11–20 of 334 posts
Amen. Uber's fatal accident rate is now 50x that of sober human driver's. At their current rate of driving, they can't have a _lower_ rate until 2028! Inexcusable failure of their technology to prevent a human death in the most basic collision avoidance scenario.
The political side is interesting to look at as well. The governor directly issued the order and he is up for election this year [0] and he played up the positive PR of the Uber and others coming to the state.
0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_gubernatorial_electi...
Let’s suspend human driving too, since it kills over 100 people per day.
Given Uber's track record, however, I believe we'll see this was more of their "don't give a fuck" brogrammer attitude. When you're only really risking people not being charged a correct fee or not being picked up for a ride it's one thing. Risking public safety is another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans kill 1 person every ~100m miles. Uber has killed 1 person after ~3m miles. Yes, I would absolutely suspend a system that kills 3,000 people/day in favor of a system that kills 100 people/day.
n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…
This is interesting, but can we avoid posting links to articles behind paywalls? Here's one on the subject that isn't: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-arizona-ub...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans kill 1 person every ~100m miles. Uber has killed 1 person after ~3m miles. Yes, I would absolutely suspend a system that kills 3,000 people/day in favor of a system that kills 100 people/day.
n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…
This is interesting, but can we avoid posting links to articles behind paywalls? Here's one on the subject that isn't: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-arizona-ub...
Saying nothing about Google/Waymo, it appears they're allowed to continue? Their self-driving technology seems far more advanced, I think it would be unfair to punish all the players for the bad actions of a few. In particular, Uber seems to have been operating self-driving cars recklessly and in an attempt to "move fast and break things". When those things are people's lives, that's unacceptable. I'm all for interes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…
Agreed, but it's not like it's OK to say "Well sure, so far we have a kill rate of 50x a human driver, but why don't we wait until Uber kills at least 20 people first so we can determine proper statistical significance"
Why in this case is it acceptable to make decisions on non-statistically significant data? You would exercise more rigour than that in a throwaway A/B test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans kill 1 person every ~100m miles. Uber has killed 1 person after ~3m miles. Yes, I would absolutely suspend a system that kills 3,000 people/day in favor of a system that kills 100 people/day.
n=1 (To reduce the number of email notifications I'm getting I'd best put this message in parentheses right next to this statement. NOTE: I'm not a statistician and don't believe statistics are all that important here! All I meant to say here is that this is a single incident. That's it. Nothing more.) Edit: I'm getting the impression some people think I am suggesting there aren't grounds to suspend Uber's driving ba…
> poisson.test(1,3,1/100, alt='greater')
Exact Poisson test
data: 1 time base: 3
number of events = 1, time base = 3, p-value = 0.02955
alternative hypothesis: true event rate is greater than 0.01
95 percent confidence interval:
0.01709776 Inf
sample estimates:
event rate
0.3333333