Insteon being discontinued?

[DAlter01]

53 minutes ago, kclenden said:

I often see this stated, but simply do not believe it.  Why?  Several reasons.  First, not a single manufacturer has released their driving data for independent review.  Second, even if the data supports this statement, the data that has been collected so far is for the easiest stages of driving - driving on limited access roadways.  What happens when the most difficult stages of driving start impacting the data?  Intersections.  People.  Animals.  Bad weather.

Musk says Teslas in autopilot are X% safer than human drivers and you believe him?  So did you believe him when he said you'd be able to employ your Tesla as an autonomous taxi by the end of 2020?  Did you believe him when he said five years ago that FSD would be available in a year?

As someone with a BS in Computer Science, my view of when fully autonomous cars will be available clearly falls between the extremes already espoused on here.  But beyond the technology, I haven't seen any discussion about non-technical obstacles that remain:

• Bugs or faults - Currently GM Bolt drivers aren't supposed to park their cars in their garage because of the risk of fire.  Besides being really inconvenient, it also makes it really hard to charge their car overnight which makes it difficult to drive their car.  They've been told to sit tight while GM works on a fix.  What happens when a manufacturer discovers a bug or fault that impacts all of their models and millions of people are told they can't use their car for an extended period of time?
• Terrorism - What happens when the first terrorist hacks an autonomous system and tens, hundreds or thousands of people are injured or killed and millions of people are either no longer allowed, or simply won't use their autonomous vehicles?
• Jealous husband - see terrorism.  While perhaps killing only a single spouse, the repercussions could be the same.
• Legal - Who is responsible for the actions of an autonomous vehicle?  Passengers?  Owner?  Manufacturer?  What happens when they turn on each other.  What impact will the first class action law suit by owners against a manufacturer have on people's willingness to trust their autonomous vehicle?

@Teken keeps bringing up trust as a key obstacle to adoption of autonomous vehicles and I couldn't agree more.  Believe it or not, we're in the rosy part of the autonomous vehicle development stage.  Wait until we hit some bumps and see how quickly people will turn on their driving overlords, and by doing so force government to step in.

Good point on the staticts being skewed.  That is a certainty. 

There are hurdles.  With regards to the legal side, with 50 states, several of them will pass laws that makes the liability issue tolerable enough for self driving to happen.  Other states will eventually follow. On the terrorism/hacking idea, yeah, that one might be a challenge.  They may have to run two processes simultaneously with one of the processesing being independent of the network.  Not sure how they handle that one, but the first time a car in public hands gets hacked (even if not for an accident), there will be those that panic.

No tech is perfect, there will be accidents.  Accident free will not be required before the tech gets mass adoption.  There will be lifelong holdouts but 10-20 years from now will I feel safer with an Uber/taxi driver who is a person vs an Uber/taxi driver that is autonomous, I'll take autonomous.  I've been in a taxi when the guy fell asleep while driving, etc.  To say trust is required before it is adopted is true but we trust uber/taxi/bus/plane and other drivers on the road with our lives every day.  Many of those don't deserve that trust.  

There are really bad drivers out there.  They get drunk, the fall asleep, they read/email/text while driving.  Those people are really unsafe to share the road with.  But, we do it all the time.  If the tech resolves the risks generated by those drivers does that make me safer while I share the road with them, you bet.  This is why the laws will get passed allowing it and this is why it will end up getting adopted.  

Think about all the liabilty claims companies pay for their delivery drivers, workers, etc. that are using a company vehicle.  Its many billions each year.  Once the tech is refined enough that accident decreases are confirmed, you don't think those companies will move quickly towards reducing those claims costs by having their fleets go autonomous (with human back-up)?  This will not only reduce claims costs by having fewer accidents but by being able to shift some responsibility for those accidents that do happen.  Fleets will be early adopters of the tech for these reasons.  There will be other reason such as the company having more control of the employee's time.  No longer will a company employee pull off and stop at a friends house to talk/play games/loaf on company time to the degree they can now.  

After fleet adoption and people see the safety benefits, time savings, and ultimately cost savings, the regular population will adopt it willingly starting with the young who are "invulrnerable", in their mind.   They will do it for the time savings, so they can sleep, drink, text, etc while they use transportation.

Its coming. 

[lilyoyo1]

44 minutes ago, Teken said:

I’m not confused about the topic or discussion at hand. What I have done is provide real concerns and examples of different industries that have proven it can be done.

