31–40 of 126 posts
[flagged]
It's only when kids play in the streets that capitalist companies are to blame. We never blame kids playing on publicly-subsidized subway infrastructure. edit: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/community-health-and-advocac...
Dear humans at Rivian. If your vehicle didn't look like a cartoon, I might consider one. It's not conformity, or even ego. It's the same reason I don't wear a clown outfit in public. I don't own a lot of things, but they all look nice. Until then, I enjoy the tech story.
People complained about the Prius, but plenty of people drove Mini Coopers, which looked even more ridiculous and were far less functional. You can't please everybody.
I had a coworker who sold his small lexus, because it made dating weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what does this mean for Timmy (16 years old) learning how to drive? Should that also be banned, lest he runs over some kid? Or does he get a pass because he's a human and not a faceless corporation? Maybe he can repay the favor in 60 years when he gets run over by another teenager learning how to drive?
Civilized countries have the concept of a driving school, where you have to take 20 one hour lessons with an instructor who can override everything as well as theory lessons, followed by an independent state run exam, theory and practice.
> Rivian says it will charge $49.99 a month, or $2,500 up front, versus Tesla’s $99 per month for its rival system, which is somewhat misleadingly called Full Self-Driving (Supervised), or FSD. Mercedes, meanwhile, plans to charge $3,950 for a three-year subscription for the forthcoming MB.Drive Assist Pro If and when FSD systems become a reality and are safer than human drivers, I would expect that regulators will r…
>I would expect that regulators will require them on all cars That assumes that suppliers are available to affordably add it. So far Tesla is the only company remotely close to unsupervised self-driving that doesn't add $1000s to the BoM cost of the car.
What makes you think it doesn't? All those cameras, the expensive chips and cooling for them, and redundancy for all the systems don't come free.
[flagged]
I see, you'd prefer to continue the prior experiment of humans flying around corners in multi-thousand-pound vehicles, over the speed limit, while sipping coffee and looking at the radio?
Current trend nowadays is watching tiktok, though thankfully I've only seen it at red lights, but that might just be because I'm not staring at other drivers when driving around at 40mph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civilized countries have the concept of a driving school, where you have to take 20 one hour lessons with an instructor who can override everything as well as theory lessons, followed by an independent state run exam, theory and practice.
Rivian didn't do any preliminary tests with safety drivers, or on a closed course?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he would be banned from driving if he ran over a kid. Self-driving models and the companies that create them have not been banned so far, even after they cause accidents.
>Yes, he would be banned from driving if he ran over a kid. Realistically no, unless he was hilariously reckless. > SMITH: There’s the case that happened with the little boy on the Upper West Side, Cooper Stock. He and his dad were crossing the street. And a driver was making a turn, and he just ran over the little boy, didn’t see him. > SMITH: So right now all that is is a summons to the driver for failing to yield.…
> Our neighbors have different vehicular laws than we do. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut have vehicular manslaughter statutes that punish traffic fatalities or serious injury that occurs because of simple negligence. New Jersey doesn’t have the same statute as Massachusetts or Connecticut, but even they have vehicular manslaughter statutes that encompass more behavior than what New York has, which is absolutely nothing other than drunk driving. So around the country — in Iowa, Louisiana, Georgia, Nevada, Kansas, California — all over the country, there are states with vehicular statutes that punish a failure to yield as a traffic fatality, that punish the driver.
So this seems to be a peculiarity of New York, I guess. Also, this is from 12 years ago on a podcast that has been widely criticized for inaccuracy and cherry-picking. I'd be curious if this was even true at the time, and if so, if it's still true or if the laws have changed.
Obviously local laws differ and I'm sure there are many exceptions, but it is very common to have your license suspended if you run over someone with your car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he would be banned from driving if he ran over a kid. Self-driving models and the companies that create them have not been banned so far, even after they cause accidents.
Self-driving cars also operate at a far larger scale than individual human drivers. Over 300 people died in Boeing 737 crashes, but the entire aviation industry has not been shut down as a result.
To be fair, actual self-driving car business units have suffered similar fates. Uber's autonomy team was shut down after they killed Elaine Herzberg, and GM's Cruise was functionally destroyed after they contributed to a major bodily injury crash and tried to cover up their errors.
It's the level 2 consumer car companies that have mostly skated under a liability shield. Tesla FSD has been shit for a long time and paid very little price for it.