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

A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

theindustry.pw

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#51

Post by jffry »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #2

Where's the video that contradicts the first responders account? Not casting aspersions, I've just looked through this article, linked tweets, etc. and I can't find it.

I found this report [1] from NBC Bay Area, which states that Cruise would not release the video "But NBC Bay Area was able to review a nearly 13 minute video which is purportedly the incident in question. It appears to show what the company describes, including the ambulance managing to squeeze by the stopped Cruise car."

(Reading between the lines: I'm assuming the news station was able to review footage that is not from Cruise (dashcam from a cop car? security camera?), and are being circumspect about even describing their source to protect whoever gave them access)

[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cruise-pushes-back-cla...

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#52

Post by Supermancho »

signatoremo wrote: post #49
Supermancho wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise, it's additional. Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.

I’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours, because they would feel similarly outraged.

> they would feel similarly outraged.

That's not fair. Charitable interpretation would not ascribe feelings to other posters. Even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the issue I have pointed out.

Let's break it down. Is the "homeless" detail an addition that is specifically due to the Friedman's (or the hosting site's) particular leanings? Is it responsible (staying impartial) to point it out, given the political climate of the area? Is it the slippery slope of an implication that it was "just a homeless man and these things happen to them"? Can Friedman assume that readership with below average intelligence will incorporate the nuance of the tragedy, without the implication?

> I’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours

I don't understand why you are sure about this. Good luck with whatever.

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#53

Post by sitkack »

yieldcrv wrote: post #17
tqi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely have no idea what any of that means. What is a symptom what?

a symptom of a disdain towards tech wealth, rapid changes, and mostly inequality viewed through a juvenile and narrow lens from people on the left side of the wealth bell curve there

Big words but a lack of empathy paint a depressing picture

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#55

Post by yieldcrv »

sitkack wrote: post #53
yieldcrv wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a symptom of a disdain towards tech wealth, rapid changes, and mostly inequality viewed through a juvenile and narrow lens from people on the left side of the wealth bell curve there

Big words but a lack of empathy paint a depressing picture

what words would you use to convey the same message, if you were

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#56

Post by reducesuffering »

fragmede wrote: post #40
moate wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?

The subtext is that the individual was not of right mind, either due to sleep deprivation from being unhoused, or the stress itself of being unhoused, or, to be blunt, being on drugs. Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver. Not saying that's…

> Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood

checks location

~$10b unicorn Plaid's headquarters. SF is truly an enigma

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#57

Post by living_room_pc »

xigency wrote: post #6

Kind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way. Yesterday, walking in my city I saw an ambulance stuck at an intersection for over a minute because of confused drivers and a police vehicle blocking the road. I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them. Meanwhile, Tesl…

> Kind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way.

Honestly I think it is silly to assume not. People (in general) have a pretty good intuition if EMS is coming their way.

Beyond that, this is a commercial service that is to be rolled out en-masse, it has to be better than the average human or else you will have lawsuits left and right.

> I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them.

That is not a tenable solution.

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#58

Post by P_I_Staker »

dmitrygr wrote: post #34
PlunderBunny wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?

Yes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.

Yes, and this is fucked up, is what we're saying

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#59

Post by P_I_Staker »

justrealist wrote: post #45
dmitrygr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.

Yeah exactly. I'm not saying anyone deserved to die; the homeless in SF are basically not autonomous agents anymore. Right or wrong, it shifts it in my mind from "bus driver is at fault" to "nobody is at fault" (except the city that encourages themn to them stay drugged and on the streets).

So being homeless means that we shouldn't investigate fatal crashes? Personally, I don't think they should have to give up the right to not be murdered.

Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

#60

Post by P_I_Staker »

fragmede wrote: post #40
moate wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?

The subtext is that the individual was not of right mind, either due to sleep deprivation from being unhoused, or the stress itself of being unhoused, or, to be blunt, being on drugs. Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver. Not saying that's…

> Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver

This sounds like this makes it, "in some way", okay to people here. No need for investigation, it must be the dirty homeless.

Post reply on HN