21–30 of 83 posts
LA could use robotaxis in some hot spots
I could see independently governed cities like West Hollywood or Glendale getting robotaxis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter take is that it's the perfect environment from a learning perspective: if you succeed there, you can succeed in easier conditions.
Not really, hectic traffic and nonexistent roads aren't a superset of organized traffic and good roads. If you take a human driver from a country with hectic traffic and put them in one with organized traffic they'll struggle and vice versa, the same would hold here. Being skilled in one doesn't really help you out in the other.
I am constituent in this guy's district and I would much, much rather bike next to robotaxis in LA vs. human drivers.
no way, most people have some incentive to avoid murdering another, because it will likely ruin or severely interrupt their lives - a robotaxi killing someone will result in an insurance payout, the company won’t even be shut down
The article infers, not unreasonably IMO, that the support for this push comes neither from citizens nor fellow lawmakers but from labor unions with whom the lawmaker (Councilmember Hug Soto-Martínez) is closely aligned. > "This has everything to do with making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe ... It’s also about making sure that we protect jobs" > "During the Q&A that followed, TechCrunch asked if any c…
I never understood the longterm logic of protecting jobs by not using tools. Any tools goal is to reduce work.
“Driver” happens to be the most popular job in the United States
What exactly is hard to understand here?
The article infers, not unreasonably IMO, that the support for this push comes neither from citizens nor fellow lawmakers but from labor unions with whom the lawmaker (Councilmember Hug Soto-Martínez) is closely aligned. > "This has everything to do with making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe ... It’s also about making sure that we protect jobs" > "During the Q&A that followed, TechCrunch asked if any c…
I never understood the longterm logic of protecting jobs by not using tools. Any tools goal is to reduce work.
The article infers, not unreasonably IMO, that the support for this push comes neither from citizens nor fellow lawmakers but from labor unions with whom the lawmaker (Councilmember Hug Soto-Martínez) is closely aligned. > "This has everything to do with making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe ... It’s also about making sure that we protect jobs" > "During the Q&A that followed, TechCrunch asked if any c…
I never understood the longterm logic of protecting jobs by not using tools. Any tools goal is to reduce work.
I’ll be glad when the dust settles as it’s really limiting what’s possible since Steam is also outright banning AI art tooling.
The article infers, not unreasonably IMO, that the support for this push comes neither from citizens nor fellow lawmakers but from labor unions with whom the lawmaker (Councilmember Hug Soto-Martínez) is closely aligned. > "This has everything to do with making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe ... It’s also about making sure that we protect jobs" > "During the Q&A that followed, TechCrunch asked if any c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood the longterm logic of protecting jobs by not using tools. Any tools goal is to reduce work.
The whole point of robot taxis is to eliminate the job “driver” “Driver” happens to be the most popular job in the United States What exactly is hard to understand here?
The article infers, not unreasonably IMO, that the support for this push comes neither from citizens nor fellow lawmakers but from labor unions with whom the lawmaker (Councilmember Hug Soto-Martínez) is closely aligned. > "This has everything to do with making sure that the streets of Los Angeles are safe ... It’s also about making sure that we protect jobs" > "During the Q&A that followed, TechCrunch asked if any c…
That sounds a bit short-sighted TBH. I am all for protecting "licensed" taxis from Uber et al, but the (long-shot) goal of robotaxis is providing a level of service that can't be provided with human drivers because it would be too expensive. If using robotaxis becomes cheaper than owning a car, that would get rid of most of the cars parked 95% of the time that are clogging up streets all over the world.
I am constituent in this guy's district and I would much, much rather bike next to robotaxis in LA vs. human drivers.
no way, most people have some incentive to avoid murdering another, because it will likely ruin or severely interrupt their lives - a robotaxi killing someone will result in an insurance payout, the company won’t even be shut down
Unless you literally run someone over intentionally - you won't even lose your license. And if you do that, I bet you wouldn't even go to jail most of the time.
Can't tell you the amount of cyclists I know that have been hit by cars (and myself) and I don't know a single driver that had any real consequences (beside their insurance paying out a tiny sum that doesn't even cover half of your damages).
Not to mention, it's quite common for cyclists to get hit by cars and they hit and run (just happened to me a couple of months ago). Can't do anything if you don't have a full match on the plates. And even if you do have the plates - despite the fact that a hit & run is a pretty big deal if you hit a car - if you hit a cyclist - at least according to the police officer I filed a report with - the driver is unlikely to lose points - and almost certainly wouldn't lose their license. I could be entirely wrong - hopefully someone will correct me if so.
With Robo Taxis - no chance of that. The company will know which car was there when you got hit.