It's gonna snap the new regulator sure as shit if I don't straighten something out. So, my question is - straighten what? Here is a picture of my window as it begins to roll down. See how crooked it is? I think this is a clue as to what I should look at and fix. Does anybody have any advice as to what it is wrong with this window system? Make sure the window starts in the track in the front when the window is down.
You should easily be able to move the window up and down by hand when disconnected from the regulator. If there is binding, sort it out before attaching the regulator.
I make sure the arm has movement through it's entire range, especially in the slot under the window. When I exchange the window regulator, I check all clearances with the glass first, take it out and put in the regulator, check it, then install glass. The adjustments are described in the manual. I separate the motor and regulator while they are in the door, then remove them separately.
The biggest pain is getting the plastic cover right. What polymathman said; with the window regulator arm disconnected from the window, make sure the glass slides up and down freely. Also make sure it's not popped out of the groove in the window channel. If it doesn't move freely and feels like it gets stuck even with the window regulator disconnected, and it's in the channel properly, then chances are your aluminum guide bar is bent or twisted even a little bit with cause it to bind.
All four doors use the same aluminum guide bar, so you can use another one for reference to tell if it's bent, or you can replace it with one from any other door. Sometimes just loosening and adjusting the guide bars helps one 10mm bolt at the top of the door body, one 10mm bolt at the bottom of the door body.
You can adjust the tilt at which the glass leans by loosening the bolt on each end of the metal directly under the glass.
You'll have to play around with it until it's right. If the glass tilts too much, it can cause it to bind. I had a really hard time getting the right front door glass to not tilt when raising and lowering and it drove me crazy--it turns out the plastic piece that fits inside the metal clasp that slides on the aluminum guide bar was worn out, so when raising the glass it would tilt one way, then lowering the glass it would tilt the other way, and it would feel very loose.
I don't think the front left and right side plastic pieces that slide on the guide bars are interchangeable, however I think the rear left and right plastic pieces are the same part number.
Stop paying for animal cruelty and slaughter. What does lean bank 1 mean? Headlight Restoration on an 04 Impala. How long can I drive my car with a bad alternator? Can a car run with a bad alternator?
Fantronics 7mm Android Borescope Review. How do I change the spark plugs and wires on a Chevy Impala? How do I jumpstart a Cadillac Deville? How do I replace the fuel pump in my Ford Taurus? How do I replace the starter on my Ford Taurus? How to Clean and Paint a Valve Cover.
My Ford Taurus dome light wont turn off. My Ford Taurus wont start. Top 5 Tow Winches for your Car Trailer. What happens if my car runs out of oil? What tires should I use on my Ford Taurus? What transmission fluid does my Ford Taurus use? Where is the battery in my Cadillac Deville?
Where is the shift interlock solenoid located? Why is my Ford Taurus leaking oil? Why is my Chevy Impala running hot? Why is my Ford Taurus jerking on acceleration?
Why is my Ford Taurus Overheating? Why is my Ford Taurus shaking? Why is my Ford Taurus smoking? Why wont my Ford Taurus come out of park? Contact Us. Amazon Disclaimer. Intelligence, by the way, is trial and error plus memory.
In a well-defined problem, the trial and error can be simulated inside a computer, and millions of trials can be done quickly. Otherwise, the trial and error has to take place physically, one error at a time. Aside from all this, the planet has a lot of human beings and a finite amount of resources.
At some point we will have to decide how best to use and manage those resources. Two cars in every garage for the people in the richest countries seems a tremendous mis-allocation to me. At 75, I never have owned and never will own a car. I have rented one on occasion so as not to have to travel by airplane.
David Morris The first ones will probably be used in restricted environments shuttle buses on a fixed route, maybe. And better. Insurance companies will figure out how to insure them. Legislatures will figure out how to regulate them. Every so often, perhaps more frequently, I find myself feeling a bit puckish.
This was one of those moments. I was role playing, pretending that I wanted to steer a serious comment thread down into the mud — viz. This should have surprised no one.
We have a good idea about what an average mammalian neuron looks like. It is extensive in space. The axon is hundreds to thousands of times longer than the size of its cell body.
It makes a LOT of connections: over connections on average. It computes complex logical functions of its inputs.
That is, particular patterns of inputs can turn it on or off regardless of all other inputs. Each neuron is a pattern-matching engine. The funny thing is, I completely buy the idea that t he human brain is a computational device that can and should! Friggin inane. When you filtered out those two groups, you generally found researchers with a lot of experience in the field who were very skeptical about the chances of self-driving cars, and had very good arguments for why.