Yet none of these industries have adopted or allowed a single mode of transport to carry the general public from A-B?!? I encourage anyone to YouTube the endless testing Boeing underwent to certify (read that again) CERTIFY!

That isn’t guessing, it’s good enough, I believe, hope. Their system and Air Bus has been rigorously tested and validated to complete all three tasks as outlined by the various government agencies that oversee air travel / transportation.

Not one taker anywhere . . .

The people who are completely confused are the smudges in the road and won the Darwin Award and no longer exists! Because these less than bright people went out of their way to ignore and circumvent a system that isn’t designed to drive unaided!

Yet you believe if the future holds vehicles have the ability to be fully autonomous that’s even better?? The only way that works is if every vehicle is the same and the infrastructure supports the same.

That will NEVER be as the vast majority of people will always be present causing untold mayhem from texting, listening, to sleeping.

To end this silly concept this time five years ago I was present at Fort Bragg and shipped to a airbase. The military had several drones now very much known to the public now (Predator) under test. The obvious goal was to see how it operated by man, programmed, autonomous.

As you noted in your little toy overall the drone was more than capable of completing very difficult maneuvers without any human interaction. The test for all intent was a success! The obvious question was the next stage of human transport.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to learn not a single soldier or commander would ever allow their peers sit in any aircraft without a human pilot! If that doesn’t nail down all the none sense about cars I don’t know what does.

You literally have hundreds of people watching a robot fly around dropping bombs, taking pictures, doing high speed maneuvers all unaided completely cut off from any satellite etc. Yet not a soul will get into a aircraft proven to autopilot from A-B???

Jesus, that’s irony . . .

Save yourself some time typing and just copy and paste your posts. You're regurgitating the same points over and over. All the downsides, I've already covered as to why in my post about perfection. 

Currently, regulations/law (as larryllix stated) require pilots, train engineers, etc. to be in place regardless of how capable a system might be, so your argument is moot. When hundreds and potentially thousands of lives are at stake, I highly doubt this will ever change. 

Once again, we do not have autonomous cars, planes, and trains. We have vehicles that are able to assist with driving requir minimal intervention. If your focus is on autonomous driving in the future, nothing changes. Laws and regulations will still require specific things. That doesn't mean they won't be capable of it. 

Generations NOW will not trust autonomy. At some point, those same Generals, Admirals, and politicians will be replaced with younger generations that grew up with the technology. At one point, there were Generals and others in charge that didn't trust computers, cellphones, and other technology. Change is hard for people....especially the older they get. It's the younger ones who grew up with the technology that ends up embracing it and ushering a new era. That'll be the case with this. 

Our instant gratification world cannot fathom how quickly things Change. 20 years ago, adaptive cruise control was a big deal for luxury vehicles. The ability to slow down with traffic was enormous. Now that's on any halfway decent car. The fact that we're arguing over self driving and autonomous shows how far we've come in such a short amount of time. With computers as powerful as they are now (and getting smaller with more power), think about where we will be in another 20 years. There's a huge difference between what my car can do now vs what the system could originally do back when first released back in 2015.

 

Besides what's in the video, the GV will automatically change speeds based on the posted speed limits and when entering/exiting curves. The crazy part is that Tesla's system is much much much more advanced than Genesis. From what I've seen, i have no doubt that things will only get better.

 

 

 

 

[DAlter01]

7 minutes ago, DAlter01 said:

Good point on the staticts being skewed.  That is a certainty. 

There are hurdles.  With regards to the legal side, with 50 states, several of them will pass laws that makes the liability issue tolerable enough for self driving to happen.  On the terrorism/hacking idea, yeah, that one might be a challenge.  They may have to run two processes simultaneously with one of the processesing being independent of the network.  Not sure how they handle that one, but the first time a car in public hands gets hacked (even if not for an accident), there will be those that panic.

No tech is perfect, there will be accidents.  Accident free will not be required before the tech gets mass adoption.  There will be lifelong holdouts but 10-20 years from now will I feel safer with an Uber/taxi driver who is a person vs an Uber/taxi driver that is autonomous, I'll take autonomous.  I've been in a taxi when the guy fell asleep while driving, etc.  To say trust is required before it is adopted is true but we trust uber/taxi/bus/plane and other drivers on the road with our lives every day.  Many of those don't deserve that trust.  

