The article title is poorly written: the cars were at fault in none of these accidents. Most of these accidents were cases where the self-driving car was rear-ended.
Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
11–16 of 16 posts
Re: Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a very simplistic view and you seem very sure of it. (Plus in the there are a lot more crappy McJob's, so your point about the remianing jobs being highly paid doesn't really seem true). We haven't seen flying cars, and there is no expectation for them in the future despite what we all expected years ago. Have read of David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules". As he correctly points out there is a hell of a lot mor…
How about not guessing and reading the statistics: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-tec...
The article is hardly conclusive evidence. It even says so for the last three paragraphs.
Re: Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a very simplistic view and you seem very sure of it. (Plus in the there are a lot more crappy McJob's, so your point about the remianing jobs being highly paid doesn't really seem true). We haven't seen flying cars, and there is no expectation for them in the future despite what we all expected years ago. Have read of David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules". As he correctly points out there is a hell of a lot mor…
Obligatory Graeber takedown links: http://www.annleckie.com/2013/02/24/debt/ http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archi...
Did you even look at the link I posted?
Those articles are both talking about his other book, not the one I was referring to.
Re: Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am of a similar opinion. People have been talking about self driving cars for years, but for some reason as soon as people hear that Google is developing them its assumed they will be a reality in the near future. Likewise there is lots of talk about automation of jobs, which in a way is happening, yet at the same time we seem to be working harder for more hours than 20 years ago.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567289/driverless-truck-rio-...
From the article:
"The big difference is that the mine setting offers a huge advantage that most companies can't match — there are no human drivers on the road."
Re: Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am of a similar opinion. People have been talking about self driving cars for years, but for some reason as soon as people hear that Google is developing them its assumed they will be a reality in the near future. Likewise there is lots of talk about automation of jobs, which in a way is happening, yet at the same time we seem to be working harder for more hours than 20 years ago.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567289/driverless-truck-rio-...
From the article:
"The big difference is that the mine setting offers a huge advantage that most companies can't match — there are no human drivers on the road."
Re: Self driving cars crash five times as much as regular ones
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obligatory Graeber takedown links: http://www.annleckie.com/2013/02/24/debt/ http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archi...
Did you even look at the link I posted? Those articles are both talking about his other book, not the one I was referring to.
So what: "falso in uno falso in omnibus" is a motto worth thinking about. If someone writes absolute hogwash in one book, how can you expect that anything he writes after that will have any trustworthiness?