this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
13 points (74.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43400 readers
872 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t understand how these could not be connected. In a question of which way people go to avoid collisions, it only makes sense to look at which way people go to avoid collisions.
But how are they connected? My country drives on the left, so should I move left to avoid oncoming traffic and to the right to overtake? If the connection was so strong then we should have different instincts depending on the context, not one single direction we always choose.
I am not convinced by this argument at all. For me, anyway, it depends on the the space available, where they are, which way I'm headed, which way they're headed, etc.
Consider computational efficiency though.
You can consider all those variables you mentioned, but it takes more memory and processing cycles to do so.
The benefit of an automatic go-left rule, a standard in the same way USB, the keyboard layout, and the alphabet song are also standards, is that it doesn’t take computational resources to decide on a solution. As long as the standard describes a working system, the inefficiency of its match to the myriad situations in terms of execution, is made up for in terms of efficiency of the process of deciding on that solution for that given situation.
USB as standard pays for itself by allowing us to buy computers and peripherals without having to think about connectors. Both of those things can be designed without effort spent on those decisions.
Always going the same way works well enough in almost all 2D navigation contexts that it creates a reliable way to avoid collisions at a societal level. In the ethernet standard , where there is no right or left because it’s a 1D context, they’re forced into a different anti-collision strategy: wait a random amount of time then try again to send. It’s less efficient than “take one step left, then proceed”.
I’m rambling. I hope you get the point. Standards save computational resources by loosely fitting a simple line to a complex data set, but in design space. There’s error, but it’s within acceptable range and has benefits in a different dimension.
My computer gives me notification pop-ups but it doesn't do it when I'm sharing my screen because context matters.
Some things are easy to standardise. But walking into a wall, or a lamp post, or into the road or a parked car, or barging into someone else, or going a long way around because there's a big group of them mostly on the side you've decided to robotically choose, or any number of other complications, really aren't worth it for the almost non-existent computational expense involved in choosing the best path forwards, like we all do all the time almost every single day of our lives.