There are really bad drivers out there.  They get drunk, the fall asleep, they read/email/text while driving.  Those people are really unsafe to share the road with.  But, we do it all the time.  If the tech resolves the risks generated by those drivers does that make me safer while I share the road with them, you bet.  This is why the laws will get passed allowing it and this is why it will end up getting adopted.  

Think about all the liabilty claims companies pay for their delivery drivers, workers, etc. that are using a company vehicle.  Its many billions each year.  Once the tech is refined enough that accident decreases are confirmed, you don't think those companies will move quickly towards reducing those claims costs by having their fleets go autonomous (with human back-up)?  This will not only reduce claims costs by having fewer accidents but by being able to shift some responsibility for those accidents that do happen.  Fleets will be early adopters of the tech for these reasons.  There will be other reason such as the company having more control of the employee's time.  No longer will a company employee pull off and stop at a friends house to talk/play games/loaf on company time to the degree they can now.  

After fleet adoption and people see the safety benefits, time savings, and ultimately cost savings, the regular population will adopt it willingly starting with the young who are "invulrnerable", in their mind.   They will do it for the time savings, so they can sleep, drink, text, etc while they use transportation.

Its coming. 

For companies with fleets, it will have nothing to do with trust which seems to be the topic discussed most in the above posts.  For these companies it will be a simple math calculation.  Will there be cost savings?  When they get to the point where that question gets answered with a yes, the decision will be made to adopt. Maybe not at every company but at many.  Large scale adoption begins at that moment.  Somewhat slow at first but it starts ramping up.

[oberkc]

10 hours ago, Teken said:

Why hasn’t this marvellous technology been harnessed and used?!?

On 9/14/2021 at 8:46 AM, apostolakisl said:

Well, I would say the IDEA of the technology is to stop accidents completely.  Just that reality gets in the way so your expectations set the bar a bit lower.

I used to work in the aviation field, including UAVs and airspace access.  It has been a while, though, so I am sure things have changed.

One of the things that struck me was that the Civil and Military authorities were trying for "perfection".  They seemed to have this idea that, unless we could guarantee with absolute certainty that UAVs would NEVER "scratch paint" with another aircraft, such UAVs would not be allowed into the national airspace.  Being as good or better than human operators was not good enough.  

The authorities seemed to be focused on complete sensor coverage in all directions, having enough range to detect collision courses in time to maneuver the aircraft to avoid the collision, and no reliance on ATC.  It all sounds good until one realizes that no such ability currently exists in aircraft of any kind.  Sensors on existing aircraft (human eyes, mostly) have a very limited field of view, limited range, and tend to be shut down during major portions of flight.  In fact, studies showed that a human could NOT detect an approaching aircraft in time to guarantee avoidance of collisions.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as absolute certainty in this world, so it seemed to me that improvement in aviation safety was potentially limited by this quest for the unattainable perfection.  

My perception, also, was that the constraints for aircraft in the national airspace was primarily NOT a technology limitation.  We have unmanned aircraft landing on aircraft carriers.  Soon (if not already) aircraft will perform autonomous Air-to-Air refueling.  Landings, takeoffs, turns, and cruising are Childs play by comparison.

No...I do not believe autonomous flight to be a technology limitation. The limitating factors for "unpiloted" aircraft is more public acceptance and federal airspace regulations based upon the assumption of a pilot in command on board, along with the quest for perfection IMHO. I did not sense a lot of pushback from pilots who risked losing their job, but I suspect that would also be a factor.  I also suspect the same limitations apply to cars and trains.

 

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, upstatemike said:

So I understand the argument that Smarthome is only cutting the items that are not profitable but I'm wondering where the line is exactly? Looking today I see there are no more Toggle switches. In 2-Wire dimmers there are no more in White. Ivory and Almond are still available in single pieces but no 5 packs. Single Scene Mini Remotes are now gone. The On/Off Switch is White only now. White dimmer outlets are gone, just selling off the remaining Ivory and Almond ones. etc.

How much more do you think they will cut the product line down?

Discontinuing and out of stock are 2 different things. Here's a list of products that they will be making for the foreseeable future.

 

 

[asbril]

2 hours ago, Teken said:

My position has never been about if the new generation of vehicles will be safer. Nor am I ignoring the gobs of R&D to achieve the same.

What I have affirmed is the most basic requirements have not or will ever be present to allow this technology to roam around at scale all over the world.

Once again no less than ten Tesla drivers absolutely know the limits of the current technology. Yet stupid went out of their way to ignore and circumvent the vehicles safety features?!?

