Field testing yet to be conducted but so many ambulances in the hood getting clean audio will be no problem. Bluetooth speaker on the sidewalk. In Dallas CBD as long as it’s part of performing of art (so maybe I’m doing yo-yo tricks next to the speaker) or is permitted as well as a tip receptacle. Being asked to move by a business is about it.
Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
61–70 of 120 posts
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a (very) incomplete list. Not all are ones that I've personally experienced, but they're all products that either I or someone in my direct acquaintance have owned/used. * Microsoft Windows starts showing ads in new and creative places, even though I shelled out $200 for the Pro version. * An Android update broke my preferred home screen. * Roomba vacuums go through regular periods of stupidity in between sof…
>Here is a (very) incomplete list Unlike the potential of a vehicle making driving mistakes, none of your examples is harmful , especially not to random third parties. The only thing on your list I have direct experience with is Windows--I've had the Pro license ever since Win 10 came out, now on three different machines, and I don't see any ads on my desktop or popping up in my file system. (of course, I don't log i…
I can't be bothered to check, but I assume my corporate laptop is using pro/enterprise Windows, and it has definitely shown ads on the lock screen (it's very laggy when I want to unlock my computer, so very noticable). I don't interact with Windows much beyond opening a terminal, so they may be elsewhere too. I vaguely recall it randomly popping up some Xbox thing at one point.
Honestly I don't see why corporate security groups don't throw a fit over what Microsoft has been doing the last few years. I'd expect the enterprise versions to be almost like Windows 2000 with all of the malware off by default (and possibly impossible to turn on).
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
As individuals we are never going to own self-driving cars. If buying the hardware is even an option to begin with, there's going to be a hefty fee to subscribe to the required 'cloud based' self-driving service. (And there's certainly no way individuals/small businesses will be able to buy such a car and run a self-driving taxi service profitably when a megacorporation could have all the income from all the cars)
I don't have strong opinions about self-driving cars in this context, but the pattern of this argument doesn't track: you can omit "self-driving" and the underlying premise is still the same (that companies have an incentive to lease rather than sell objects to capture service revenues). But the reality is that people do own cars, and no car manufacturer that I know is also trying to become a taxi operator (except ma…
The pattern is that hardware is sold but software is now rented, it must be a 'revenue stream', not a one-off sale.
Cars were hardware. But now contain ever-increasing amounts of software. With self-driving cars, the software is the main feature.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#64> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
> Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? I'd want the opposite: for self-driving firmware to be locked down and ha…
> FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time?
Hasn't that always been possible? Just because it's in software now I don't see why it's suddenly different
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#65> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
But there are games like Rocket League who have never changed their controls or physics. They changed everything else except for those things so that people could predictably build and maintain skill. I think it’s not holding a car company to too high or a standard.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually invoked after some harm has been caused. Perhaps there is something we can do before the, nearly obvious, harm occurs.
"Nearly obvious" seems to be doing a lot of work in that sentence. Maybe elaborate? There are now millions of cars on the road with some level of autonomy, you don't need to hand-wave about what you believe "will" happen. Just show the data.
It was the items mentioned by @lolinder - software updates causing cars behavior to change, who really owns it, etc.
That context was easier to see when this thread started.
The "nearly obvious" was referring to things already mentioned, which I also think are obvious but many others don't.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? I'd want the opposite: for self-driving firmware to be locked down and ha…
>FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? generally we don't pen laws in order to save a singular idiot teenager -- more-so the aforementioned teenager bought a product and then ruined it; the teenager already rece…
> I don't understand why this changes radically when a vehicle becomes electric, were gas tanks and high pressure fuel injectors suddenly safer than I remember them being?
That’s not what’s changing. We’d be having the same balancing act discussion of collective safety versus individual rights if self-driving cars were all combustion powered.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about comma? https://comma.ai/ Seems like our old friend geohot built exactly what you want. Positive HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927971
If it became popular it'd be regulated out of existence
Diesel tuners are still very popular.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#69Maybe this is an unpopular opinion here, but "tickets" don't make any conceptual sense for driverless cars. The entire concept of tickets and fines are to act as a deterrent to individual drivers who might make unsafe choices -- that they'll actively choose whether to obey a speed limit or not. Driverless cars don't seem to be programmed to break laws in the first place. They're incapable of making a choice to break…
That's a pretty good point. Just wanted to comment to say that I found it convincing. Ticketing is a less effective tool for large scale operators.
The benefit is that ticketing is the administrative mechanism we already have so we can use that to aggregate and judge performance.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Here is a (very) incomplete list Unlike the potential of a vehicle making driving mistakes, none of your examples is harmful , especially not to random third parties. The only thing on your list I have direct experience with is Windows--I've had the Pro license ever since Win 10 came out, now on three different machines, and I don't see any ads on my desktop or popping up in my file system. (of course, I don't log i…
I can't be bothered to check, but I assume my corporate laptop is using pro/enterprise Windows, and it has definitely shown ads on the lock screen (it's very laggy when I want to unlock my computer, so very noticable). I don't interact with Windows much beyond opening a terminal, so they may be elsewhere too. I vaguely recall it randomly popping up some Xbox thing at one point. Honestly I don't see why corporate secu…
A self-respecting established company would ensure their windows installs never show any ads. I hope some of the bigger actors can pressure Microsoft on this point to make it clear to MS.