Only one item can be delivered at a time. It can’t weigh more than 5 pounds. It can’t be too big. It can’t be something breakable, since the drone drops it from 12 feet. The drones can’t fly when it is too hot or too windy or too rainy.
You need to be home to put out the landing target and to make sure that a porch pirate doesn’t make off with your item or that it doesn’t roll into the street (which happened once to Lord and Silverman). But your car can’t be in the driveway. Letting the drone land in the backyard would avoid some of these problems, but not if there are trees.
Amazon has also warned customers that drone delivery is unavailable during periods of high demand for drone delivery.
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.
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…
deleted by creator
So do gas stations. I wouldn’t say the gas refueling problem isn’t solved because of that.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?