3 ms·
The title of this article is unsupported by its contents. The only mention of self-driving cars in the article outside of the title is in this paragraph: > The
by Ajedi32 7y ago
The title of this article is unsupported by its contents. The only mention of self-driving cars in the article outside of the title is in this paragraph:
> There are many who say that autonomous or smart cars will solve this. So far, I’m unpersuaded. Since 2014, over $80 billion dollars has been spent on “smart” or connected cars (more on these in a minute) and autonomous vehicles, arguably to make cars safer. But investing in the car of the future is investing in the wrong problem.
So the only evidence the author presents that "Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That" is the amount of money that's been spent on the problem so far? I don't see how that proves anything.
- cpp4life 7y agoThe argument is simpler, they're saying they don't care how much progress has been made because they want cars to go away, not get safer.
- Ajedi32 7y agoThen perhaps the headline should have been "Cars Are Death Machines. We Should Get Rid Of Them." That would have communicated the authors intent much more clearly, without making unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of future technological advancements.
- ehvatum 7y agoA vacuous flaunting of luxury opinions diametrically opposed to personal freedom, that serve to elevate their proponent who, of course, would never consider following their own advice? In the NYT? Surely not.