Systems theory seeks the rules governing the phenomena for the behavior of systems rather than individuals. It applies to birds when we see a flock of starlings and wonder why those millions of birds don't crash into each other. Chaos theory is part of that as well and that should give you some idea of how much you need to be a major brainiac to hang out with these jokers.
In a computer context, when you have a great deal of queued work for the processor, it seems your best bet is to let it all rip and the operating system software will keep it balanced. The last part is true insofar as it will keep that huge workload balanced but it's not the best or most efficient way to do it.
The above is the modern bimbo logic in which we often hear 'I am multi-tasking' but, in fact, it's just like with the computer and there's less going toward effective processing than goes toward balancing the tasks.
It was found in a classic study by The Astronomer at CITS that reducing the active workload such that each active task got more focused time was much more effective at moving the entire workload through the system (i.e. it greatly improved throughput due to the reduction in time slicing).
Note 1: in z/OS terms, you will get more work through the system by reducing the number of JES2 initiators but with a clever job class order rather than increasing them. It requires more analysis than that but the general concept is true even when it seems counterintuitive.
Note 2: The Astronomer was the bass player for The Freezebirds and previously The Screaming Skulls with Paul Delph.
Ed: The Freezebirds were the band Silas stunk up?
The same. (takes a humble bow)
The same principle is being applied to bussing the freight around the country since MIT scientists have determined that large numbers of autonomous trucks would be substantially more efficient than individual trucks can manage as a whole. (Science Daily: Driverless platoons: Analysis finds autonomous trucks that drive in packs could save time and fuel)
In short, future roads will still exist but you won't be on them.
Now MIT engineers have studied a simple vehicle-platooning scenario and determined the best ways to deploy vehicles in order to save fuel and minimize delays. Their analysis, presented this week at the International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, shows that relatively simple, straightforward schedules may be the optimal approach for saving fuel and minimizing delays for autonomous vehicle fleets. The findings may also apply to conventional long-distance trucking and even ride-sharing services.
- Science Daily
That system won't be able to tolerate Old Granny who should have stopped driving years ago because she's terrified on the Interstate highway. It only takes one Old Granny to disrupt that platoon of trucks and throw the whole schedule.
Note: the people who are dangerous in that way are not always old and you can easily spot them since they're almost always in the middle lane and they sit up close to the steering wheel, staring in terror at what lies ahead of them and panicking when anything big drives past them ... which happens all the time.
The connection is obvious relative to the situation in cities in which people are the freight and the consequence is often gridlock.
The researchers are also applying their simulations to autonomous ride-sharing services. Karaman envisions a system of driverless shuttles that transport passengers between stations, at rates and times that depend on the overall system's energy capacity and schedule requirements. The team's simulations could determine, for instance, the optimal number of passengers per shuttle in order to save fuel or prevent gridlock.
- Science Daily
We have wondered sometimes about who has the demand for autonomous vehicles and we have finally decided no-one does. Science and systems theory can easily show the roads are more efficient and vastly safer when humans don't do the driving so it seems highly likely that you will not be allowed to operate your vehicle in any manual mode except in restricted areas in future.
We don't need to argue about the Big Bad Corporation since in this case you can easily infer it. However, in this context, it's not such a terrible thing. Corporations can be just as picayune as individuals but at least there's organization within the scope of it.
The flaw to any sort of systemic thinking with regard to traffic is any teenager in a hotrod Mustang can wreck it. Here at the Rockhouse, we don't believe it will be allowed and, actually, we support that since the time is over anyway.
Ed: you love internal combustion!
Indeed I do but there's a tiny problem that most humans suck at it. I do believe tracks will continue to receive support but it will get more and more expensive over time to drive on them.
The Rockhouse has maintained steadfastly there's no such thing as an automobile 'accident' and the autonomous vehicles prove it when a given set of software rules keeps them from crashing into anything. The quality standard expected of robotic driving is vastly higher than we expect from humans and the designers are getting it, even if not Apple which doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing anymore except making glorified Tamagotchi dolls.
Note: that's not the name for those revolting egg things but they're just the same. Amusingly, there were multiple no-hatch eggs. (CNN: Hatchimals hatch into duds for some on Christmas)
If you want to teach a kid about eggs, take the little crumbsnatcher out to a farm and show off some chickens. Amazingly, life is much more interesting.
Yes, of course I'm talking about 'free range' chickens. It's not a farm when they keep them in cages.