Every sector has shown people are unpredictable and will find a way to game the system. As it pertains to HA just think about the imbeciles that have automated a table saw only to cut off their own child’s arm?!?

At the lower end of stupidity is / are people insisting upon linking their voice box to their GDO?!? Only to come home to find the largest door in the home wide open and everything gone.

Better yet to sadly see a child crushed by the same!

None of these examples are fairy tales these are events that have happened because the root cause has always been mans inability to temper his ability to create vs doing so.

One of the greatest achievements of mankind was splitting of the atom. Yet again man has proven forever to do only two things well: Taking & Killing

So instead of the entire world running so called clean nuclear power. We have millions of nuclear weapons sitting and waiting to blow someone off the map! This time five years ago a thread in the Coffee Shop foretold the coming of Terminator and the end of days.

As always the less than bright summarily dismissed the whole conversation as hyperbole and tin foil hat conjecture.

Oh yeah ???

We only have robots on the streets, drones in the air, self landing drones on a aircraft carrier, self flying refuelling drones, and dog looking things that came right out of the TV show Black Mirror??

Opening doors, climbing stairs, strapped with machine guns?!?

Teken oh Teken..... I will let the ping pong be between you and @lilyoyo1

[Teken]

Save yourself some time typing and just copy and paste your posts. You're regurgitating the same points over and over. All the downsides, I've already covered as to why in my post about perfection. 
Currently, regulations/law (as larryllix stated) require pilots, train engineers, etc. to be in place regardless of how capable a system might be, so your argument is moot. When hundreds and potentially thousands of lives are at stake, I highly doubt this will ever change. 
Once again, we do not have autonomous cars, planes, and trains. We have vehicles that are able to assist with driving requir minimal intervention. If your focus is on autonomous driving in the future, nothing changes. Laws and regulations will still require specific things. That doesn't mean they won't be capable of it. 
Generations NOW will not trust autonomy. At some point, those same Generals, Admirals, and politicians will be replaced with younger generations that grew up with the technology. At one point, there were Generals and others in charge that didn't trust computers, cellphones, and other technology. Change is hard for people....especially the older they get. It's the younger ones who grew up with the technology that ends up embracing it and ushering a new era. That'll be the case with this. 
Our instant gratification world cannot fathom how quickly things Change. 20 years ago, adaptive cruise control was a big deal for luxury vehicles. The ability to slow down with traffic was enormous. Now that's on any halfway decent car. The fact that we're arguing over self driving and autonomous shows how far we've come in such a short amount of time. With computers as powerful as they are now (and getting smaller with more power), think about where we will be in another 20 years. There's a huge difference between what my car can do now vs what the system could originally do back when first released back in 2015.
 
Besides what's in the video, the GV will automatically change speeds based on the posted speed limits and when entering/exiting curves. The crazy part is that Tesla's system is much much much more advanced than Genesis. From what I've seen, i have no doubt that things will only get better.
 
 
 
 

I don’t need to copy and paste as every reply is sincere, on point, and counters every thing you’ve ever stated.

Which again you haven’t been able to negate or disprove. I don’t come into a discussion just to throw things on the wall to see if it sticks nor do I expect to change hearts or minds.

What I do and intend on doing forever is to remind people of history and the endless mistakes human continues to make!

Because a thousand years has past and we continue to prove we have untold ability to create. Yet in the same breath have no ability to hold back and abuse the same! You make it sound like what I’ve stated in endless examples to prove my position is sure guess, hyperbole, fantasy?!?

There’s nothing I’ve stated that any reasonable person can’t fact check - none.

Some of these unbelievable examples are here because again mans inability to know do vs don’t do. I don’t need a law, rule, regulation, to know walking into oncoming traffic is bad.

Nobody had to teach me yellow snow isn’t a natural snow cone much less dog sh^t in the ice isn’t a Oh Henry bar!

The rarest element in the multiverse is common sense . . .

End of line.

[Teken]

Teken oh Teken..... I will let the ping pong be between you and @lilyoyo1

I enjoy the banter and discussion because he (lilyoyo) and a few others are the very limited people who have given me pause and reflections on various topics.

If someone can provide facts to bolster their argument / position that is reasonable I’ll always listen and consider. If people offer me nothing but opinions and fantasy I just ignore them because they are just sheep.

Critical thinking is important in all aspects of life. Having a solid moral compass with values and doing the right thing is lost on this new generation that encompasses all of us today.

