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

Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 449 posts

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#421

Post by Mawr »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #249
Mawr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mental hoops drivers go through to justify their unsafe behaviour...

Oh please. Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle, since that's usually the case. In that situation, the behavior you're calling out as unsafe is simply "going faster". Now, in a technical sense that's true, but it's always true. Going faster reduces safety when you're above the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're at the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety w…

You can take that logic and apply it to any traffic law. Blowing red lights? Fine as long as you can tell there's no cross traffic, right?

Laws were put in place because people are not in fact qualified to make these assessments.

The only nuance here is that you are not required to go the speed limit at all, you can and should go only as fast as the conditions allow.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#422

Post by Mawr »

concordDance wrote: post #322
Dylan16807 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle, since that's usually the case. In that situation, the behavior you're calling out as unsafe is simply "going faster". Now, in a technical sense that's true, but it's always true. Going faster reduces safety when you're above the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're at the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety w…

I'm quite confused why I keep seeing posts like this downvoted in this thread. This post is nuanced and probably novel to most readers. Even seems correct to me.

Fallacious arguments have the effect of sounding correct. In this case it's the https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#423

Post by Dylan16807 »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #331
concordDance wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite confused why I keep seeing posts like this downvoted in this thread. This post is nuanced and probably novel to most readers. Even seems correct to me.

Probably because there really isn’t any nuance in it, hand waves the physics and human factor, and it uses vague language. Want to know what any arbitrary driver on a road has as a reference for “the design speed of the road”? The posted speed limit. I’m not saying their argument is right or wrong, but just that this post isn’t nuanced or convincing.

There's a correlation between the speed limit and the design speed, but there's also a lot of mismatch and the bias usually goes in a specific direction.

A few mph over the speed limit in dry weather is rarely outside the design.

And I think I have a reasonable amount of nuance. If you don't have nuance you get "the sign can't be wrong" or "always go slower". The former is objectively not true, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for the latter.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#424

Post by Dylan16807 »

Mawr wrote: post #422
concordDance wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite confused why I keep seeing posts like this downvoted in this thread. This post is nuanced and probably novel to most readers. Even seems correct to me.

Fallacious arguments have the effect of sounding correct. In this case it's the https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy .

I am not saying that. You must have misunderstood. There is definitely an inflection point for safety in any given road.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#425

Post by Dylan16807 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #382
lopkeny12ko wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a reasonable comparison. In Tesla's model, you buy a Tesla, and allow it to operate as a robotaxi when you're not using it. It generates income passively for you. The technology has introduced automation that might have displaced your job responsibility but not your means of generating income. In Waymo's model, you have completely displaced both the job itself and the means of generating income. This is a…

Putting aside the fact that Tesla's robotaxi model will likely never actually ship, I don't see how you're not displacing a driver's job by operating your car as a robotaxi instead of letting it sit idle.

If the vast majority of the robotaxies are owned by normal households that have 1 or 2 of them, then that's the people owning the means of automated production. Ideally it would be the people that already own taxis getting them upgraded, but it's a lot better than corporate fleets for putting the revenue into the pockets of people.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#426

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

refulgentis wrote: post #419
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK what the bloody fuck. What is it with the tone of these discussions? You can 100% confirm I'm reaching... the hell is the matter with you? Can't you disagree like an intelligent adult? Fucking internets.

(lectures about tone while getting personal and swearing and not asking any legible question) Come with curiosity! Ex. "How would one be able to 100% confirm Waymo isn't just being live monitored and incremental way points set?" (I'll leave it to you ask if you want, you seem upset and I worry you'll think the answer is obvious and that's not what you meant and I'm creating strawman. I want to deescalate and make you…

Well done for de-escalating but I can't see what "curiosity" you expect when you "confirm with 100% certainty" anything you want. Curious discussion doesn't mean you pretend the other person is not a fool just for the sake of proving they are.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#427

Post by refulgentis »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #426
refulgentis wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(lectures about tone while getting personal and swearing and not asking any legible question) Come with curiosity! Ex. "How would one be able to 100% confirm Waymo isn't just being live monitored and incremental way points set?" (I'll leave it to you ask if you want, you seem upset and I worry you'll think the answer is obvious and that's not what you meant and I'm creating strawman. I want to deescalate and make you…

Well done for de-escalating but I can't see what "curiosity" you expect when you "confirm with 100% certainty" anything you want. Curious discussion doesn't mean you pretend the other person is not a fool just for the sake of proving they are.

Oh okay!

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#428

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #425
senordevnyc wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside the fact that Tesla's robotaxi model will likely never actually ship, I don't see how you're not displacing a driver's job by operating your car as a robotaxi instead of letting it sit idle.

If the vast majority of the robotaxies are owned by normal households that have 1 or 2 of them, then that's the people owning the means of automated production. Ideally it would be the people that already own taxis getting them upgraded, but it's a lot better than corporate fleets for putting the revenue into the pockets of people.

[deleted]

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#430

Post by nradov »

marssaxman wrote: post #387
michaelt wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure I don't get any "social signal" from using fancy taxis. I think you've got to own the vehicle for that to happen. Much like buying a museum ticket to see a famous painting isn't comparable to owning the same painting.

If that were true, I don't know how you could explain the persistence of town car and limousine services.

Ironically, the actual Lincoln Town Car has been out of production for years.
Post reply on HN