4 ms·
> I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier. So implausible that the barrie
by Robotbeat 8y ago
> I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier.
So implausible that the barrier was destroyed just weeks earlier by a human driver?
- FireBeyond 8y agoI find it equally implausible that you willfully ignored the context of my quotes. To the extent that you literally changed the colon that lead to the context of those quotes into a period to make it sound like that was the extent of my statement. Yes, human drivers crash into crash barriers, as noted. Now, how many of those human drivers "actively aimed at the barrier", as the NTSB stated? And how many of those human drivers, having aimed at the barrier, "then accelerated in excess of the speed limit" as they did so? And if you do reply, try not to take sentence fragments as an excuse to change quotes to misrepresent someone's statements.
- Robotbeat 8y agoI ignored it intentionally because that is a mischaracterization of what the NTSB report said. That is what clickbait headlines said (misleadingly). The autopilot was following the lines, which looked a lot like a lane. Human drivers make similar mistakes, and it is quite likely that’s what happened earlier and why the barrier was destroyed beforehand. The lines are about the same size as a lane and lead you straight into the barrier.