The difference between lilyoyo and I is he hasn’t experienced enough life to temper his enthusiasm for the current technology of EV’s.

He’ll get there trust me!

[lilyoyo1]

21 minutes ago, Teken said:

I don’t need to copy and paste as every reply is sincere, on point, and counters every thing you’ve ever stated.

Which again you haven’t been able to negate or disprove. I don’t come into a discussion just to throw things on the wall to see if it sticks nor do I expect to change hearts or minds.

What I do and intend on doing forever is to remind people of history and the endless mistakes human continues to make!

Because a thousand years has past and we continue to prove we have untold ability to create. Yet in the same breath have no ability to hold back and abuse the same! You make it sound like what I’ve stated in endless examples to prove my position is sure guess, hyperbole, fantasy?!?

There’s nothing I’ve stated that any reasonable person can’t fact check - none.

Some of these unbelievable examples are here because again mans inability to know do vs don’t do. I don’t need a law, rule, regulation, to know walking into oncoming traffic is bad.

Nobody had to teach me yellow snow isn’t a natural snow cone much less dog sh^t in the ice isn’t a Oh Henry bar!

The rarest element in the multiverse is common sense . . .

End of line.

What are you talking about? I've already stated every argument you're making now. The only thing we differ on is whether it'll be possible. Just because something may be done for safety doesn't mean it's not possible

[carealtor]

13 minutes ago, Teken said:

Critical thinking is important in all aspects of life. Having a solid moral compass with values and doing the right thing is lost on this new generation that encompasses all of us today.

So true.

[Teken]

What are you talking about? I've already stated every argument you're making now. The only thing we differ on is whether it'll be possible. Just because something may be done for safety doesn't mean it's not possible

Never have I stated if it’s possible. I will once again state (affirm) it should not be done!

Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should!

[DAlter01]

11 hours ago, Teken said:

I’m speaking about a train carrying all manor of cargo primarily. Next is the same using the same RR tracks. There isn’t a single train that doesn’t have human present.

Teken, I took a ride on a TGV in France not long ago.  There was a human conductor.  His role, I'm sure, was to push the start button.  He also might have given the command to accelerate at the start and decelerate at the end.  Though, I'm sure there was a safety loop that would have caused a deceleration at the end if he wasn't paying attention.

After the button push to start we accelerated to well over 200 MPH.  What good was the conductor then?  Could he have used his five senses or his brain in order to avoid a crash, no.  Safety was entirely in the hands of the computers.  I don't know why they have a conductor on the train.  Was I safer with him on board more than any other type of indepenent redundant safety system?  No.  He was there for window dressing to help people that can't think about the risks, the process, etc. to feel comfortable.

That too will change in time and the conductor will become obsolete someday.  However, that is probably more of a union issue than anything. 

[Teken]

Teken, I took a ride on a TGV in France not long ago.  There was a human conductor.  His role, I'm sure, was to push the start button.  He also might have given the command to accelerate at the start and decelerate at the end.  Though, I'm sure there was a safety loop that would have caused a deceleration at the end if he wasn't paying attention.
After the button push to start we accelerated to well over 200 MPH.  What good was the conductor then?  Could he have used his five senses or his brain in order to avoid a crash, no.  Safety was entirely in the hands of the computers.  I don't know why they have a conductor on the train.  Was I safer with him on board more than any other type of indepenent redundant safety system?  No.  He was there for window dressing to help people that can't think about the risks, the process, etc. to feel comfortable.
That too will change in time and the conductor will become obsolete someday.  However, that is probably more of a union issue than anything. 

Sure, just like every aircraft in the skies today. Two people enter a destination and once the plane is up in the air the two pilots literally do nothing.

I suppose they are window dressing.

I guess when Boeing had to recall and every nation that had that plane with bad software to tell the planes up was down and vs the guy at the helm didn’t make a difference?!?

I mean literally because the pilots are no longer trained and seasoned professionals but just grown ups playing arcade game pretending to be a pilot?!? Because none of them could figure out to disengage the computer and do the only thing they were trained and hired to do - Fly!

[Teken]

I don’t know why people who are interested in this conversation don’t come on here to speak vs messaging me directly?!?

Then again that is the history of people always lurking in the sidelines with no skin in the game. Regardless, since people seem to love my endless examples of how and why human must be present. I encourage anyone to watch the movie Scully.

