this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
326 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

69804 readers
3184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 179 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Americans will do anything to avoid just using trains.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, trains are used here all the time specifically for long haul stuff.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I used to be the shipping/receiving guy in a warehouse, it fell to me to arrange all of our freight pickups, which was annoying because I didn't really have direct access to any information about pricing, deadlines, etc. so I was constantly going back to the office to show someone quotes to see whether the rates and transit times were acceptable.

Most of our freight was LTL stuff (less than truckload, a couple pallets, not enough to fill a truck by itself) but a few times every month or two we'd get full truckload sized orders.

When it came to them, often "intermodal" shipping had much better rates. Intermodal meaning at least 2 different forms of transportation were going to be used. Truck, train, boat, cargo plane, etc.

As a US-based company with mostly US-based customers, that usually meant rail for us.

However, almost none of our shipments went intermodal because it was too slow for our customers.

It wasn't usually a drastic difference, we're talking maybe 1-3 extra days in most cases. Over the Road (OTR) there weren't many places in the US that we couldn't get freight to from our location in 5 days or less, and those 5 day locations were mostly real middle-of-nowhere customers on the other side of the country.

It always blew my mind that we didn't or couldn't push our customers to just place orders 2 or 3 days earlier to save some pretty significant money on shipping.

I don't claim to know much about the industry, i was just some kid who needed a job and ended up the shipping guy because I knew how to use a computer and spoke English. But we a textile company that made things like work clothes (chef coats, scrubs, industrial work wear, etc) and restaurant table linens, and we sold mostly to bigger wholesalers, business service companies, etc. who would resell it or provide it to their customers as part some sort of contracted laundry service or something, so not really something I'd think of as being particularly time-sensitive or wildly unpredictable that they couldn't anticipate their bigger orders a couple days ahead of time

Guess it probably says something about how much we all love instant gratification.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Inventory became evil decades ago. “Just In Time” logistics became the norm instead of having warehoused inventory on hand. The beancounters all decided inventory was money that was sitting around not doing anything and maintaining the warehouse space cost more too. Can’t have those costs on the balance sheet. So speed in receiving smaller shipments more often is now the norm, along with ordering when you need them instead of ordering ahead of time, because some beancounter isn’t gonna be happy about extra inventory.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Rail is used in the US. We just don't have as much rail infustructure so they can only get so far. If the port/factory/wearhouse aren't connect by rail then they'll have to use trucks for at least part of the transit.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 8 points 4 days ago (11 children)

Probably could have built a lot of rail for the cost of R&D on self-driving semis...

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] fishos@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Except that nearly all US rail is for freight. We hate PASSENGER trains. We freaking love freight rail.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Except that's rail only carries 16% of freight by weight and 2% of freight by value.

Pretty sure USA hates freight rail too.

collapsed inline media

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-846-november-10-2014-trucks-move-70-all-freight-weight-and-74-freight-value

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But american freight trains are laughably bad too

https://youtu.be/AJ2keSJzYyY

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] muusemuuse@lemm.ee 32 points 4 days ago

Trains help poor people too. We like to pretend we don’t have poor people. Makes them easier to ignore while pretending to be Christian.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Trains are great but they don't typically run to your local warehouse...

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because the warehouse was built on the tracks. Alas that infrastructure tie-in has mostly gone away, new facilities are built with proximity to cheap labor, land, and easy to consume + pollute natural resources.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 105 points 4 days ago (14 children)

Why not make automated trains with their own dedicated right of way?

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 75 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But that would require investment in infrastructure...

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Bet that semi trucks are more expensive due to road damage and congestion alone.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but that’s all subsidized by taxpayers, so it’s more expensive overall but cheaper for YOU.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Efficiency, pollution too (even when electric, because tires and break dust are a thing)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

*** everyone but the lobbyists liked that ***

[–] JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They already are automated trains on freight only routes like mines.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 62 points 4 days ago (5 children)

As of Thursday, the company’s self-driving tech has completed over 1,200 miles without a human in the truck.

That's not an impressive number. That's like 2 days' worth of driving.

[–] suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

Yeah that's about 2 and a half round-trips between Dallas and Houston, that's...not a lot to be calling this thing ready to go and pulling out the safety drivers.

I wonder how these handle accidents, traffic stops, bad lane markings from road construction, mechanical failure, bad weather (heavy rain making it difficult/impossible to see lane markings), etc.

