Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87836 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-12 14:53 -0600 |
| Last post | 2022-12-14 18:40 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 14:53 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-12 17:40 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2022-12-13 08:55 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 15:06 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:37 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 14:15 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-13 17:03 -0500
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 19:35 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-13 21:13 -0500
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-12-14 04:40 -0500
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:39 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:34 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:33 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 05:56 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:35 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 19:21 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 12:09 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 15:53 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:52 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-15 15:04 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 16:20 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 20:09 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 10:14 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-16 13:38 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-12-16 14:15 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-16 14:20 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 12:36 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 17:09 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:44 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 10:24 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-16 15:19 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-16 15:27 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 14:03 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-17 10:18 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 02:27 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-17 10:42 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-17 16:05 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-18 17:37 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:43 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 15:28 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:58 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:28 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:35 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:49 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:51 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:14 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 20:32 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 19:20 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:46 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 18:28 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:11 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 19:13 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:47 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:49 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:37 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 11:49 +0100
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 16:18 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 12:54 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 21:54 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 11:40 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-24 18:19 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-25 17:07 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 10:55 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:54 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-15 09:41 +0000
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-13 20:06 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 20:17 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 05:37 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 13:57 -0800
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 18:20 -0600
Re: "Why ISO C++ Is Not Enough for Heterogeneous Computing" by Intel Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 18:40 -0600
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnfhgj$4lq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87956 |
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:04:46 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>> C is better than its reputation. >>> >>>Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>>controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>code in their EMS (engine management system). >> >>Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >>should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >>gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >>anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >>more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >spec >>was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >> > >Like you, I find the 30 million lines in the EMS to be very unlikely. > >Now if you add in the entertainment systems and other dashboard >display and control systems, it might get a bit closer. True, but those arn't part of the engine ECU. >Tesla's and other vehicles with partial or full self-driving capabilities >are a different story, with incredibly complicated and large SoC's >with several different grades of processor, safety islands and >redundancy. Shame they pinned everything on machine vision without radar and/or lidar backup and cost a number of - admittedly idiots - their lives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnfrd4$355sm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87960 |
On 15/12/2022 17:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:04:46 GMT > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>>> C is better than its reputation. >>>> >>>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >>> >>> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >>> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >>> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >>> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >>> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >> spec >>> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >>> >> >> Like you, I find the 30 million lines in the EMS to be very unlikely. >> >> Now if you add in the entertainment systems and other dashboard >> display and control systems, it might get a bit closer. > > True, but those arn't part of the engine ECU. > >> Tesla's and other vehicles with partial or full self-driving capabilities >> are a different story, with incredibly complicated and large SoC's >> with several different grades of processor, safety islands and >> redundancy. > > Shame they pinned everything on machine vision without radar and/or lidar > backup and cost a number of - admittedly idiots - their lives. > The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the automatic systems? People have been crashing cars and killing themselves and others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if you include wagons and carts). Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. But maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they are still a win.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnhgdr$1r3i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87965 |
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 20:09:23 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 15/12/2022 17:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> Shame they pinned everything on machine vision without radar and/or lidar >> backup and cost a number of - admittedly idiots - their lives. >> > >The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how >many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the automatic >systems? People have been crashing cars and killing themselves and >others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if you include wagons >and carts). > >Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. But >maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they are >still a win. The problem is if you market a driver aid as "autopilot" then people get the wrong idea and stop paying attention with the inevitable results especially if the car "vision" is more falible than human vision in certain circumstances. Other car companies call it Lane Assist or similar which makes it pretty clear its not 100% autonomous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnhosf$3cd6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87973 |
