Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#2Everyone wants to drive through other people's streets and wants no one to drive on theirs. Waze made it so this was evenly distributed. Of course the erstwhile privileged fear loss of privilege.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#3>This has created fascinating potential legal issues that may one day be litigated in lawsuits or class actions. These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets.
So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on?
It seems like the real problem here is shitty urban planning. This is clearly a huge problem plaguing Los Angeles, in many ways beyond just this one. If you want to keep people off streets, pass ordnances that say non-residents can't cut through them. Otherwise, there's not much of a case against Waze here.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#4> No street, certainly not your residential 25-mph variety, is safe from being Wazed into a makeshift freeway or thoroughfare. ... These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets.
This is exactly backwards.
The streets were effectively privatized before, via obscurity. It is Waze that has made formerly private streets public.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#5>This has created fascinating potential legal issues that may one day be litigated in lawsuits or class actions. These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets. So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on? It seems like the real problem here…
> So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on?
If doing so is encouraging reckless driving and causing public endangerment of the residents on the streets, why shouldn't it be? They're clearly contributing to a loss of safety. Especially consider that the kind of person who is willing to shave off 30 seconds a commute by cutting through a neighborhood is unlikely to be the kind of person who would travel the appropriate speed on said street without a cop and radar gun verifying it.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#6>This has created fascinating potential legal issues that may one day be litigated in lawsuits or class actions. These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets. So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on? It seems like the real problem here…
> non-residents can't cut through them.
Non-residents shouldn’t pay taxes to maintain those roads either then.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#7Technology is created to solve a problem.
Technology has unintended consequences.
Technology owners have feduciary responsibility to continue producing technology.
Negatively affected citizens make a fuss, claim they deserve more rights than other citizens.
Media creates hit pieces, painting the most negative possible picture in an attempt to look like investigative journalism.
Government either ignores the problem, or grossly overreaches, leading to further unintended consequences.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#8>This has created fascinating potential legal issues that may one day be litigated in lawsuits or class actions. These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets. So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on? It seems like the real problem here…
> So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on? If doing so is encouraging reckless driving and causing public endangerment of the residents on the streets, why shouldn't it be? They're clearly contributing to a loss of safety. Especially consider that the kind of person who is willing to shave off 30 seconds a commute by cutting through…
I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So it's illegal to tell people that a public road might make for a faster route than the one a person is currently driving on? If doing so is encouraging reckless driving and causing public endangerment of the residents on the streets, why shouldn't it be? They're clearly contributing to a loss of safety. Especially consider that the kind of person who is willing to shave off 30 seconds a commute by cutting through…
I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.
For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law.
In some of the conditions that are brought up in these stories, it's not even really safe to travel the legal speed limit. (And reckless driving includes travelling too fast for conditions). Given the resistance of Waze to merely cut out those routes that are not safe for through traffic, it's clear that they do not value safety and I hold little sympathy for them.
Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience
#10Technology is created to solve a problem. Technology has unintended consequences. Technology owners have feduciary responsibility to continue producing technology. Negatively affected citizens make a fuss, claim they deserve more rights than other citizens. Media creates hit pieces, painting the most negative possible picture in an attempt to look like investigative journalism. Government either ignores the problem,…
Oh nice! This is Discordian 5-act structure.
Chaos: Our protagonist, New Tech, arises.
Discord: As a consequence, the first antagonist looms: Unintended Consequences.
Confusion: New Tech is not dissuaded. It moves boldly, embracing what it sees as positive change in the world.
Bureaucracy: Unintended Consequences summons the evil power of Somebody Else's Problem, and reveals their true face: Angry Mobs.
The Aftermath: The Government steps in. They ban New Tech, establish a Committee to Study Somebody Else's Problem, set up a fund for Unintended Consequences, and violently suppress the Angry Mobs.
Recall that, in Discordian 5-act, the protagonist is arbitrary, and usually chosen to maximize irony, bathos, or confusion. Our goal is to remind the audience of how silly it was to think of anything or anybody as morally absolved.