The basic premise is this pilot was able to safely land his jet liner on the Hudson. No lives were lost as fantastic as that may sound. While later the agency that is tasked to investigate TSB said Mr. Scully made huge mistakes and could have easily made it back to a landing strip?!?

They ran so called thousands of simulations and followed up with so called pilots to prove this could be done vs a force controlled landing in a river!

Whelps, go watch how it unfolds and how human ignored all computers and saved hundreds of people.

[DAlter01]

6 minutes ago, Teken said:

Sure, just like every aircraft in the skies today. Two people enter a destination and once the plane is up in the air the two pilots literally do nothing.

I suppose they are window dressing.

I guess when Boeing had to recall and every nation that had that plane with bad software to tell the planes up was down and vs the guy at the helm didn’t make a difference?!?

I mean literally because the pilots are no longer trained and seasoned professionals but just grown ups playing arcade game pretending to be a pilot?!? Because none of them could figure out to disengage the computer and do the only thing they were trained and hired to do - Fly!

On airplanes, trains, etc. the pilots are "independent redundant safety systems".  These safety systems sometimes work and sometimes they don't such as your Boeing pilot example.  Cars are heading down that same path to be autonomous but with independent redundant safety systems (humans).  I'm not suggesting more autonomy than that on the public roadways in the 10-20 year horizon I've articulated.  Though, the auto system will take more control with making evasive manuvers, etc.

Circling back to the Boeing example, I haven't folllowed it closely but on one of those doomed planes didn't the pilot turn off the automation several times to regain proper attitude only to turn it back on again?  I assume he did so thinking the plane knew more than him.

[Teken]

On airplanes, trains, etc. the pilots are "independent redundant safety systems".  These safety systems sometimes work and sometimes they don't such as your Boeing pilot example.  Cars are heading down that same path to be autonomous but with independent redundant safety systems (humans).  I'm not suggesting more autonomy than that on the public roadways in the 10-20 year horizon I've articulated.  Though, the auto system will take more control with making evasive manuvers, etc.
Circling back to the Boeing example, I haven't folllowed it closely but on one of those doomed planes didn't the pilot turn off the automation several times to regain proper attitude only to turn it back on again?  I assume he did so thinking the plane knew more than him.

It’s been awhile since being on the pilot forums but think you’re correct. The one instance the pilots fought their own training and followed the computer and hence the loss of life.

Thus it affirms our reliance on technology despite our ability to know better but ignore the same will be the demise of humans.

I’m going to throw another example which always comes up yet no one ever counters when the facts are presented.

Statistics / number of people . . .

Anyone who knows where this is going has their eyes on the prize. Those who don’t simply need to do some searching.

[lilyoyo1]

35 minutes ago, DAlter01 said:

Teken, I took a ride on a TGV in France not long ago.  There was a human conductor.  His role, I'm sure, was to push the start button.  He also might have given the command to accelerate at the start and decelerate at the end.  Though, I'm sure there was a safety loop that would have caused a deceleration at the end if he wasn't paying attention.

After the button push to start we accelerated to well over 200 MPH.  What good was the conductor then?  Could he have used his five senses or his brain in order to avoid a crash, no.  Safety was entirely in the hands of the computers.  I don't know why they have a conductor on the train.  Was I safer with him on board more than any other type of indepenent redundant safety system?  No.  He was there for window dressing to help people that can't think about the risks, the process, etc. to feel comfortable.

That too will change in time and the conductor will become obsolete someday.  However, that is probably more of a union issue than anything. 

The train conductor normally handles operations and safety when it comes to the train. He may also be an engineer if it's a small metro style system but at least here in the US, the conductor and engineer are separate roles. I'm with you in that at 200 miles per hour, there's not much we can do

[upstatemike]

Page 39! Let's see if we can hit 40 by the end of the day!

[MrBill]

1 hour ago, upstatemike said:

Page 39! Let's see if we can hit 40 by the end of the day!

I don't do the forum in the evenings/nights usually... I've been amazed the last two days that there are like 2.5 new pages in the morning...

[upstatemike]

10 minutes ago, MrBill said:

I don't do the forum in the evenings/nights usually... I've been amazed the last two days that there are like 2.5 new pages in the morning...

I'm not surprised at all. There is a huge amount of interest in this community in the near term viability of Insteon products and what the loss of those products would do to the future of self driving cars.

[apostolakisl]

On 9/15/2021 at 12:00 PM, Teken said:

I don’t know why people who are interested in this conversation don’t come on here to speak vs messaging me directly?!?