On 16/12/2022 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 20:09:23 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 15/12/2022 17:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> Shame they pinned everything on machine vision without radar and/or lidar >>> backup and cost a number of - admittedly idiots - their lives. >>> >> >> The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how >> many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the automatic >> systems? People have been crashing cars and killing themselves and >> others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if you include wagons >> and carts). >> >> Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. But >> maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they are >> still a win. > > The problem is if you market a driver aid as "autopilot" then people get the > wrong idea and stop paying attention with the inevitable results especially > if the car "vision" is more falible than human vision in certain circumstances. > Other car companies call it Lane Assist or similar which makes it pretty clear > its not 100% autonomous. > Yes, I can see that as a problem - if the marketing or naming makes people think it is significantly more automatic and reliable than it actually is. I am not a Tesla driver, nor have I paid any attention to their marketing, so I can't really comment here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 14:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnhr1i$kir$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87965 |
Op 15.dec..2022 om 20:09 schreef David Brown: > On 15/12/2022 17:20, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:04:46 GMT >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>> C is better than its reputation. >>>>> >>>>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C >>>>> code is >>>>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >>>> >>>> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection >>>> times. That >>>> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an >>>> auto >>>> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense >>>> mathematics >>>> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was >>>> never >>>> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to >>>> high SIL >>> spec >>>> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >>>> >>> >>> Like you, I find the 30 million lines in the EMS to be very unlikely. >>> >>> Now if you add in the entertainment systems and other dashboard >>> display and control systems, it might get a bit closer. >> >> True, but those arn't part of the engine ECU. >> >>> Tesla's and other vehicles with partial or full self-driving >>> capabilities >>> are a different story, with incredibly complicated and large SoC's >>> with several different grades of processor, safety islands and >>> redundancy. >> >> Shame they pinned everything on machine vision without radar and/or lidar >> backup and cost a number of - admittedly idiots - their lives. >> > > The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how > many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the automatic > systems? People have been crashing cars and killing themselves and > others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if you include wagons > and carts). > > Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. But > maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they are > still a win. > I think it was a Google member who said about their self-driving car project: "If we succeed to reduce the number of yearly deaths in car accidents from 300 per year (number of The Netherlands) to 3 per year, then we will not receive 297 grateful letters per year from happy people that are still alive, but we will be sued for those remaining deaths.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnhrba$3ck2h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87976 |
On 16/12/2022 14:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 15.dec..2022 om 20:09 schreef David Brown: >> The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how >> many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the >> automatic systems? People have been crashing cars and killing >> themselves and others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if you >> include wagons and carts). >> >> Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. >> But maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they >> are still a win. >> > > I think it was a Google member who said about their self-driving car > project: "If we succeed to reduce the number of yearly deaths in car > accidents from 300 per year (number of The Netherlands) to 3 per year, > then we will not receive 297 grateful letters per year from happy people > that are still alive, but we will be sued for those remaining deaths.". > Yes. No matter how hard you try to show statistics, or calculate micromort reductions, people always take death personally!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 12:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnikrt$3elic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87977 |
On 12/16/2022 5:20 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 16/12/2022 14:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 15.dec..2022 om 20:09 schreef David Brown: > >>> The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how >>> many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the >>> automatic systems? People have been crashing cars and killing >>> themselves and others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if >>> you include wagons and carts). >>> >>> Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. >>> But maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they >>> are still a win. >>> >> >> I think it was a Google member who said about their self-driving car >> project: "If we succeed to reduce the number of yearly deaths in car >> accidents from 300 per year (number of The Netherlands) to 3 per year, >> then we will not receive 297 grateful letters per year from happy >> people that are still alive, but we will be sued for those remaining >> deaths.". >> > > Yes. No matter how hard you try to show statistics, or calculate > micromort reductions, people always take death personally! For some damn reason this is reminding me of the lyrics of a song (still alive) from Portal 2: https://youtu.be/22vbhTi1ieI Some people do not seem to care if some people die, as along as the science gets done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-23 17:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <to5jg2$1sqhb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87985 |
On 12/16/2022 12:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/16/2022 5:20 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/12/2022 14:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 15.dec..2022 om 20:09 schreef David Brown: >> >>>> The big question - vital, but probably impossible to answer - is how >>>> many crashes or fatalities would there have been /without/ the >>>> automatic systems? People have been crashing cars and killing >>>> themselves and others for as long as cars have existed (longer, if >>>> you include wagons and carts). >>>> >>>> Driving aids are not perfect, and they get things wrong sometimes. >>>> But maybe in the big picture (statistics, not individual cases) they >>>> are still a win. >>>> >>> >>> I think it was a Google member who said about their self-driving car >>> project: "If we succeed to reduce the number of yearly deaths in car >>> accidents from 300 per year (number of The Netherlands) to 3 per >>> year, then we will not receive 297 grateful letters per year from >>> happy people that are still alive, but we will be sued for those >>> remaining deaths.". >>> >> >> Yes. No matter how hard you try to show statistics, or calculate >> micromort reductions, people always take death personally! > > For some damn reason this is reminding me of the lyrics of a song (still > alive) from Portal 2: > > https://youtu.be/22vbhTi1ieI > > Some people do not seem to care if some people die, as along as the > science gets done. Some of the hard core science people actually do not seem to care if their experiments cause hardcore pain! https://youtu.be/AJtDema_aao?list=RDGMEMHDXYb1_DDSgDsobPsOFxpA Cult? Damn...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 18:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tngf22$36ndq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87951 |
On 12/15/2022 3:52 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote:
>>> C is better than its reputation.
