7 ms·

Some people are horrible idiots with amazing level of stupidity. Equating fpv drones with "weapons", AI in general with driverless cars. If we allow this hostil

Some people are horrible idiots with amazing level of stupidity. Equating fpv drones with "weapons", AI in general with driverless cars. If we allow this hostile sentiment to spread it will be uneconomical for companies like waymo to operate. It would be a huge shame if it came to that. This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport (we have lots of little villages full of people like this with a bus once a day often going only one way). What is the most expensive conponent of proving public transport to such places? Drivers.

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport This is so cynical. First cars were used to destroy much of the existing public transport in places like the US and Europe, now drivers are next. This is so sick, employment (i.e. people) are only seen as a nuisance, a cost factor, a legacy, biding their time until they can be machined out of the picture. FTS.
- MiguelX413 3y ago
  Would it be better to waste life-hours on automatable things?
  - Anonbrit 3y ago
    If there are people who enjoy those automatable things? Yes, absolutely
    - DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
      Ninja'd me
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
RobLach 3y ago
?? FPV drones are weapons… https://streamable.com/lsexbn https://streamable.com/lsexbn (war footage)
nonethewiser 3y ago
But they have insurance!
duskwuff 3y ago
> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport Reality check: if there's no public transport, driverless car services probably aren't about to serve those areas either.
- konschubert 3y ago
  Reality check: the main cost driver of bus service are driver salaries.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Even if it was true it would be a great argument for driverless bus, not for driverless cars. The original argument doesn't hold though: even if a bus line isn't profitable in a place because there's not enough people doesn't mean that a cheaper taxi service wouldn't be.
    - dash2 3y ago
      Rural areas often don't have enough passengers along routes to fill a bus, so the car is going to be better. (Doesn't have to be privately owned though.)
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Those areas often have buses to fulfill ADA requirements, so a lot of the riders are mobile challenged. Vans might work. Or those bigger taxi cabs that can take a wheelchair. I’m not sure how that could be self serve, however.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      It is true [1]. And clearly driverless technology applies to vehicles of various sizes. [1] "Depending on bus type, driver cost accounts for between 40 and 70 per cent of total bus operator cost in Singapore (Ongel et al., 2019) and Australia (own calculation based on ATC, 2006). In Japan, driver salaries account for 53% and 70% of total operating costs of buses and taxis, respectively (Abe, 2019)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012219300802 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22120...
konschubert 3y ago
I hope for the day where all cars are self-driving. People will cycle more and 40000 families a year will be saved in the US alone.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Motorcycle fatalities are 15% of the total and pedestrians are another 16%. Most fatalities are single vehicle accidents. That 40000 figure is not entirely due to bad drivers, and expecting a single change to solve all problems is very short sighted.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Most of them are though. People can’t get off their phones, they’re addicted. Every time I see a car swerving in front of me and I pass, they’re on their phone. We have to figure out self driving cars because humans can’t disconnect and focus on their multi-ton vehicle.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - konschubert 3y ago
        Those deaths I heard about in the past year were all due to careless car drivers. Maybe it's different in the US.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        You might want to look into the, more deeply. Anti-car advocates (here ant least) are lumping in “high” pedestrians deaths with the cases you are expecting, to inflate their case of an increase due to traditional distracted driving. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the increase in pedestrian deaths corresponds to the same timeline as the current fentanyl epidemic. But you have to go case by case to see where your local increase is coming from.
akira2501 3y ago
For single vehicle systems, maybe. For large multi seat transportation, my bet is maintenance and insurance cost more. You know what driverless cars can't do? Redirect a passenger to the emergency room due to acute problems that occur in the car. Driverless isn't magic, it's just a trade, and I'm not entirely convinced it's worth it with our current level of implementation.
- dzikimarian 3y ago
  Tons of human drivers would either panic, not notice or wouldn't know where nearest hospital is. Are we going with old trusty "can't do edge case X, entire thing is worthless" line of argumentation?
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  > You know what driverless cars can't do? Redirect a passenger to the emergency room due to acute problems that occur in the car. You state this as a fact with absolute confidence. That's interesting. Not only do I respectfully disagree, but I'm actually surprised you are so sure of yourself. It seems (to me) rather obvious that self driving cars are not a mature technology yet. In fact, they aren't even deployed widely. In that regard, of course it isn't a mature technology! So I'd really appreciate it if you could help me understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Being so incredibly confident you must have a rock solid set of arguments about this topic and I'd love to hear them.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Do you know of a system that already does this? Or any manufactures that have it in their radar? What if they do build this and it fails 10% of the time? What do you think the ramifications of that will be? I'm basing this on history, capitalism, and current available data. Will this eventually be as everyone believes? Yes. In our lifetime? Almost certainly not. So, should we wait? Or find more realistic way to save lives today?
    - LargeTomato 3y ago
SllX 3y ago
Alternatively: this is San Francisco where on a good day the locals don’t need much excuse to set fire to a car (although I usually associate it with the Giants winning a World Series) and this poor dumb stupid driverless Waymo drove into a celebratory and by the looks of it somewhat drunken crowd on the Streets of Chinatown during the Chinese New Year where in following its prime directive to do no harm, it got itself stuck up the creek without a paddle so to speak. Waymo probably should have accounted for that ahead of time and told their cars not to go near Chinatown this evening. Welcome to the Year of the Dragon.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Is SF really that bad for cars being set on fire via random celebrations/riots? Paris’s suburbs I get, but SF?
