5 ms·
Got to admit, as disruptive an action this may be, it’s also pretty funny given how simple and non-destructive this is. Usually we see actions that are more da
by MissTake 3y ago
Got to admit, as disruptive an action this may be, it’s also pretty funny given how simple and non-destructive this is.
Usually we see actions that are more damaging - but the simple act of “coning” would seem to be a relatively low risk act of defiance that Waymo may not have an easy answer to.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoSince this is essentially a victimless crime, and also as innocuous as you say, I believe that this is the tip of the iceberg of pranks/aggression against SDCs. I've seen that stickers have also been plastered over sensors. I believe that attackers will often take advantage of the unattended nature of SDCs in order to confuse and disable them, and the manufacturers will have little recourse but to basically wage an arms race, cat-and-mouse, to continually mitigate each situation as it manifests.
- alsobrsp 3y agoI wouldn't call this a victimless crime. This is putting the vehicle out of service causing a loss of revenue. I consider victimless crimes to be things that consenting adults choose to do that would not harm anyone else. There is clear harm to the company. Although, I don't disagree with the method of protest.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoI don't see how a putative loss of revenue causes a victimization here. A victim is an identifiable human being, with the God-given right to life and dignity, who suffers real harm. A multibillion-dollar robotaxi AI company claims to lose a hypothetical $15 fare because their dumbass vehicle is too stupid to move? Not a victim.
- NerdiDotOrg 3y agoIt's not just 1 fare though and there are real employees and executives and investors in those companies
- sonicshadow 3y agoWe did decide that corporations are people after all
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoAnyone with a 401k or pension is heavily invested in these businesses, so they are at least victims to these crimes. Having destitute retirees around because the economy didn’t grow enough to support their retirements is a very bad thing.
- Two4 3y agoAnyone who speculates with 401k money on relatively risky tech stocks and startups should either be prevented from gambling with other people's money or should accept the risk to their own money.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoMost 401K money is invested in index funds, which include GM, Alphabet, Meta, etc... These aren't victimless crimes, just that the people suffering from them are indirect (economic crimes always have victims).
- sonicshadow 3y agoSo should we just start arresting annoying who results in a loss of revenue for a company? I didn’t eat at Carl’s Jr today, should I go to jail?
- veec_cas_tant 3y agoThis is more akin to disabling their grills so they couldn't sell food
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoCarl's Jr. has several workers and a manager right there to restart the grill and get it working again. These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!
- veec_cas_tant 3y agoOkay, disabling self-serve gas pumps during off hours at a 24/7 station. Removing a stop sign in the middle of the night. Turning on the faucet in an unoccupied apartment.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoThe ethical difference is that none of your examples stem from an interference in public safety. SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians. This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- youngtaff 3y agoIt’s not a crime is it?
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoWell, I'm not sure. If we put it into context of a city where the police care about traffic infractions, and you have some guy wearing a ski mask that runs up and throws a large opaque object onto the hood of a moving vehicle, I am confident that any cop worth his salt could think up a plausible reason to write a ticket for that ski-mask guy. I think it would be a minor infraction of some kind, of course: jaywalking, or mischief, or interfering with moving traffic. I think that if a cop was determined to ticket the guy, that it wouldn't matter whether the vehicle is driverless or not, it'd still be (in a cop's mind) a ticketable offense. But of course this is transpiring in San Francisco, where the cops don't care if you're mugged and beaten, or your drugstore is smash-and-grabbed, unless you happen to be Nancy Pelosi's husband.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> this is essentially a victimless crime It’s blinding sensors on a car. Best case, nothing is damaged in a way that hurts someone later. It’s also property damage. Excusing it in this form is the same blindness that has led to retail becoming unviable in downtown San Francisco. Damage and victimhood doesn’t disappear just because it’s complicated.
- sizzle 3y agoWhat property was damaged?
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoHow thrilled would you be if I threw a traffic cone on or snowball at your car or house every day? Is that response unjustified because my actions are unlikely to cause damage every time? The line between peaceful protest and rioting is property damage. This looks intended to be peaceful, but the intent is ambiguous. All it takes is a toss too hard or a hooligan to cross that line, and the line is crossed and civic argument toasted. Put another way, this is aimless catharsis. Not civic engagement. It’s about as mature as the folks who were egging Google busses a decade ago, and now decry the budget cuts those jobs leaving San Francisco bring.