Lyft Self-Driving

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Dec 26, 2017, 6:17 AM UTC

QAPereo wrote: post #41

philwelch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be a significant improvement over human beings. For every fatality an algorithm causes that a human would not, there could easily be ten fatalities prevented.

You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?

Post by notatoad » Tue, Dec 26, 2017, 6:20 AM UTC

fatbob wrote: post #109

hanbura wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Self-driving, solar cars solve all problems of mass transit and are far cheaper, since they use existing roads. They don't solve the arguably most important issue: road capacity. A bus that takes the same space on the road as 2-3 cars seats 30 people (and holds another 30 standing). Self-driving cars enable somewhat more efficient traffic patterns, but they will have a hard time overcoming the order-of-magnitude lea…

Buses are not always full. Their average capacity does not have an order of magnitude advantage.

Post by lgas » Tue, Dec 26, 2017, 6:45 AM UTC

thisisit wrote: post #98

xandar11 wrote: post #29

I'm skeptical about all this. Hubert Horan [1] has done a great job exposing Uber's failed business model in 11 part series on NakedCapitalism ("Can Uber Ever Deliver?"). Same goes for Lyft. When it comes to self driving cars, why should Uber or Lyft have any massive advantage over other players and what makes us think it won't turn into something like an airline industry which has been unprofitable for most of their…

This whole thing reminds of Buffett, Charlie Munger and the textile mill machinery story. I need to find the exact link for it though. Here's what I can remember from top of my head: They were offered more "efficient" machinery, which could manufacture more textiles than the old machines. "It will pay for itself" was the pitch. But they refused as more efficient machines meant they had to pass on the savings to the c…

Post by petre » Tue, Dec 26, 2017, 6:59 AM UTC

woolvalley wrote: post #115

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #72

I recently read a couple (long) articles basically arguing that the simple answer to transportation woes is not about self-driving cars and hyperloops, but basic simple steps to make cities more pedestrian friendly and improvements to mass transit: http://www.kevinklinkenberg.com/blog/autonomous-vehicles-a-v... https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/12/what-elon-mus... So I tend to not get excited about Lyft/Ube…

Self driving cars are the mass transit of low-density suburbia. Electric AVs in the next 10 years would be a significantly cheaper solution than remaking US infrastructure & political culture to be more transit friendly. That is why americans are especially excited about them.

Post by thisisit » Tue, Dec 26, 2017, 7:04 AM UTC

lgas wrote: post #116

thisisit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole thing reminds of Buffett, Charlie Munger and the textile mill machinery story. I need to find the exact link for it though. Here's what I can remember from top of my head: They were offered more "efficient" machinery, which could manufacture more textiles than the old machines. "It will pay for itself" was the pitch. But they refused as more efficient machines meant they had to pass on the savings to the c…

I don't understand why they would have to lower prices just because they bought more efficient machines. That defeats the point (as mentioned) but has two obvious solutions that I can think of: keep prices flat, or raise prices.