  - verticalscaler 3y ago
    I can't tell you how many smashed cars I've seen with rolled down windows and notes begging people not to trash them and that there are no valuables inside.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      That’s different: it’s just drug addicts looking for drug money and the citizens being too nice to get their police to crack down on that. But lighting a car on fire for anger and kicks is something else.
      - verticalscaler 3y ago
        I'm not sure if "nice" is a logical word to use in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory Be assured it isn't "just" drug addicts but increasingly profit minded criminals and misguided teenagers, 'etc. They smash the windows anyhow and occasionally set things on fire for kicks. And there are more and more organized and semi-organized groups.
userbinator 3y ago
[flagged]
- mise_en_place 3y ago
  This is a hilarious take. A few youths went bonkers and defaced private property. Has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs or a Big Tech agenda. You should debate the finer points of the Big Tech agenda with them while they run up to you in a maddened rage.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  You’re going to get banned but you’re speaking the truth Ironically can’t reply to the person who replied to me because my account is partially banned :D To the other reply: dang has personally confirmed that I am rate limited, so no. It’s also in the publicly available HN source code. If I post more than 5 times in 12 hours I get a “you are posting too fast” message. Other people don’t get this
  - AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
    Generally speaking people don't get banned here, also they have ~75,000 internet points so they know what they're doing. Either this thread will get flagged to death because ultimately this is a VC forum or dang will come in and dish some well deserved scoldings if anyone goes too far but that's about it.
  - subtra3t 3y ago
    I think HN automatically imposes a limit on how much furthur down a comment chain an existing participant can comment in, to prevent heated discussions. So while I, somebody who hasn't commented till now, can reply to the reply to your comment just fine, you, somebody who has commented previously, cannot. Hope that clears it up, I don't think your account is shadow banned.
breathen 3y ago
> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport The ability to type this on an investment forum with a straight face indicates you have a bright future in our industry
- beAbU 3y ago
  Just in case its not clear why the quoted statement is so ridiculous: What makes Waymo a more suitable solution to lack of public transport, than actual public transport?
  - al_borland 3y ago
    Not the person who said it, and I’m in favor of rails, bike paths, etc being the basis of any multifaceted transit system. That being said, augmenting a public transit system with something like self-driving cars would be good for older people, or anyone with limited mobility, who may not be able to handle the amount of walking required with most public transit options. I don’t think I’d include the poor in the list of people who would benefit, as I would expect a dedicated car driving for doorstep to doorstep would be more expensive than a train or bus which has scheduled stops. I live in an area with poor public transit, and my parents both live in areas with no public transit options at all. They are 70 now and eventually they will get to the point where they can no longer drive safely. Having a way to get around would allow them to maintain their freedom and independence. Without that, giving up their license will mean depending on family or friends to do anything that requires leaving the house. Uber would be an option for my dad, but unlikely for my mom as she lives in a more rural area, and I’d imagine it would get expensive. I did just look up options for my mom if she has to give up her car. There is a service available from the county that runs from 7am - 3:30pm, Mon - Sat. If she wants/needs to go anywhere in the evening or on Sunday, she’d be out of luck. They also require 3 days notice to pick someone up for a doctor’s appointment, and an hour+ for anything else. While writing this I also remembered a guy I used to work with who had seizures, so he couldn’t drive. He took the bus to work and it would take him about 2 hours. Since it was a night shift job and the buses didn’t run late, he also ended up getting to work extremely early and then just had to wait for his shift to start. Co-workers often gave him a ride home after learning about all this, as it was less than 20 minutes by car. Having some faster and more direct options would be nice for areas with horribly slow bus services, or with limited hours. Maybe the transit providers could use the car data to inform them on future transit routes that should be built. That way we can reduce the number of cars that need to be on the road over time, and do it in a way that makes the biggest impact.
vostrocity 3y ago
This isn't a revolt against AI. SF attracts anarchist mobs and they'll vandalize buses, trains, police cars, bikes, whatever is around.
- uoaei 3y ago
  You sound like someone who lives in a suburb and watches too much news on TV.
- yareal 3y ago
  I think you don't really understand what an anarchist is. I'm an anarchist, I wouldn't set someone's car on fire. Happy to give you a rundown on wellbeing for all, mutual aid, and federated production (with a bonus explanation of personal property vs private property,) Anarchist theory is almost 200 years old now, and for most of human history we lived in an anarchist way. There's much more there than "wreck shit".
- nwiswell 3y ago
  Anarchist mobs? It was almost certainly some drunk kids in the middle of the Chinese New Year celebrations. But the question remains: what was the political ideology of these youths? Anarchists? Marxists? Fascists? Technocrats? Monarchists??? We may never know!
  - creer 3y ago
    The video shows more than a couple drunk kids kicking a car at random. It shows pretty deliberate behavior. In general, really, it takes more than a random kick to break a car window. And it did take more than that this time. Vandalism is not much of a political ideology but here we are.
- cm2187 3y ago
  in total impunity
- AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
  Anarchist mobster here, I think people just don't like roving surveillance wagons. Also, actual anarchists are not going to vandalize bikes and public transit. It's kind of important that we be somewhat precise about our terminology as otherwise you just stoke political division to no real end.
Fricken 3y ago
The first objective is to develop a robotaxi service convenient and affordable enough that people come to depend on it. The second objective is to enshittify the service. (Try not to say that part out loud)

