3 ms·
It's like this paragraph is obligatory: > Waymo has had fewer headline-worthy troubles. In May, one of its cars struck and killed a small dog. A few years ago,
by ctoth 3y ago
It's like this paragraph is obligatory:
> Waymo has had fewer headline-worthy troubles. In May, one of its cars struck and killed a small dog. A few years ago, a driverless Waymo car with a human safety driver operating the wheel hit a pedestrian who needed to be taken to the hospital.
After reading that reporters were explicitly instructed to go after tech[0], I just can't not see stuff like this.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33456708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33456708
- comex 3y agoOf course it’s obligatory in such an article to mention the ongoing controversies surrounding self-driving cars. They’re relevant context. But if anything, that paragraph makes Waymo look good, given that it comes after a paragraph listing a series of more-significant incidents involving Cruise, and explicitly says Waymo has had “fewer troubles”.
- ctoth 3y agoSure, that makes sense. Except how is it an "ongoing controversy" that one of the cars hit someone, while being driven by a safety driver? There's providing context, then there's digging for anything that might stick to make them look bad. This, to me, reads as the latter.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]