121–124 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who knows? This Volvo didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsTxS6tg6xc
It's not an autonomous car and that particular car doesn't even have "pedestrian detection system" installed. It only can detect big objects like cars without optional hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am only referring to this person's tone being unlike most of the people on this forum. "GROSS" "burn Uber down to ground". It is concerning how angry this person is. Also yes the car ran the signal, it was bad they should be fined and what not. This is not L5 autonomy so the driver is also responsible for not breaking at that signal . Stop making this sound like the car ran over someone or did not stop for pedestri…
Yes Travis continues to meddle with Uber and be involved he may just well burn it to the ground out of pure ignorance and hubris. Only hold the ashes he built then burnt! Their behavior is so GROSS it's almost illegal. As for concerning that's funny ... Uber stole my money and laughed, then caused other ppl I know financial harm and then all this stuff comes out in the press about them. I loathe Uber that is all ...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just had a look at furioussloth's comments. Every single one is an Uber related story and an Uber related comment. Reminder to us all to please declare your interests if you have them. even if it's only: Full disclosure: I quite like Uber. For me, full disclosure, I do actually, quite like Uber. (Although not everything they do, or endorse all their policies or individual employee abhorrent behavior etc).
Being pro-Uber here is like being a downvote magnet so yes I do maintain an account for non-technical comments. Also I do not try to condone their bad behavior; I am very amazed by what they had achieved by disrupting the taxi industry. I sometimes feel people have such knee-jerk reaction to certain things which are not really that scandalous or incriminating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched the video. You asked "why would they be taping the intersection", I gave you a pretty obvious explanation, not sure why you are so vehement about it. In turn, why would any sane person run a two ton piece of gear through a moving intersection, endangering pedestrians and cross traffic through a red light where it is known to have failed once already, not once, not twice more, but six times in a day? Why wou…
You put quote marks around something that I didn't ever write. Sorry, I don't believe there is a basis here for discussion.
> Like, they are standing there taping other people running red lights?
It sounded like you were rhethorically wondering why would they be standing there taping the intersection, but perhaps my interpretation was faulty.