789
Amazon's drone delivery program is the joke it always sounded like.
(news.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
789 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
3067 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hyperloop 2.0.
Delivering something by air is the least efficient way to do so, unless it's Avdiivka and you deliver a grenade. Yeah, making them now is cheap (and we overproduce these unrecycleable toys), but what the upsides of using them instead of, like, land drones, or human workers, or some rail-system? It's cool and fancy the first time you order it, but what's the reason behind it other than our entertainment? Why not to make a delivery guy shoot fireworks once they are here - as enjoyable, and as chinese as these drones.
Why we want to produce this junk in the first place? And aren't we afraid this shit records close-ups of each property itflies over?
There are places delivery with drones makes a lot of sense and is the best way to do it. It depends what the most important metric is.
In an African country they are delivering medicin and bloodbaths with a drone plane to hospitals that need them for emergencys. That way they only need to have one central stock of these supply's that can be quickly dispatched. Driving wouldn't be an option that would take several hours over bad roads. Veritasium did a video about it.
For Amazon deliveries it makes no sense at all.
bloodbags?
Unless they crash when delivering them
I agree with you.
I've mentioned ukrainian Avdiivka, a battlefield, that isn't accesible by usual means (and where aerial drones can launch a surprise attack).
The same goes to places with destructed or underdeveloped infrastructure.
Drones can be used in the least accesible places. But they ate tested in places that are already covered by drivers.
I disagree with you with the efficiency comment. In an ideal scenario, deliver by air can be super efficient. No road obstacles, shortest path trajectories, hell, the sky is 3D!
It's been tried before: messenger pigeons.
It can be efficient, but the major pro-land point is: what would it do having 0 fuel?
A car would stop, a drone would drop.
It's an exception and no one would pilot a drone to it's exhaustion, but either way holding it in the air is a costy investment.
How do robo-taxis or electric bikes for rent deal with the fuel problem? It's an already solved issue.
However, you do have a point with malfunctions.
Those don't tend to fall out of the sky when they run out of power.
Understood, but then robotaxis have run over people without the need of flying.
E-bikes and e-scooters are better, but I haven't personally seen an infrastructure to use them unless they are personally owned and recharged at home. Are there stations for them in the US?
Robo-taxis though are their own can of worms. Discussion about their capabilities can take days.
I'm not sure how it works in the U.S., but in Europe there are stations in which users are encouraged to go to and grab a recharged battery (for a discount.) I'm guessing they have employees who do this as well..
So do gas stations. I wouldn't say the gas refueling problem isn't solved because of that.
The first thing you mentioned has nothing to do with fuel, which was OP's original argument.
As for the second thing, I've already said I agreed with OP.
I'm okay with being wrong. Check my comment history if you'd like in which I happily admit I'm being corrected.
But you didn't say "depleted" or "out of fuel." You said "broken." And that's different.
Can you admit that you misspoke, then?