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago

> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport This is so cynical. First cars were used to destroy much of the existing public transport in places like the US and Europe, now drivers are next. This is so sick, employment (i.e. people) are only seen as a nuisance, a cost factor, a legacy, biding their time until they can be machined out of the picture. FTS.

MiguelX413 3y ago
Would it be better to waste life-hours on automatable things?
- Anonbrit 3y ago
  If there are people who enjoy those automatable things? Yes, absolutely
  - DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
    Ninja'd me

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

RobLach 3y ago

?? FPV drones are weapons… https://streamable.com/lsexbn https://streamable.com/lsexbn (war footage)

nonethewiser 3y ago

But they have insurance!

duskwuff 3y ago

> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport Reality check: if there's no public transport, driverless car services probably aren't about to serve those areas either.

konschubert 3y ago
Reality check: the main cost driver of bus service are driver salaries.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Even if it was true it would be a great argument for driverless bus, not for driverless cars. The original argument doesn't hold though: even if a bus line isn't profitable in a place because there's not enough people doesn't mean that a cheaper taxi service wouldn't be.
  - dash2 3y ago
    Rural areas often don't have enough passengers along routes to fill a bus, so the car is going to be better. (Doesn't have to be privately owned though.)
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Those areas often have buses to fulfill ADA requirements, so a lot of the riders are mobile challenged. Vans might work. Or those bigger taxi cabs that can take a wheelchair. I’m not sure how that could be self serve, however.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    It is true [1]. And clearly driverless technology applies to vehicles of various sizes. [1] "Depending on bus type, driver cost accounts for between 40 and 70 per cent of total bus operator cost in Singapore (Ongel et al., 2019) and Australia (own calculation based on ATC, 2006). In Japan, driver salaries account for 53% and 70% of total operating costs of buses and taxis, respectively (Abe, 2019)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012219300802 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22120...

