3 ms·

How many people are still alive because Uber had the restraint to not slap control systems together willy-nilly, like so many people here seem to think is an ob

How many people are still alive because Uber had the restraint to not slap control systems together willy-nilly, like so many people here seem to think is an obviously great idea? A lot more than one, that's for sure.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Yikes. I would not allow a business to continue to exist whose argument is “at least we’re only partially wreckless”. See how that holds up in civil court in front of a jury, or any legislative body Uber might need to convince to allow their operation in a jurisdiction in the future. “Just think of how many more people we would’ve killed if we didn’t care at all!”
- malandrew 8y ago
  "at least we’re only partially wreckless" has been Tesla's standard operating procedure for a while now. I'm guessing you think Tesla shouldn't exist either.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Oh, they'll get crucified for it, I'm sure -- because the public doesn't understand that integration is never trivial, and that "obvious" integrations aren't always good ideas. I had thought an audience of developers would "get it," since we deal with fallout from ill-conceived integrations every day, although admittedly in a far less spectacular form than control system engineers. Unfortunately, the uber hate train has already left the station and there's no slowing it down until the investigation finds (or doesn't) actual evidence of negligence rather than clickbait guesswork by armchair engineers. Too bad.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > I had thought an audience of developers would "get it," since we deal with fallout from ill-conceived integrations every day, although admittedly in a far less spectacular form than control system engineers. You do a disservice to the audience by assuming it would be understanding of grossly negligent behavior. Failures happen, that is to be expected. If you're building self-driving vehicles, you're supposed to be engineering for those failures. Disabling two life safety systems (Volvo's AEB and Uber's own AEB) and relying on a single inattentive human driver? I don't understand how that's understandable or justifiable in any scenario besides a carefully controlled test track.
comex 8y ago
I think you’re misunderstanding. According to the report, it’s not just the Volvo emergency braking system that was disabled. Uber’s self-driving system had its own emergency braking feature that was also disabled.
IncRnd 8y ago
How many people were not killed by Uber? That's a terrible way to look at things. It is better to wonder _why_ Uber killed a person. The answer appears to be right in the NTSB report about the brake system.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Yikes. I would not allow a business to continue to exist whose argument is “at least we’re only partially wreckless”. See how that holds up in civil court in front of a jury, or any legislative body Uber might need to convince to allow their operation in a jurisdiction in the future. “Just think of how many more people we would’ve killed if we didn’t care at all!”

malandrew 8y ago
"at least we’re only partially wreckless" has been Tesla's standard operating procedure for a while now. I'm guessing you think Tesla shouldn't exist either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jjoonathan 8y ago
Oh, they'll get crucified for it, I'm sure -- because the public doesn't understand that integration is never trivial, and that "obvious" integrations aren't always good ideas. I had thought an audience of developers would "get it," since we deal with fallout from ill-conceived integrations every day, although admittedly in a far less spectacular form than control system engineers. Unfortunately, the uber hate train has already left the station and there's no slowing it down until the investigation finds (or doesn't) actual evidence of negligence rather than clickbait guesswork by armchair engineers. Too bad.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > I had thought an audience of developers would "get it," since we deal with fallout from ill-conceived integrations every day, although admittedly in a far less spectacular form than control system engineers. You do a disservice to the audience by assuming it would be understanding of grossly negligent behavior. Failures happen, that is to be expected. If you're building self-driving vehicles, you're supposed to be engineering for those failures. Disabling two life safety systems (Volvo's AEB and Uber's own AEB) and relying on a single inattentive human driver? I don't understand how that's understandable or justifiable in any scenario besides a carefully controlled test track.

comex 8y ago

I think you’re misunderstanding. According to the report, it’s not just the Volvo emergency braking system that was disabled. Uber’s self-driving system had its own emergency braking feature that was also disabled.

IncRnd 8y ago

How many people were not killed by Uber? That's a terrible way to look at things. It is better to wonder _why_ Uber killed a person. The answer appears to be right in the NTSB report about the brake system.