Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo Via

waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 277 posts

Re: Waymo Via

#141

Post by chris_st »

three_seagrass wrote: post #57
markstos wrote: post #23

As a bike/ped advocate, I believe self-driving cars will ultimately be safer than humans. Yesterday I was nearly hit crossing street twice: once by an inattentive driver and once by an intentionally reckless speeder. Oh the other hand, my brother has done a fair amount of truck driving and I'm aware it's a common job in the US. Maybe now that Bloomberg has dropped out he get together with Yang and use his billions to…

Yep, as a biker I now intentionally try to look at the driver through the windshield to see if their eyes are down on a cell phone. They are scarily more frequent than you would think.

Or just to check to see if they're looking in your direction, so they're at least likely to have seen you. Amazing how often people watch a car to (say) their right, and once it clears, they go through the intersection without checking again to their left...!

Re: Waymo Via

#142

Post by jdminhbg »

gvb wrote: post #103
gretch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already do this to humans pretty much just as easily, I just need some orange cones Then what? You have 20 palettes of dog chew toys or asian pears....? Some of the goods have serial/tracking numbers. The reason people don't rob 18 wheelers or trains is because it's not a good criminal enterprise

Hijacking trucks (stealing trailers) is happening already with drivers and security guards. Remove the drivers and security guards and it will make it a lot easier. "The Curious Case of the Disappearing Nuts" https://www.outsideonline.com/2186526/nut-job "$370,000 worth of iPhone X devices were stolen from a UPS truck" https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/3/16601970/iphone-x-devices... "As Freight on Trucks Becomes More…

> Hijacking trucks (stealing trailers) is happening already with drivers and security guards. Remove the drivers and security guards and it will make it a lot easier.

I'm not sure taking away bribe-able workers with keys to the truck will make it easier to hijack.

Re: Waymo Via

#143

Post by netsharc »

shadowgovt wrote: post #136
gvb wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hijacking trucks (stealing trailers) is happening already with drivers and security guards. Remove the drivers and security guards and it will make it a lot easier. "The Curious Case of the Disappearing Nuts" https://www.outsideonline.com/2186526/nut-job "$370,000 worth of iPhone X devices were stolen from a UPS truck" https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/3/16601970/iphone-x-devices... "As Freight on Trucks Becomes More…

Honestly though, that's win-win. A heist where a human is involved has enhanced risk of injury or loss-of-life if the driver / guard decides to be a big hero or the criminal gets jumpy. A world where vehicles are modestly easier to steal from (but audit the thefts) pushes risk from human lives towards insurance companies. Toss in a few honeypot shipments that are tailed by a handful of squad cars, and things are prob…

It seems to me the heist risk is being overrated...

But if your logic is solid, the next solution would be for these self-driving trucks to carry a human or two who'll sit there and not do anything. So, literal human shields.

Like the joke about how to solve the self-driving car trolley problem to your benefit: make sure you're in a car with a few newborn babies.

Re: Waymo Via

#144

Post by foota »

mandevil wrote: post #54
ebiester wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arizona allows drivers over 80, and I'd trust Waymo over the average octogenarian driving.

See, the thing is, Waymo controls the data, and certainly knows how good their driving is. If it was clearly better than the average octogenarian driving, wouldn't they be letting us all know that? Wouldn't they be announcing that and writing up white papers and giving presentations at conferences about this? They need to start building the safety case, and it is entirely to their benefit to release this data, if it…

There's a difference between something being safe and being capable. I can make a trivially safe self driving car that just sits there and does nothing, completely safe but not capable :) My point being that Waymo could have zero colissions (which I believe is not true) but still not be as capable a driver as someone for which it is unsafe to be driving, but is reasonably capable of getting around.

Re: Waymo Via

#145

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #87
gretch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already do this to humans pretty much just as easily, I just need some orange cones Then what? You have 20 palettes of dog chew toys or asian pears....? Some of the goods have serial/tracking numbers. The reason people don't rob 18 wheelers or trains is because it's not a good criminal enterprise

> Then what? You have 20 palettes of dog chew toys or asian pears....? Some of the goods have serial/tracking numbers. Your comment made me laugh. Very true. Besides the fact that there is no black market for 20 palettes of dog chew and asian pears, the other problem is that unless you successfully steal a few highly valuable items, you would need one or multiple trucks to carry what you've stolen from that semi. You…

It’s relatively trivial to attach a shock baton or flash bang ordnance to the drone, which would incapacitate the thieves as well.

Re: Waymo Via

#146

Post by hnick »

markstos wrote: post #23

As a bike/ped advocate, I believe self-driving cars will ultimately be safer than humans. Yesterday I was nearly hit crossing street twice: once by an inattentive driver and once by an intentionally reckless speeder. Oh the other hand, my brother has done a fair amount of truck driving and I'm aware it's a common job in the US. Maybe now that Bloomberg has dropped out he get together with Yang and use his billions to…

Sometimes I wonder if inattentiveness (i.e. breadth of thought) is perhaps a fundamental attribute of generalised intelligence, and having a laser focus on the task is the wrong way to get there.

Re: Waymo Via

#147

Post by shadowgovt »

netsharc wrote: post #143
shadowgovt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly though, that's win-win. A heist where a human is involved has enhanced risk of injury or loss-of-life if the driver / guard decides to be a big hero or the criminal gets jumpy. A world where vehicles are modestly easier to steal from (but audit the thefts) pushes risk from human lives towards insurance companies. Toss in a few honeypot shipments that are tailed by a handful of squad cars, and things are prob…

It seems to me the heist risk is being overrated... But if your logic is solid, the next solution would be for these self-driving trucks to carry a human or two who'll sit there and not do anything. So, literal human shields. Like the joke about how to solve the self-driving car trolley problem to your benefit: make sure you're in a car with a few newborn babies.

I haven't heard that joke before and it's pretty good :)

But the human shields are still solving for the wrong problem: placing the value of a load of (usually) consumer goods over the value of a human life.

Re: Waymo Via

#148

Post by hnick »

stevehawk wrote: post #50
rleahy22 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah cause screw that person who died.

No regulation was going to prevent a death where developers intentionally disabled all safety checks.

Laws don't change outcomes, but they can influence behaviours. Such as a developer not doing the above due to concern of a law.

Re: Waymo Via

#149

Post by mkchoi212 »

From the placement of the LIDARs, I wonder how they solved the problem of being able to look in the truck's blind spot. Or do they just attach a camera on the back of the container every time they switch containers??

Re: Waymo Via

#150

Post by jbeales »

gretch wrote: post #45
ckmiller wrote: post #41

I competed in the DARPA Urban Challenge, back in 2007. While we were watching the finalists trying to sort out the world's first fully-automated traffic jam, the conversation turned to how easy it is to manipulate these vehicles. Imagine a remote stretch of highway frequented by automated 18-wheelers. All that's required to bring the truck to a screeching halt is a bedsheet and some decent timing, at which point the…

You can already do this to humans pretty much just as easily, I just need some orange cones Then what? You have 20 palettes of dog chew toys or asian pears....? Some of the goods have serial/tracking numbers. The reason people don't rob 18 wheelers or trains is because it's not a good criminal enterprise

People rob trucks all the time. It's actually a pretty big deal, especially in Canada for some reason.

See https://globalnews.ca/news/6419141/cargo-crime-greater-toron... and https://www.todaystrucking.com/canadian-cargo-theft-surpasse...

20 palettes of asian pears, (or any food item), is surprisingly easy to unload.

Post reply on HN