It turns out they were right. As Aubergine says — machine learning is really a type of applied statistics that can be useful for dealing with certain types of problem that lend themselves to that kind of probabilistic analysis.
I saw someone the other day tweet that if the cost of failure is relatively low, and the value of success is high, then machine learning is a useful tool. Otherwise you probably want to look elsewhere. That seems accurate. I had a conversation with a couple of engineers about 5 years ago about the prospects of self-driving cars. The consensus was that the technical challenge, as incredibly difficult as it is, paled in comparison to the regulatory and insurance hurdles.
Alex SL Yes, they would be better than human-driven, petrol cars, but ideally we would do away with most cars full stop. They are frighteningly wasteful in a world of strictly limited resources and a really, really poor option in cities. Cue the usual photos comparing how much space people take up in cars versus one tram.
Sadly, many people absolutely insist on driving everywhere in a car, even parents who could easily walk their kids the two blocks between their home and the local primary school.
And they will vote for politicians who structure everything around cars and neglect public transport. And that is the problem causing the aforementioned human perceptions: we have a very poor intuition for what AI can do for us.
I am sure AI is already starting to revolutionise those tasks its brute force approach lends itself to — for example, high-throughput scanning of enormous quantities of images and videos for faults or threats where a human would need orders of magnitude more time and miss half the threats because their attention can only focus for so long, and anything that requires a single and highly specialised capability.
For comparison purposes, I believe the synapses in a neuron are roughly equivalent to the weights in a neural network to a first approximation. The human brain has roughly trillion synapses. GPT-3, the large language model I was mentioning, has billion weights. Systems integration etc etc. Ala the 5th Discipline by P Senge.
And AI as several have pointed out it is not comoarabke to humans as yet. Alan White About doubt. And about-facing. Most of my career I had no doubt whatsoever that pragmatism was not just wrong, but perilously so. What was more apparent than that truth must correspond to what the facts are? Then came age and experience. I now am a committed pragmatist, if not about truth itself, then about methodology that yields truthiness to invoke Stephen Colbert, who in jest reflected how regarding something as true can have pragmatic results politically, but got closer to how everyday truth works than even he understood.
Look at how science works—not so much at its purely conceptual modeling. The data about Covid hospitalizations and deaths outweigh any alternative narrative about hoaxes or such.
Anti-vaccers die in disproportionate numbers to the right-wing narratives. That works for me. So John count me in as one who saw that I was not only wrong, but completely wrong about how truth in this world works, not just in particular cases, but generally. As one of the major fun — somebody can have with her or his clothes on — is driving a very old Lancia Delta down the Amalfi Coast — even by being completely against any use of combustion engine — BE-cause they destroy our climate and environment.
RichardM But, presumably, as he considers them to be mistakes, he does. That is in no way incompatible with a driving license becoming a thing you would have to go to university to spend three years studying for by, say, The combination of vaporware, hype particularly with calls in advance to alter public policy , with a dash of scheduling breakthroughs is a blinking red light and klaxon.
Consider the technical and market successes of Google and Oracle, both of which established themselves without much fanfare to the general public. Even Microsoft and Apple, notorious for their hype, at least present salable products, and without, say, calling for the elimination of payphones as superfluous.
Do you remember when we were supposed to alter urban planning to accommodate Segways, which were at least a finished product? Do you remember Segways? A more diffuse heuristic of a technological damp squib is a certain carnival of fandom, particularly among those outside the field in question. JQ will be familiar with it from the discourse around commercial nuclear power.
The technology in question has a Heinlenian high frontier inevitability for a certain type, if only those pesky regulators keep out of the way.
It accordingly tends to attract a certain libertarian mindset, regardless of how much it contradictorily depends on leviathan. Somebody recently pointed out all the ways Musk is actually the statist villain from The Fountainhead; I am not going to read it to confirm. Skeptics will face a gauntlet of either moony faith in the hero of the story, or the sort of contemptuous confidence Kevin Drum exhibits above. It will have adherents who will never ask what they might be getting wrong, or acknowledge gaps or uncertainties.
Hey Skipper Suppose that in any crash between autonomous cars and humans, each is equally likely to be at fault. What is the probability of seeing 22 crashes caused by humans and none by autonomous cars.
The weakness in your thinking is that you neglected to ask the preceding question. Given the prevailing accident rate among all cars, over the period, how many autonomous cars should have been involved in accidents? Twenty-two accidents among cars in one year sounds extraordinarily high compared to regular cars. However, just thinking about myself, kids, and friends, I get well past vehicle-years with no accidents. Because you failed to ask the first question, your assumption of equal fault-likelihood is unfounded.
Assume vehicles chosen at random.
0コメント