Ed: does that relate to humans in 'caged' vehicles?
Well, that's for the interested systems student to pursue, isn't it.
In a computer context, when you have a great deal of queued work for the processor, it seems your best bet is to let it all rip and the operating system software will keep it balanced. The last part is true insofar as it will keep that huge workload balanced but it's not the best or most efficient way to do it.
The above is the modern bimbo logic in which we often hear 'I am multi-tasking' but, in fact, it's just like with the computer and there's less going toward effective processing than goes toward balancing the tasks.
It was found in a classic study by The Astronomer at CITS that reducing the active workload such that each active task got more focused time was much more effective at moving the entire workload through the system (i.e. it greatly improved throughput due to the reduction in time slicing).
Note 1: in z/OS terms, you will get more work through the system by reducing the number of JES2 initiators but with a clever job class order rather than increasing them. It requires more analysis than that but the general concept is true even when it seems counterintuitive.
Note 2: The Astronomer was the bass player for The Freezebirds and previously The Screaming Skulls with Paul Delph.
Ed: The Freezebirds were the band Silas stunk up?
The same. (takes a humble bow)
The same principle is being applied to bussing the freight around the country since MIT scientists have determined that large numbers of autonomous trucks would be substantially more efficient than individual trucks can manage as a whole. (Science Daily: Driverless platoons: Analysis finds autonomous trucks that drive in packs could save time and fuel)
In short, future roads will still exist but you won't be on them.
Now MIT engineers have studied a simple vehicle-platooning scenario and determined the best ways to deploy vehicles in order to save fuel and minimize delays. Their analysis, presented this week at the International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, shows that relatively simple, straightforward schedules may be the optimal approach for saving fuel and minimizing delays for autonomous vehicle fleets. The findings may also apply to conventional long-distance trucking and even ride-sharing services.
- Science Daily
That system won't be able to tolerate Old Granny who should have stopped driving years ago because she's terrified on the Interstate highway. It only takes one Old Granny to disrupt that platoon of trucks and throw the whole schedule.
Note: the people who are dangerous in that way are not always old and you can easily spot them since they're almost always in the middle lane and they sit up close to the steering wheel, staring in terror at what lies ahead of them and panicking when anything big drives past them ... which happens all the time.
The connection is obvious relative to the situation in cities in which people are the freight and the consequence is often gridlock.
The researchers are also applying their simulations to autonomous ride-sharing services. Karaman envisions a system of driverless shuttles that transport passengers between stations, at rates and times that depend on the overall system's energy capacity and schedule requirements. The team's simulations could determine, for instance, the optimal number of passengers per shuttle in order to save fuel or prevent gridlock.
- Science Daily
We have wondered sometimes about who has the demand for autonomous vehicles and we have finally decided no-one does. Science and systems theory can easily show the roads are more efficient and vastly safer when humans don't do the driving so it seems highly likely that you will not be allowed to operate your vehicle in any manual mode except in restricted areas in future.
We don't need to argue about the Big Bad Corporation since in this case you can easily infer it. However, in this context, it's not such a terrible thing. Corporations can be just as picayune as individuals but at least there's organization within the scope of it.
The flaw to any sort of systemic thinking with regard to traffic is any teenager in a hotrod Mustang can wreck it. Here at the Rockhouse, we don't believe it will be allowed and, actually, we support that since the time is over anyway.
Ed: you love internal combustion!
Indeed I do but there's a tiny problem that most humans suck at it. I do believe tracks will continue to receive support but it will get more and more expensive over time to drive on them.
The Rockhouse has maintained steadfastly there's no such thing as an automobile 'accident' and the autonomous vehicles prove it when a given set of software rules keeps them from crashing into anything. The quality standard expected of robotic driving is vastly higher than we expect from humans and the designers are getting it, even if not Apple which doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing anymore except making glorified Tamagotchi dolls.
Note: that's not the name for those revolting egg things but they're just the same. Amusingly, there were multiple no-hatch eggs. (CNN: Hatchimals hatch into duds for some on Christmas)
If you want to teach a kid about eggs, take the little crumbsnatcher out to a farm and show off some chickens. Amazingly, life is much more interesting.
Yes, of course I'm talking about 'free range' chickens. It's not a farm when they keep them in cages.
Ed: does that relate to humans in 'caged' vehicles?
Well, that's for the interested systems student to pursue, isn't it.
No comments:
Post a Comment