You'd think they would be keeping the safety drivers in place for at least 6+ months of regular long-haul drives and upwards of 100k miles to cover all bases.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 14 points 4 days ago

That figure is without a human in the truck, not with a safety driver. I.E, they've done a bunch of testing beforehand.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago

Most rigs go at least 1,000,000 miles and that isn't isn't even end off life. You'll be paying not much less than new for a rig that only has 100k, that's practically brand new. These systems should have 100 million proven miles. These things weight 80,000lbs which can be very hazardous materials.

You should see the pile ups semis cause in low visibility. Even with really good lidar, I hesitant to say autonomous trucks can be safe running off independent systems on full mixed use roads.

We could add those systems to all roads to feed back to semis to know conditions and hazards miles before they reach them. We could build new smart roads for all autonomous vechilce to travel on separately.

Or we could just end the 100+ year old railroad cartel. Could move people and cargo with ease. But that isn't profitable.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 58 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Great... I can't wait to be hit by one of those on my motorcycle

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd actually bet they're safer than some tweaked out dude on his 20th hour at the wheel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Same. Our government can't even figure out a way for us to trigger a green light so I'm not confident that any self-driving vehicle regulations will consider us either.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago (3 children)

What an incredibly infuriating waste of effort that would be so much better spent on trains, driverless or otherwise.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 7 points 4 days ago

I don't know why you're being down voted; here's an upvote for being sensible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 24 points 4 days ago (5 children)

And how do they handle a person slowing down in front of them and hijacking them? At least a human might be able to navigate away aggressively but I think the programming would prevent as much harm as possible.

This new lawless future and we may need to raid corpo lords.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

I can't really imagine people wanting to hijack a truck that's basically a giant camera and tracking system.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

I've seen plenty of youtube videos to know people are dumb enough to try this.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago

The resistance needs supplies!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think the programming would prevent as much harm as possible.

well, yeah... why wouldn't you want a human to do the same thing??? you're watching too many fast and furious movies.

Firstly, no one in an 18 wheeler loaded with cargo is "navigating away" from anyone desperate enough to attempt such a scheme. This entire idea is ludicrous, think about how slow and massive those trucks are.

Secondly, you don't want an 18 wheeler loaded with cargo being driven aggressively. You're just escalating the risk of killing yourself and everyone around you, for what, a truckload of insured corporate assets?

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 7 points 4 days ago

Honestly, sounds like the corporation's problem. I'm more afraid for human lives than some product in the back. In a case like that it'd be better to not have a driver who could be killed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago

But, do they speak English?

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 12 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Even in a hypothetical best-case scenario world, unless you have a driver on board any malfunction and you're delayed 2-8 hours because there wasn't a person in there to repair anything

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] andybytes@programming.dev 11 points 3 days ago

I wonder if this is gonna be like Waymo, where statistically speaking, the amount of cars that they had on the road, with how many crashes they had, it was deemed ineffective and dangerous, but as soon as they reduced the cars on the road they had less incidents because less odds. At this point, they probably continue to suck up subsidies and donar $ so they keep their little goofy business afloat. So what happens now? When It crashes into a school bus, who is held accountable? This is not a good idea. We need to tax the rich and corporations shouldn't have so much power. We didn't ask for this future. Anybody with a damn lick of sense knows that this is a stupid idea. Also, why? Like, just make more trains. America is so stupid. The fact that you just fight over cars versus walkable cities. I am actively trying to find a way out of here. These are horrific insanely stupid ideas. It's like doing it the hard way because you're too prideful to admit that you have a shitty infrastructure.I have seen Europe, I have experienced it, and it is far superior to the shitty infrastructure of the United States. I was born in America. I lived in America, but I do not identify with this way of life or culture. My head spins with just where people's minds are at in this country. How little they know. It's terrifying. If you're out there, just know. It is better elsewhere and chase those goals. You're not crazy. There's a better world. Not perfect, but a better world out there. Leave if you want to leave, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 days ago

How is it better than trains again?

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 9 points 3 days ago

Great, just in time for the number of shipments of imports needing to be distributed across the US to plummet...

[–] rekabis@programming.dev 9 points 3 days ago

Not after the first snowfall, they won’t.

load more comments
view more: next ›