konschubert 3y ago

I hope for the day where all cars are self-driving. People will cycle more and 40000 families a year will be saved in the US alone.

akira2501 3y ago
Motorcycle fatalities are 15% of the total and pedestrians are another 16%. Most fatalities are single vehicle accidents. That 40000 figure is not entirely due to bad drivers, and expecting a single change to solve all problems is very short sighted.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Most of them are though. People can’t get off their phones, they’re addicted. Every time I see a car swerving in front of me and I pass, they’re on their phone. We have to figure out self driving cars because humans can’t disconnect and focus on their multi-ton vehicle.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Those deaths I heard about in the past year were all due to careless car drivers. Maybe it's different in the US.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        You might want to look into the, more deeply. Anti-car advocates (here ant least) are lumping in “high” pedestrians deaths with the cases you are expecting, to inflate their case of an increase due to traditional distracted driving. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the increase in pedestrian deaths corresponds to the same timeline as the current fentanyl epidemic. But you have to go case by case to see where your local increase is coming from.

akira2501 3y ago

For single vehicle systems, maybe. For large multi seat transportation, my bet is maintenance and insurance cost more. You know what driverless cars can't do? Redirect a passenger to the emergency room due to acute problems that occur in the car. Driverless isn't magic, it's just a trade, and I'm not entirely convinced it's worth it with our current level of implementation.

dzikimarian 3y ago
Tons of human drivers would either panic, not notice or wouldn't know where nearest hospital is. Are we going with old trusty "can't do edge case X, entire thing is worthless" line of argumentation?
LargeTomato 3y ago
> You know what driverless cars can't do? Redirect a passenger to the emergency room due to acute problems that occur in the car. You state this as a fact with absolute confidence. That's interesting. Not only do I respectfully disagree, but I'm actually surprised you are so sure of yourself. It seems (to me) rather obvious that self driving cars are not a mature technology yet. In fact, they aren't even deployed widely. In that regard, of course it isn't a mature technology! So I'd really appreciate it if you could help me understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Being so incredibly confident you must have a rock solid set of arguments about this topic and I'd love to hear them.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Do you know of a system that already does this? Or any manufactures that have it in their radar? What if they do build this and it fails 10% of the time? What do you think the ramifications of that will be? I'm basing this on history, capitalism, and current available data. Will this eventually be as everyone believes? Yes. In our lifetime? Almost certainly not. So, should we wait? Or find more realistic way to save lives today?
  - LargeTomato 3y ago

SllX 3y ago

Alternatively: this is San Francisco where on a good day the locals don’t need much excuse to set fire to a car (although I usually associate it with the Giants winning a World Series) and this poor dumb stupid driverless Waymo drove into a celebratory and by the looks of it somewhat drunken crowd on the Streets of Chinatown during the Chinese New Year where in following its prime directive to do no harm, it got itself stuck up the creek without a paddle so to speak. Waymo probably should have accounted for that ahead of time and told their cars not to go near Chinatown this evening. Welcome to the Year of the Dragon.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Is SF really that bad for cars being set on fire via random celebrations/riots? Paris’s suburbs I get, but SF?
- verticalscaler 3y ago
  I can't tell you how many smashed cars I've seen with rolled down windows and notes begging people not to trash them and that there are no valuables inside.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    That’s different: it’s just drug addicts looking for drug money and the citizens being too nice to get their police to crack down on that. But lighting a car on fire for anger and kicks is something else.
    - verticalscaler 3y ago
      I'm not sure if "nice" is a logical word to use in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory Be assured it isn't "just" drug addicts but increasingly profit minded criminals and misguided teenagers, 'etc. They smash the windows anyhow and occasionally set things on fire for kicks. And there are more and more organized and semi-organized groups.

