factors (like all of the vehicles being on the same plane of travel), but it&#x27;s still far more likely to be an overall win.<p>Yes, progress in technology is a horrible, horrible thing. Let&#x27;s just put our heads back into the dirt and pretend it isn&#x27;t happening.<p>[0]: <a href="http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.planecrashinfo.com&#x2F;cause.htm</a>, because everyone always asks for citations instead of spending two seconds to search for themselves.
评论 #7368776 未加载
评论 #7368683 未加载
评论 #7371313 未加载
评论 #7371457 未加载
sanotehu大约 11 年前
A great parable for how we try to make technology more human-friendly with unintended consequences.<p>I went on a road trip recently and I&#x27;ve been thinking about how advances in car technology change how we view cars. I came to a similar conclusion as Don - specifically the change from manual to automatic gearboxes has meant that people have to concentrate less on driving and can devote their attention to other things.<p>But that&#x27;s not necessarily a good thing - by getting rid of the idea that driving is an activity that requires full-time attention we are making it more unsafe because people then feel justified in paying it less attention. The reductio ad absurdum argument is the self-driving cars that he mentions at the end of the article, but this is just the end of the spectrum.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what the solution to this problem is.
评论 #7368313 未加载
评论 #7368432 未加载
ACow_Adonis大约 11 年前
&quot;If the watch was so smart, why didn&#x27;t it tell me at 9 PM that it was low on energy and that I should put it on the charger overnight.&quot;<p>A watch that needs to be put on a charger? Smart is not exactly the word I would use for such revolutionary design.<p>Presumably this is a product for the same market that wants to plug in their glasses :P
评论 #7368365 未加载
评论 #7368325 未加载
jw2013大约 11 年前
&quot;If the watch was so smart, why didn&#x27;t it tell me at 9 PM that it was low on energy and that I should put it on the charger overnight.&quot;<p>Not all people have the same sleeping pattern. While 9PM may be cool enough time to remind you to recharge the battery, it will be a disaster for other people. I think either of following will be a great feature to add: 1) auto-recognizing sleeping pattern of watch wearer (may be hard to implement); 2) just to add an option in system setting your usual sleep time.
评论 #7371020 未加载
评论 #7371241 未加载
sitkack大约 11 年前
I see so many comments here attacking the premise of the article. He isn&#x27;t attacking technology and this man has studying these things. He has he smited your God of technology?<p>If we are to design autonomic systems that are safer, better and as the article says, smarter, we need to put real thought into the unintended consequences.<p>I had a WinCE device, one of the first ones ever made. It had two fatal flaws<p><pre><code> * volatile storage, all notes, memos, calendar entries, everything was in ram * it would wake up and vibrate and turn on the backlight to tell you it was running out of energy </code></pre> Those two things in combination, meant if I left for the weekend and didn&#x27;t put it in the cradle, it would commit suicide. It would be like having a brand new fresh ipod every monday. Lovely.
suprgeek大约 11 年前
Confused Article with mixed messages - Surprised that it had so many up-votes.<p>The Author has problems with a Sony Smart-watch yet there is a picture of a Samsung Gear on the article.<p>Much of the criticism for the watch is indeed deserved - Smart Watches are more of a novelty at this point. If he had stuck with Smart Watches then this would be an acceptable and deserved criticism.<p>But he moves on to Cars and then muddies the waters with why long term attention spans inversely co-relate with automation. What does one have to do with the other? Why go ranting about unrelated points to &quot;round out&quot; the word count?
mwfunk大约 11 年前
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the article but am totally mystified as to why he was sleeping with the watch on. Maybe it was because he was testing the device and wanted to try different scenarios, but I just can&#x27;t imagine any normal user scenario that involves getting in bed and going to sleep while wearing a watch. Is this something that people do? If so, that&#x27;s the first problem right there.
评论 #7370357 未加载
评论 #7370625 未加载
Houshalter大约 11 年前
&gt;Automation has now entered the automobile. Alas, the automobile industry refuses to learn the lessons from aviation automation. The automobile engineers believe that they have solved the problems: cars will drive by themselves without any incidents. Humans will monitor the driving and if there ever is a problem, they will simply take over. In fact, the requirement for people always to monitor the self-driving automobiles is now incorporated into the law in some locations.<p>That&#x27;s a legal requirement so people can test autonomous systems - which is very important. It&#x27;s not suggesting that self-driving cars should always rely on a human to monitor them.
userbinator大约 11 年前
On the other hand (no pun intended), I think the only things at the moment that seem almost close enough to be called &quot;smart&quot; are smartphones.
jamesbrownuhh大约 11 年前
A good example illustrating that even the best and most capable hardware will be completely let down by ill-thought-out, poorly designed software.
评论 #7368234 未加载
NAFV_P大约 11 年前
This is the only <i>smart</i> device I can think of:<p><a href="http://www.briantherobot.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.briantherobot.com&#x2F;</a>
th0br0大约 11 年前
stupid smart phone