Then again that is the history of people always lurking in the sidelines with no skin in the game. Regardless, since people seem to love my endless examples of how and why human must be present. I encourage anyone to watch the movie Scully.

The basic premise is this pilot was able to safely land his jet liner on the Hudson. No lives were lost as fantastic as that may sound. While later the agency that is tasked to investigate TSB said Mr. Scully made huge mistakes and could have easily made it back to a landing strip?!?

They ran so called thousands of simulations and followed up with so called pilots to prove this could be done vs a force controlled landing in a river!

Whelps, go watch how it unfolds and how human ignored all computers and saved hundreds of people.

Who is to say the computer couldn't have landed in the Hudson?  Though I suppose someone would have had to OK that decision from the ground.  As it turns out, that airplane had enough altitude and velocity to land at one of the airports (I forget which one).  The computer sims showed that.  But when you allowed a human a reasonable amount of time to assess the situation, that window closed.  Had a computer been in control, it likely would have known in a fraction of a second all the options and landed at the airport.

Now, on the flip side, the Boeing debacle had several more instances where the computer tried to crash the plane but the pilots actually stopped it.  So, it goes both ways.

[upstatemike]

14 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

Now, on the flip side, the Boeing debacle had several more instances where the computer tried to crash the plane but the pilots actually stopped it.  So, it goes both ways.

Applying this to home automation this is exactly why I have a lot of voice announcements to keep me apprised of what my automation systems are doing. I don't want my Insteon devices taking the house into a death spiral without some warning and a chance to intervene.

I never did buy into the idea of "just let the automation system do it's thing without any interaction from the occupants". Just seems that approach has the potential to end badly.

[Teken]

Who is to say the computer couldn't have landed in the Hudson?  Though I suppose someone would have had to OK that decision from the ground.  As it turns out, that airplane had enough altitude and velocity to land at one of the airports (I forget which one).  The computer sims showed that.  But when you allowed a human a reasonable amount of time to assess the situation, that window closed.  Had a computer been in control, it likely would have known in a fraction of a second all the options and landed at the airport.
Now, on the flip side, the Boeing debacle had several more instances where the computer tried to crash the plane but the pilots actually stopped it.  So, it goes both ways.

No, in this specific case they were too far away and losing speed and altitude at a fast rate. If you watch the movie or better yet read the entire (corrected) information you’ll see the pilot Mr. Scully made a split decision with all the variables at play and safely landed the aircraft in the Hudson River.

Spoiler Alert: The only reason the computer simulations and test pilots knew to act was simply because they PRE KNEW!

Any fool can do X vs Y when you know something is going to happen. This incident, note I did not say *accident* because there was no loss of life or airplane and is also officially listed as incident by the NTSB.

When the test pilots and the computer systems were asked how many attempts were done with success vs failure.

The reply was X failed and only Y was successful due to the fact they PRE KNEW and began heading back toward safety which isn’t even close to reality or capability of anyone much less a computer.

Why??

Because no computer can know what to do without being programmed to do X vs Y by who HUMAN. If no such what if scenario is considered no such solution will exist to be implemented!

Regardless, that is simply one of many examples of human intervention that saved the day. In no way does it negate the facts human error is the largest factor in accidents and direct causal affect to loss of life!

Computers have a role in making our lives safer for sure. There are millions of examples of how that is but it doesn’t supersede the need for the human element to be involved or present.

[Teken]

Applying this to home automation this is exactly why I have a lot of voice announcements to keep me apprised of what my automation systems are doing. I don't want my Insteon devices taking the house into a death spiral without some warning and a chance to intervene.
I never did buy into the idea of "just let the automation system do it's thing without any interaction from the occupants". Just seems that approach has the potential to end badly.

I do the same via Julie U.S. because the all mighty@Thanatar many moons ago shared how to! None of that negates the fact some things should never be automated as I referenced to the imbecile that caused his son to lose a hand / arm!

Because he was too stupid to understand and use any common sense that placing a smart switch / outlet and never testing common scenarios like fail safe vs fail secure would operate when loss of power happened!

You have to be ten kinds of stupid just like that guy. But guess what this and other silly things are done every day around the world because humans are plain stupid. We are literally the only living thing that can circumvent the will to survive vs any other thing besides dumb animals that have a mental break down once a year.

[MrBill]

For a few hours today I thought this thread might have died, it was nearing 24 hours without a new post. ?