8 ms·

Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life

by silvr 1y ago

owebmaster 1y ago
Facebook was once inventing the future, too
MegaButts 1y ago
Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades. If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.
  - oblio 1y ago
    People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit. Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places. Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft. It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both. We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.
    - achatham 1y ago
      As a counter to your one example: I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people. Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.
  - chipsrafferty 1y ago
    It's an argument that we should fund public transit more. What's hard to understand?
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      Obviously funding public transit is good, but people usually phrase funding arguments as zero sum tradeoffs. You wouldn't write "bookstores are cool, but I'd rather have public transit", because there's no trade-off there. I'm assuming the OP actually meant something by writing their post the way they did.
  - Nasrudith 1y ago
    It seemed to me to always have been a goalpost relocation. The talking point wasn't even a fringe view beforehand and if anything would be taken as an obvious diversion from those who are big-oil aligned. Instead it was first seen when electrification of transit was achieved by capitalism. The watermelons simply couldn't accept that, it went against their article of faith that capitalism is responsible for all of the world's problems and could not provide any solutions. IF there is one thing that makes them the most angry it is solving problems without going to their preferred political alignment. So they all downloaded their latest talking points and reprogrammed themselves and declared that electric car's only purpose is to save the auto industry in spite of 48% of global transport carbon emissions coming from cars and vans.
- oblio 1y ago
  We probably went wrong when we decided to maximize money versus maximizing happiness. We badly need to move beyond GDP and to at least IHDI, if not something even better.
  - nradov 1y ago
    I can't buy food or pay my mortgage with happiness.
    - oblio 1y ago
      I didn't say it was easy. And I'm not talking about individual action. Governments should incentivize and force different things. Conceptually simple example: construction projects should require sustainability and aesthetics reviews, including, for example, use of better materials and green and walkable spaces. For example I find the butt ugly and cheap American solutions for sidewalks (I think continuously poured concrete cut into slabs with circular saws) much worse than the European ones (paving stones, often natural stone). The US is the richer country and it frequently looks cheaper and poorer. Beauty matters.
      - nradov 1y ago
        What a terrible idea. I don't want my government to "force" things. Nor should idiot government bureaucrats have any authority over something as subjective as aesthetics. Paving stones are terrible for skates, and not great for running either. Poured concrete is much smoother. And it's not cut with circular saws so I have no idea what you're referring to there.
        oblio 1y ago
        Poured asphalt, then. And it doesn't hurt to plant more trees. American cities, especially in the South, seem to be utterly allergic to trees. Which makes even less sense in hot climates. Or huge billboards. Lack of general greenery and hedges to block noise. Stroads. I could go on an on. The average built environment in US cities and suburbs is awful and again, cheap.
- balfirevic 1y ago
  Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like New York.
  - smus 1y ago
    Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like cities that have good public transit.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- robocat 1y ago
  > Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit False dichotomy. Good public transport would be self driving cars as a feeder network to mass transit once the self driving tech is cheap enough. It could only work well as work habits change to stop having peak hours (peak usage for low-utilization self-driving cars doesn't seem likely to be economical).
- ghaff 1y ago
  For many of us "good public transit" would make zero difference in our daily lives in the US. We just don't live somewhere that there will realistically be a bus stop or train stop within easy walking distance. I'm not even a long drive from a train station but it's absolutely unworkable as transportation for most purposes aside from going into the big city 9-5.
- bsder 1y ago
  > Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. Last mile is a PITA in the US. It is difficult to take the train from San Diego northward if you don't get there at 7AM because the parking will fill up. At some point, Waymo can cross over into replacing a personal car for the last mile task. Right now, it's a bit expensive: $20/ride 2 ride/day 5 days/week * 50 weeks = $10,000 per year. Purchasing your own car still makes more sense. If that were $1,000 per year? No brainer--I'd dump my car in a heartbeat.
chipsrafferty 1y ago
You sound young and naive
ghushn3 1y ago
Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future? Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good? In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.
  - ghushn3 1y ago
    Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars? > Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example. > Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion? But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place. You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen. > I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood. It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.

Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life

by silvr 1y ago

Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life

owebmaster 1y ago

Facebook was once inventing the future, too

MegaButts 1y ago

Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades. If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.

AlotOfReading 1y ago
I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.
- oblio 1y ago
  People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit. Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places. Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft. It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both. We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.
  - achatham 1y ago
    As a counter to your one example: I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people. Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.
- chipsrafferty 1y ago
  It's an argument that we should fund public transit more. What's hard to understand?
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    Obviously funding public transit is good, but people usually phrase funding arguments as zero sum tradeoffs. You wouldn't write "bookstores are cool, but I'd rather have public transit", because there's no trade-off there. I'm assuming the OP actually meant something by writing their post the way they did.
- Nasrudith 1y ago
  It seemed to me to always have been a goalpost relocation. The talking point wasn't even a fringe view beforehand and if anything would be taken as an obvious diversion from those who are big-oil aligned. Instead it was first seen when electrification of transit was achieved by capitalism. The watermelons simply couldn't accept that, it went against their article of faith that capitalism is responsible for all of the world's problems and could not provide any solutions. IF there is one thing that makes them the most angry it is solving problems without going to their preferred political alignment. So they all downloaded their latest talking points and reprogrammed themselves and declared that electric car's only purpose is to save the auto industry in spite of 48% of global transport carbon emissions coming from cars and vans.
oblio 1y ago
We probably went wrong when we decided to maximize money versus maximizing happiness. We badly need to move beyond GDP and to at least IHDI, if not something even better.
- nradov 1y ago
  I can't buy food or pay my mortgage with happiness.
  - oblio 1y ago
    I didn't say it was easy. And I'm not talking about individual action. Governments should incentivize and force different things. Conceptually simple example: construction projects should require sustainability and aesthetics reviews, including, for example, use of better materials and green and walkable spaces. For example I find the butt ugly and cheap American solutions for sidewalks (I think continuously poured concrete cut into slabs with circular saws) much worse than the European ones (paving stones, often natural stone). The US is the richer country and it frequently looks cheaper and poorer. Beauty matters.
    - nradov 1y ago
      What a terrible idea. I don't want my government to "force" things. Nor should idiot government bureaucrats have any authority over something as subjective as aesthetics. Paving stones are terrible for skates, and not great for running either. Poured concrete is much smoother. And it's not cut with circular saws so I have no idea what you're referring to there.
      - oblio 1y ago
        Poured asphalt, then. And it doesn't hurt to plant more trees. American cities, especially in the South, seem to be utterly allergic to trees. Which makes even less sense in hot climates. Or huge billboards. Lack of general greenery and hedges to block noise. Stroads. I could go on an on. The average built environment in US cities and suburbs is awful and again, cheap.
balfirevic 1y ago
Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like New York.
- smus 1y ago
  Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like cities that have good public transit.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
robocat 1y ago
> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit False dichotomy. Good public transport would be self driving cars as a feeder network to mass transit once the self driving tech is cheap enough. It could only work well as work habits change to stop having peak hours (peak usage for low-utilization self-driving cars doesn't seem likely to be economical).
ghaff 1y ago
For many of us "good public transit" would make zero difference in our daily lives in the US. We just don't live somewhere that there will realistically be a bus stop or train stop within easy walking distance. I'm not even a long drive from a train station but it's absolutely unworkable as transportation for most purposes aside from going into the big city 9-5.
bsder 1y ago
> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. Last mile is a PITA in the US. It is difficult to take the train from San Diego northward if you don't get there at 7AM because the parking will fill up. At some point, Waymo can cross over into replacing a personal car for the last mile task. Right now, it's a bit expensive: $20/ride 2 ride/day 5 days/week * 50 weeks = $10,000 per year. Purchasing your own car still makes more sense. If that were $1,000 per year? No brainer--I'd dump my car in a heartbeat.

chipsrafferty 1y ago

You sound young and naive

ghushn3 1y ago

Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future? Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good? In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.
- ghushn3 1y ago
  Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars? > Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example. > Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion? But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place. You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen. > I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood. It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.