>>
>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is
>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of
>> code in their EMS (engine management system).
>
> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That
> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto
> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics
> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never
> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL spec
> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly.
This article says that the new F-150 in 2016 has 150 million lines of C
code.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160505-ford.html
"Software plays a growing role in new vehicles as demonstrated by the
all-new F-150 that features more than 150 million lines of code, whereas
a typical smartphone operating system has approximately 12 million
lines. Engineers are capitalizing on software to deliver precise control
over aspects of vehicle performance such as engine and transmission
calibration to improve fuel economy and for the connectivity experience
by giving customers hands-free access to their smartphones through SYNC 3."
Bill Ford gave a TED talk recently where he said that the average Ford
vehicle has over 100 cpus on the EMS and daughter boards in it.
This inforgraphic claims that the average car has 100 million lines of
code which blows my mind:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnhh03$3ev$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87968 |
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:44:50 -0600 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/15/2022 3:52 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>> C is better than its reputation. >>> >>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >> >> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >spec >> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. > >This article says that the new F-150 in 2016 has 150 million lines of C >code. > https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160505-ford.html >"Software plays a growing role in new vehicles as demonstrated by the >all-new F-150 that features more than 150 million lines of code, whereas >a typical smartphone operating system has approximately 12 million >lines. Engineers are capitalizing on software to deliver precise control >over aspects of vehicle performance such as engine and transmission >calibration to improve fuel economy and for the connectivity experience Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save fuel they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >by giving customers hands-free access to their smartphones through SYNC 3." > >Bill Ford gave a TED talk recently where he said that the average Ford >vehicle has over 100 cpus on the EMS and daughter boards in it. Ie there'll be a whole heap of faults and trouble awaiting the 3rd or 4th owner 10 or 20 years down the line and it'll probably be uneconomic to repair if too many modules fail. >This inforgraphic claims that the average car has 100 million lines of >code which blows my mind: > https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/ Quite ridiculous really compared to some of the other systems especially given most of it is in the bloated ICE which many people don't use anyway because they just pair their phone and use that instead. Why do car companies design the interface of cars for teenagers these days when the people buying them new are are usually 20+ years older? One of lifes mysteries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <I%%mL.9039$5S78.6866@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #87974 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:44:50 -0600 >Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>On 12/15/2022 3:52 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>>> C is better than its reputation. >>>> >>>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >>> >>> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >>> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >>> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >>> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >>> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >>spec >>> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >> >>This article says that the new F-150 in 2016 has 150 million lines of C >>code. >> https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160505-ford.html >>"Software plays a growing role in new vehicles as demonstrated by the >>all-new F-150 that features more than 150 million lines of code, whereas >>a typical smartphone operating system has approximately 12 million >>lines. Engineers are capitalizing on software to deliver precise control >>over aspects of vehicle performance such as engine and transmission >>calibration to improve fuel economy and for the connectivity experience > >Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save fuel >they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. They've been building the F150 out of Aluminum/Aluminium since 2015.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tni2pr$cp6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87979 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:19:04 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:44:50 -0600 >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On 12/15/2022 3:52 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>>>> C is better than its reputation. >>>>> >>>>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>>>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >>>> >>>> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >>>> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >>>> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense >mathematics >>>> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >>>> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >>>spec >>>> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >>> >>>This article says that the new F-150 in 2016 has 150 million lines of C >>>code. >>> https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160505-ford.html >>>"Software plays a growing role in new vehicles as demonstrated by the >>>all-new F-150 that features more than 150 million lines of code, whereas >>>a typical smartphone operating system has approximately 12 million >>>lines. Engineers are capitalizing on software to deliver precise control >>>over aspects of vehicle performance such as engine and transmission >>>calibration to improve fuel economy and for the connectivity experience >> >>Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >fuel >>they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >>wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. > >They've been building the F150 out of Aluminum/Aluminium since 2015. Thats only the body. Its still a prehistoric steel ladder chassis underneath.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-16 14:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tniiu6$3ef95$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87974 |
