Texto II

Densidade

    No meio do caminho tinha uma pedra porosa. Dava para ver seus grãos. Chegando mais perto, raios finíssimos de sol atravessavam a pedra. Mais perto ainda, um turbilhão, um pequeno redemoinho (uma galáxia minúscula) se movia lá dentro, no leve corpo da pedra.

    A pedra, no meio do caminho, era permeável: se chovesse, ficava encharcada. O vento do meio-dia a deixava com sono e sede. A neblina que às vezes baixava no fim da tarde invadia a pedra, no seu corpo as nuvens trafegavam sem pressa. Os sons passavam por ela e iam se extinguir em algum lugar desconhecido. Na pequena galáxia dentro da pedra havia pequenos planetas orbitando em torno de sóis de diamante.

(LISBOA, A. Caligrafias. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 2004)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Texto I

Microscópio impulsionou descobertas

    Os microscópios ganharam a tecnologia básica de hoje a partir do começo do século 19. Mas, mesmo no século anterior, j á havia microscópios com form as semelhantes. No século 17, descobertas importantes foram feitas com esse tipo de aparelho. “Noventa por cento das descobertas em citologia, o estudo das células, foram feitas com microscópios rudimentares”, diz o biólogo Nelio Bizzo, especialista em ensino de biologia na Faculdade de Educação da USP (Universidade de São Paulo).

    “O microscópio é uma ferramenta indispensável para quem estuda biologia”, afirma Bizzo. “Deveria haver uma lei federal proibindo escolas de comprar computadores se não tiverem um microscópio.” Para o professor da USP, “quem vê uma foto de vírus, de bactérias, e que nunca manipulou um microscópio, não tem condição de entender como a foto foi feita”. O microscópio teve para a biologia o mesmo impacto que seu parente para ver mais longe, o telescópio, teve na astronomia. Graças ao telescópio foi possível enxergar novos planetas e novas luas girando em torno deles, e confirmar a hipótese de que a Terra não era o centro do universo, mas sim apenas mais um corpo celeste que girava em torno do Sol. G raças aos microscópios foi possível descobrir todo um novo mundo desconhecido da ciência: aquele dos seres vivos de dimensões muito pequenas, microscópicas, os chamados micróbios. Um dos mais notáveis pioneiros foi o holandês Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), o primeiro pesquisador a observar micróbios como bactérias e protozoários.

    Ele batizou esses seres de “animálculos”, pequenos animais que pôde observar na água ou no interior do próprio corpo humano. Nem todos podem hoje ser chamados de “animais”, mas com seus esforços Leeuwenhoek abriu toda uma área de pesquisa científica. Leeuwenhoek usava um microscópio de um modelo bem simples, que se constituía basicamente de duas placas de latão entre as quais havia apenas uma lente, com um parafuso ajustável para manter o espécime sendo observado. Apesar da simplicidade do microscópio, ele conseguiu enxergar as bactérias, pela primeira vez em 1676, com um instrumento que tinha uma ampliação de no máximo 280 vezes.

    Tanto telescópios como microscópios surgiram no momento em que se criaram as bases da ciência moderna, a chamada Revolução Científica. Eles foram tanto causa como efeito dessa revolução.

(Adaptado de: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/brasil/fc1S119821.htm)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)

Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car

1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.

      We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.

2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.

        The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.

3 - They’re cute.

        Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.

      Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.

5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.

        I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.

6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.

        Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.

(Adapted from:: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)