4 ms·

> Levandowski was asked why Uber couldn’t just go test its vehicles somewhere else since California regulators clearly aren’t welcoming. He said that Uber’s eng

> Levandowski was asked why Uber couldn’t just go test its vehicles somewhere else since California regulators clearly aren’t welcoming. He said that Uber’s engineers deserve to see their work displayed in the city where they work. So it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city?

woofyman 10y ago
Wow, hubris and privilege. Don't they realize it's bad PR. They're reinforcing every negative SV stereotype.
- stanleydrew 10y ago
  Reinforcing every negative SV stereotype is kind of Uber's MO, so this shouldn't really surprise anyone.
- chinathrow 10y ago
  There is no bad PR in their book...
dntrkv 10y ago
If they thought they were violating regulations, that would be true. But their official stance is that they are not violating regulations, so his point is totally valid. Official statement: https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski-on-self-driving-in-san-francisco/ https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski...
- steveax 10y ago
  Fortunately, Uber doesn't have the final say in this matter.
  - Daviey 10y ago
    And neither does the DMV... Which as stated in the previous thread on this, it seems they are exceeding the legislation that covers this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514
gopalv 10y ago
> it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city? Other than the pointless flaunting of privilege in this ... I think keeping engineers very close to the project is usually a sign that not all is well with the project. I read that as "We can't let this project out of sight of the engineers ... they need to be able to make changes on a day to day basis, from direct observation." That these engineers would be moving in breakneck speed (ha!), to fix whatever they see in person rather than the usual separation of concerns in testing mission critical software. Through those glasses, it is roughly an admission that it is in "patch everyday" phase of development.
- radicaldreamer 10y ago
  But that team is mostly in Pittsburgh?
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    The team is split between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, as Uber acquired SF based Otto.
- eagsalazar2 10y ago
  While in general I agree that Uber is being reckless and arrogant, I otherwise really don't get your comment at all. Are you suggesting that quick iterations facilitated by proximity to that which you are testing and direct observation, especially at an early stage of development, is a bad thing?? If so, I've worked on several hardware projects (IC design) and IoT projects as a software developer and I couldn't disagree more strongly. That the engineers are close to the product so they can make quick iterations without massive amounts of waiting and telephone game confusion is a sign that they are doing a good job and don't have an idiot culture of engineering bureaucracy. IMO.
  - gugagore 10y ago
    Perhaps that engineering bureaucracy (not sure what you're referring to, to be honest) in the context of safety-critical systems is not "idiot culture".
kbenson 10y ago
As much as I'm not a fan of Uber, I have to agree with the whole sentiment expressed by Uber in the article, which is that they are doing the exact same thing Tesla is, which is having a person behind the wheel and using the software to assist, so if Tesla isn't breaking the law, how are they?
- kjbflsudfb 10y ago
  Tesla applied for and received a permit, did they not?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    According to this[1], Tesla has a CA DMV autonomous vehicle testing permit, but the question is whether that applies to this and to Tesla's autopilot, or whether it's for future work towards an actual autonomous mode. That said, if Uber does want an actual autonomous more eventually, not getting that permit, and thumbing your nose at the authority who gives them out, is probably not a winning strategy... ... Okay, just looked into a PDF[1] linked form the other article, and according to that, autonomous clearly includes what's going on here, and with Tesla's autopilot. I think Uber may have made a big mistake. 1: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... 2: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sfilargi 10y ago
  The difference is here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... Tesla is there, Uber is not.
  - kbenson 10y ago
jfoutz 10y ago
At least the manhattan project engineers had the decency to drive a couple hundred miles to test their stuff.
qyv 10y ago
A true engineer would want his work to contribute to public safety and wellbeing, not disregard them in the name of vanity.

woofyman 10y ago

Wow, hubris and privilege. Don't they realize it's bad PR. They're reinforcing every negative SV stereotype.

stanleydrew 10y ago
Reinforcing every negative SV stereotype is kind of Uber's MO, so this shouldn't really surprise anyone.
chinathrow 10y ago
There is no bad PR in their book...

dntrkv 10y ago

If they thought they were violating regulations, that would be true. But their official stance is that they are not violating regulations, so his point is totally valid. Official statement: https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski-on-self-driving-in-san-francisco/ https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski...

steveax 10y ago
Fortunately, Uber doesn't have the final say in this matter.
- Daviey 10y ago
  And neither does the DMV... Which as stated in the previous thread on this, it seems they are exceeding the legislation that covers this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514

gopalv 10y ago

> it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city? Other than the pointless flaunting of privilege in this ... I think keeping engineers very close to the project is usually a sign that not all is well with the project. I read that as "We can't let this project out of sight of the engineers ... they need to be able to make changes on a day to day basis, from direct observation." That these engineers would be moving in breakneck speed (ha!), to fix whatever they see in person rather than the usual separation of concerns in testing mission critical software. Through those glasses, it is roughly an admission that it is in "patch everyday" phase of development.

radicaldreamer 10y ago
But that team is mostly in Pittsburgh?
- jayjay71 10y ago
  The team is split between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, as Uber acquired SF based Otto.
eagsalazar2 10y ago
While in general I agree that Uber is being reckless and arrogant, I otherwise really don't get your comment at all. Are you suggesting that quick iterations facilitated by proximity to that which you are testing and direct observation, especially at an early stage of development, is a bad thing?? If so, I've worked on several hardware projects (IC design) and IoT projects as a software developer and I couldn't disagree more strongly. That the engineers are close to the product so they can make quick iterations without massive amounts of waiting and telephone game confusion is a sign that they are doing a good job and don't have an idiot culture of engineering bureaucracy. IMO.
- gugagore 10y ago
  Perhaps that engineering bureaucracy (not sure what you're referring to, to be honest) in the context of safety-critical systems is not "idiot culture".

kbenson 10y ago

As much as I'm not a fan of Uber, I have to agree with the whole sentiment expressed by Uber in the article, which is that they are doing the exact same thing Tesla is, which is having a person behind the wheel and using the software to assist, so if Tesla isn't breaking the law, how are they?

kjbflsudfb 10y ago
Tesla applied for and received a permit, did they not?
- kbenson 10y ago
  According to this[1], Tesla has a CA DMV autonomous vehicle testing permit, but the question is whether that applies to this and to Tesla's autopilot, or whether it's for future work towards an actual autonomous mode. That said, if Uber does want an actual autonomous more eventually, not getting that permit, and thumbing your nose at the authority who gives them out, is probably not a winning strategy... ... Okay, just looked into a PDF[1] linked form the other article, and according to that, autonomous clearly includes what's going on here, and with Tesla's autopilot. I think Uber may have made a big mistake. 1: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... 2: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sfilargi 10y ago
The difference is here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... Tesla is there, Uber is not.
- kbenson 10y ago

jfoutz 10y ago

At least the manhattan project engineers had the decency to drive a couple hundred miles to test their stuff.

qyv 10y ago

A true engineer would want his work to contribute to public safety and wellbeing, not disregard them in the name of vanity.