On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:44:50 -0600 > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/15/2022 3:52 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:53:24 -0600 >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/14/2022 2:09 PM, Michael S wrote: >>>>> C is better than its reputation. >>>> >>>> Every time you start your vehicle engine, millions of lines of C code is >>>> controlling it. Toyota and Ford are reputedly at 30 million lines of >>>> code in their EMS (engine management system). >>> >>> Which is way too much just to control spark and fuel injection times. That >>> should be a thousand lines at most with maybe the equivalent for an auto >>> gearbox controller as most of the important stuff would be dense mathematics >>> anyway. When I worked in defense the code to control actuators was never >>> more than a few thousand lines which given you had to write it to high SIL >> spec >>> was about as much as humanly possible to vet properly. >> >> This article says that the new F-150 in 2016 has 150 million lines of C >> code. >> https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160505-ford.html >> "Software plays a growing role in new vehicles as demonstrated by the >> all-new F-150 that features more than 150 million lines of code, whereas >> a typical smartphone operating system has approximately 12 million >> lines. Engineers are capitalizing on software to deliver precise control >> over aspects of vehicle performance such as engine and transmission >> calibration to improve fuel economy and for the connectivity experience > > Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save fuel > they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that > wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. ... Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). I just replaced my AGM battery so my start-stop system started working again so I am getting 17 mpg on this tank so far. And my cab and bed are made out of aluminum. I know this for a fact from throwing stuff in the bed and scratching the bed protector layer off. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 10:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnk522$i8v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87984 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >fuel >> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >.... > >Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better. Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing. But thats an argument for another newsgroup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 02:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnk5ii$3kqll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87987 |
On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >> fuel >>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >> .... >> >> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). > > 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed > (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better. > > Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive > around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing. > But thats an argument for another newsgroup. > Ever had to tow a big boat before?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 10:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnk6ei$16av$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87988 |
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 02:27:30 -0800 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >>> fuel >>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but >that >>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >>> .... >>> >>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). >> >> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed >> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much >better. >> >> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive > >> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe >posing. >> But thats an argument for another newsgroup. >> > >Ever had to tow a big boat before? Tow your megayacht every day do you? Ever heard of hire vehicles?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnlbhu$3ocs5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87989 |
On 12/17/2022 2:42 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 02:27:30 -0800 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >>>> fuel >>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but >> that >>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >>>> .... >>>> >>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). >>> >>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed >>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much >> better. >>> >>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive >> >>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe >> posing. >>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup. >>> >> >> Ever had to tow a big boat before? > > Tow your megayacht every day do you? Ever heard of hire vehicles? > megayacht? No. Fishing in Lake Tahoe is fun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5NlnL.13642$Ldj8.8627@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #87988 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >>> fuel >>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >>> .... >>> >>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). >> >> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed >> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better. >> >> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive >> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing. >> But thats an argument for another newsgroup. >> > >Ever had to tow a big boat before? Something that perhaps 15% of non-commercial pickup truck owners actually do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 13:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnlbgo$3ocs5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87992 |
On 12/17/2022 8:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >>>> fuel >>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >>>> .... >>>> >>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). >>> >>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed >>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better. >>> >>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive >>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing. >>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup. >>> >> >> Ever had to tow a big boat before? > > Something that perhaps 15% of non-commercial pickup truck owners actually do. > Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a vehicle than can do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-18 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9dInL.16341$Sgyc.9618@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #87997 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/17/2022 8:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 12/17/2022 2:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:03:18 -0600 >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 12/16/2022 4:24 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> Yet still does single digit mpg around town. If they really wanted to save >>>>> fuel >>>>>> they'd build it out of aluminium and literally save a ton of weight but that >>>>>> wouldn't get the Kool Kids on board. >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>> Those single digit mpg days are way past for F-150s. My 2019 F-150 4x4 >>>>> 3.5L dual turbo V6 with the 4 inch lift kit gets 16 - 17 mpg around >>>>> town, 20 mpg at 70 mph, and 18 mpg at 80 mph (it is a brick after all). >>>> >>>> 20mpg in 2022? BFD. My 14 year old tired diesel can do 35mpg at that speed >>>> (admittedly UK gallons so probably ~ 30-32 US). Modern cars can do much better. >>>> >>>> Though I suppose it begs the question of why americans feel the need to drive >>>> around in absurdly large utility vehicles. Insecurity perhaps or maybe posing. >>>> But thats an argument for another newsgroup. >>>> >>> >>> Ever had to tow a big boat before? >> >> Something that perhaps 15% of non-commercial pickup truck owners actually do. >> > >Towing a boat up and down to Lake Tahoe from Carson City, one needs a >vehicle than can do it. That covers about 0.005% of all large pickup drivers., but doesn't answer the question posed above. That stretch of Highway 50 isn't typical, even in california or nevada (hopefully your're not taking 207). I drive that stretch of 50 annually during my labor day Yosemite- Lee Vining/Mono Lake-Tahoe journey (although every couple years, I'll take 89 or 207 from 395 just for a change of scenery).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web