userbinator 3y ago

[flagged]

mise_en_place 3y ago
This is a hilarious take. A few youths went bonkers and defaced private property. Has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs or a Big Tech agenda. You should debate the finer points of the Big Tech agenda with them while they run up to you in a maddened rage.
bowsamic 3y ago
You’re going to get banned but you’re speaking the truth Ironically can’t reply to the person who replied to me because my account is partially banned :D To the other reply: dang has personally confirmed that I am rate limited, so no. It’s also in the publicly available HN source code. If I post more than 5 times in 12 hours I get a “you are posting too fast” message. Other people don’t get this
- AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
  Generally speaking people don't get banned here, also they have ~75,000 internet points so they know what they're doing. Either this thread will get flagged to death because ultimately this is a VC forum or dang will come in and dish some well deserved scoldings if anyone goes too far but that's about it.
- subtra3t 3y ago
  I think HN automatically imposes a limit on how much furthur down a comment chain an existing participant can comment in, to prevent heated discussions. So while I, somebody who hasn't commented till now, can reply to the reply to your comment just fine, you, somebody who has commented previously, cannot. Hope that clears it up, I don't think your account is shadow banned.

breathen 3y ago

> This (driverless tech) is amazing for what it can do to help people that are old/poor and live in places with no public transport The ability to type this on an investment forum with a straight face indicates you have a bright future in our industry

beAbU 3y ago
Just in case its not clear why the quoted statement is so ridiculous: What makes Waymo a more suitable solution to lack of public transport, than actual public transport?
- al_borland 3y ago
  Not the person who said it, and I’m in favor of rails, bike paths, etc being the basis of any multifaceted transit system. That being said, augmenting a public transit system with something like self-driving cars would be good for older people, or anyone with limited mobility, who may not be able to handle the amount of walking required with most public transit options. I don’t think I’d include the poor in the list of people who would benefit, as I would expect a dedicated car driving for doorstep to doorstep would be more expensive than a train or bus which has scheduled stops. I live in an area with poor public transit, and my parents both live in areas with no public transit options at all. They are 70 now and eventually they will get to the point where they can no longer drive safely. Having a way to get around would allow them to maintain their freedom and independence. Without that, giving up their license will mean depending on family or friends to do anything that requires leaving the house. Uber would be an option for my dad, but unlikely for my mom as she lives in a more rural area, and I’d imagine it would get expensive. I did just look up options for my mom if she has to give up her car. There is a service available from the county that runs from 7am - 3:30pm, Mon - Sat. If she wants/needs to go anywhere in the evening or on Sunday, she’d be out of luck. They also require 3 days notice to pick someone up for a doctor’s appointment, and an hour+ for anything else. While writing this I also remembered a guy I used to work with who had seizures, so he couldn’t drive. He took the bus to work and it would take him about 2 hours. Since it was a night shift job and the buses didn’t run late, he also ended up getting to work extremely early and then just had to wait for his shift to start. Co-workers often gave him a ride home after learning about all this, as it was less than 20 minutes by car. Having some faster and more direct options would be nice for areas with horribly slow bus services, or with limited hours. Maybe the transit providers could use the car data to inform them on future transit routes that should be built. That way we can reduce the number of cars that need to be on the road over time, and do it in a way that makes the biggest impact.

vostrocity 3y ago

This isn't a revolt against AI. SF attracts anarchist mobs and they'll vandalize buses, trains, police cars, bikes, whatever is around.

uoaei 3y ago
You sound like someone who lives in a suburb and watches too much news on TV.
yareal 3y ago
I think you don't really understand what an anarchist is. I'm an anarchist, I wouldn't set someone's car on fire. Happy to give you a rundown on wellbeing for all, mutual aid, and federated production (with a bonus explanation of personal property vs private property,) Anarchist theory is almost 200 years old now, and for most of human history we lived in an anarchist way. There's much more there than "wreck shit".
nwiswell 3y ago
Anarchist mobs? It was almost certainly some drunk kids in the middle of the Chinese New Year celebrations. But the question remains: what was the political ideology of these youths? Anarchists? Marxists? Fascists? Technocrats? Monarchists??? We may never know!
- creer 3y ago
  The video shows more than a couple drunk kids kicking a car at random. It shows pretty deliberate behavior. In general, really, it takes more than a random kick to break a car window. And it did take more than that this time. Vandalism is not much of a political ideology but here we are.
cm2187 3y ago
in total impunity
AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
Anarchist mobster here, I think people just don't like roving surveillance wagons. Also, actual anarchists are not going to vandalize bikes and public transit. It's kind of important that we be somewhat precise about our terminology as otherwise you just stoke political division to no real end.

Fricken 3y ago

The first objective is to develop a robotaxi service convenient and affordable enough that people come to depend on it. The second objective is to enshittify the service. (Try not to say that part out loud)