5 ms·

> The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or even rocket science. I agree. This isn't about beating the national safety

> The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or even rocket science. I agree. This isn't about beating the national safety average, which includes drunk driving accidents, inclement weather, motorcycles, old cars and unwieldy trucks. It's about providing a safer alternative in scenarios where you have no other. And, it probably needs to be affordable too. There is a lot of other low-hanging fruit to which we apply vision technology (like early cancer detection!), it's too bad investors are climbing over each other to throw money down the long, narrow corridor that is self driving.

Slartie 7y ago
> it's too bad investors are climbing over each other to throw money down the long, narrow corridor that is self driving I don't consider that bad. Anyone is free to make bad investments. I do consider it bad that they haven't yet had to book that many losses, due to the hype still going strong and them finding enough other idiots to join the party. I'm longing for the day on which bad investment decisions (such as in autonomous vehicles, at least if you expect them to be just around the corner to save your business model) seriously wipe out huge investments again - as it should be.
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  > I don't consider that bad. Anyone is free to make bad investments. You don't find it unfortunate when capital is allocated towards failing business models rather than tech that has real promise?
  - Slartie 7y ago
    Not as long as this situation does not persist for too long. The market is supposed to correct such inefficiencies by dividing such failing investors from their money and conversely rewarding investors in successful and sustainable business models with that money. The actual problem is not that investment errors are made. Such errors will always be made, as long as it's impossible to predict the future. The problem is that it appears as if right now, we are in a situation in which the negative consequences of such errors can seemingly be postponed virtually forever into the future. Or at least that has worked great for a decade now (first cracks are appearing lately, but it's far from enough yet).

Slartie 7y ago

> it's too bad investors are climbing over each other to throw money down the long, narrow corridor that is self driving I don't consider that bad. Anyone is free to make bad investments. I do consider it bad that they haven't yet had to book that many losses, due to the hype still going strong and them finding enough other idiots to join the party. I'm longing for the day on which bad investment decisions (such as in autonomous vehicles, at least if you expect them to be just around the corner to save your business model) seriously wipe out huge investments again - as it should be.

unityByFreedom 7y ago
> I don't consider that bad. Anyone is free to make bad investments. You don't find it unfortunate when capital is allocated towards failing business models rather than tech that has real promise?
- Slartie 7y ago
  Not as long as this situation does not persist for too long. The market is supposed to correct such inefficiencies by dividing such failing investors from their money and conversely rewarding investors in successful and sustainable business models with that money. The actual problem is not that investment errors are made. Such errors will always be made, as long as it's impossible to predict the future. The problem is that it appears as if right now, we are in a situation in which the negative consequences of such errors can seemingly be postponed virtually forever into the future. Or at least that has worked great for a decade now (first cracks are appearing lately, but it's far from enough yet).