Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.
Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is there so much discussion about paywalls on HN? Can someone create a FAQ? The first several comments so far are essentially about the paywall. It's all noise. We need to increase the signal.
Then they should remove the paywall. How are we supposed to discuss the article if we can't read it? This isn't a discussion "about the paywall" - it's just a link so the rest of us can read along.
That why we need an FAQ. So everyone who can't figure it out for themselves can read it.
I've already explained a couple of times that there are still advantages even if you can't read the original source. Can you figure out what one advantage might be?
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#13Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated.
Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on average. A self-driving car is very complementary to services like Uber. If self-driving cars could be shared, increasing vehicle utilization past 5%, then we could repurpose vast swaths of unproductive urban land.
Once fewer people are owning cars, and instead paying a la carte, it also restructures the choice architecture of driving. Without a default option sitting in the driveway, I suspect that people may opt to walk, bike, or take transit with more regularity as well.
As a planner, I'm slightly more bullish on the potential of self-driving cars to remake transportation than my peers are. It was only a couple of years ago that I attended a demand management conference keynote in which the well-known (in planning circles) speaker was cracking jokes about how self-driving cars wouldn't change anything. I disagree--I just hope the future gets here soon.
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is there so much discussion about paywalls on HN? Can someone create a FAQ? The first several comments so far are essentially about the paywall. It's all noise. We need to increase the signal.
From the FAQ: Are paywalls ok? It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
[deleted]
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the FAQ: Are paywalls ok? It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
[deleted]
You asked why it's not in a faq. Someone pointed out that it is in a faq, and quoted the faq, and linked the faq.
You respond by attacking that poster?
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
You asked why it's not in a faq. Someone pointed out that it is in a faq, and quoted the faq, and linked the faq. You respond by attacking that poster?
You're right. However, it doesn't solve the noise problem. Oh well, guess the problem of a growing community and keeping the quality high is unsolvable
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#17Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…
And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#18I wonder why they chose to use the word 'Chief' versus 'CEO' when the article uses CEO to describe the situation. At first I thought Sebastian Thrun would be the subject of this article...
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…
And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too
You'll still need parking, but you can put it underground in lights out parking facilities.
Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…
And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too
And don't forget the economic impact. Think about all those people whos job it is to drive: truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers.