4 ms·

What’s your point though? You’re picking an arbitrary cutoff time based on what? The intention is still disruption. Thirty minutes is nothing. We don’t classif

What’s your point though? You’re picking an arbitrary cutoff time based on what? The intention is still disruption. Thirty minutes is nothing. We don’t classify severity of crimes based on how long they take to accomplish. A murder is a murder whether you shot a person once or spent hours carving them up. I have used an angle grinder and it takes me about 10 seconds to cut through rebar. I would assume a rail is like 25 pieces of rebar put together so my naive assumption would be under five minutes.

digdugdirk 3y ago
There's a big difference in both material and size between rebar and rail track, but that's just an aside. I believe the point being made is the difference in level of intent required and the known (or hoped for) outcome from the action. Grabbing a traffic cone from a nearby construction zone and chucking it in front of an autonomous car at a traffic light is harmless to the health of everyone involved, but is a pain in the rear for many. Meanwhile, it makes a statement, and some chunk of everyone's annoyance gets directed at the autonomous car company. On the other hand, cutting a section of railroad takes concerted effort and a lot of premeditation if the individual hopes to get away with it. More importantly - the person cutting the track hopes/expects to cause death and destruction. The two actions are wildly different, and should be treated as such.
- slashdev 3y ago
  It’s not necessarily harmless. If that traffic jam blocks an emergency vehicle, people can die.
  - danielheath 3y ago
    There’s been many cases of autonomous cars interfering in active firefighting (rolling slowly between equipment, stopping on hoses, etc).
    - nomel 3y ago
      Let’s get that taken care of, and not intentionally make things worse.
      - danielheath 3y ago
        Some would view disabling the cars which are interfering with emergency services as “get that taken care of”, and attempts to roll out additional cars without fixing the bug as “intentionally make things worse”.
        nomel 3y ago
        That’s completely fair. Let’s work on that, with the required many times increase in efficiency for public transportation to work in cities made for cars, instead of blocking traffic. One approach for the increase in efficiency is automation. I would like to know what their approach is. As this, and interviews have shown, they have no approach or real goal.
        saulpw 3y ago
        Protest is a political tool. If blocking traffic raises awareness (as it has done here) then I think that counts as working on it. We're not going to get cars off the road by writing letters to our senator or donating a few hundred dollars to a political campaign (we've been trying for decades). Maybe aggravating the general public into realizing the fragility and selfishness of the tech industry's "solution" will get people to reevaluate funding for public transportation. I doubt it, because I've become deeply cynical about human nature, but I also see that the roots of progress often comes from surprising places. Like refusing to ride at the back of the bus. Or dumping tea into a harbor. Or putting a traffic cone on a robot. Keep it simple, don't hurt anyone, make your point. We can argue about the efficacy of their tactics but at the end of the day they're trying something.
        nomel 3y ago
        > If blocking traffic raises awareness From the article, > protest against the city being used as a testing ground for this emerging technology. What awareness are they raising, exactly? Are you/they suggesting that people in the Bay Area don't know that these driverless cars exist? Or is it that they're fragile/not complete yet? This is a genuine question, because I, obviously, don't understand. I see this similar to someone laying in the road, blocking human drivers, and saying they're raising awareness of the fact that drivers can be blocking if someone put effort into blocking them. I don't get it. Help me.
coryrc 3y ago
They are very different grades of steel. Track is over twice the yield strength of rebar from your home center and through-hardened. Rebar is mild steel and can't be hardened (maybe case-hardened). It's the difference between cutting water and ice :-).

digdugdirk 3y ago

There's a big difference in both material and size between rebar and rail track, but that's just an aside. I believe the point being made is the difference in level of intent required and the known (or hoped for) outcome from the action. Grabbing a traffic cone from a nearby construction zone and chucking it in front of an autonomous car at a traffic light is harmless to the health of everyone involved, but is a pain in the rear for many. Meanwhile, it makes a statement, and some chunk of everyone's annoyance gets directed at the autonomous car company. On the other hand, cutting a section of railroad takes concerted effort and a lot of premeditation if the individual hopes to get away with it. More importantly - the person cutting the track hopes/expects to cause death and destruction. The two actions are wildly different, and should be treated as such.

slashdev 3y ago
It’s not necessarily harmless. If that traffic jam blocks an emergency vehicle, people can die.
- danielheath 3y ago
  There’s been many cases of autonomous cars interfering in active firefighting (rolling slowly between equipment, stopping on hoses, etc).
  - nomel 3y ago
    Let’s get that taken care of, and not intentionally make things worse.
    - danielheath 3y ago
      Some would view disabling the cars which are interfering with emergency services as “get that taken care of”, and attempts to roll out additional cars without fixing the bug as “intentionally make things worse”.
      - nomel 3y ago
        That’s completely fair. Let’s work on that, with the required many times increase in efficiency for public transportation to work in cities made for cars, instead of blocking traffic. One approach for the increase in efficiency is automation. I would like to know what their approach is. As this, and interviews have shown, they have no approach or real goal.
        saulpw 3y ago
        Protest is a political tool. If blocking traffic raises awareness (as it has done here) then I think that counts as working on it. We're not going to get cars off the road by writing letters to our senator or donating a few hundred dollars to a political campaign (we've been trying for decades). Maybe aggravating the general public into realizing the fragility and selfishness of the tech industry's "solution" will get people to reevaluate funding for public transportation. I doubt it, because I've become deeply cynical about human nature, but I also see that the roots of progress often comes from surprising places. Like refusing to ride at the back of the bus. Or dumping tea into a harbor. Or putting a traffic cone on a robot. Keep it simple, don't hurt anyone, make your point. We can argue about the efficacy of their tactics but at the end of the day they're trying something.
        nomel 3y ago
        > If blocking traffic raises awareness From the article, > protest against the city being used as a testing ground for this emerging technology. What awareness are they raising, exactly? Are you/they suggesting that people in the Bay Area don't know that these driverless cars exist? Or is it that they're fragile/not complete yet? This is a genuine question, because I, obviously, don't understand. I see this similar to someone laying in the road, blocking human drivers, and saying they're raising awareness of the fact that drivers can be blocking if someone put effort into blocking them. I don't get it. Help me.

coryrc 3y ago

They are very different grades of steel. Track is over twice the yield strength of rebar from your home center and through-hardened. Rebar is mild steel and can't be hardened (maybe case-hardened). It's the difference between cutting water and ice :-).