Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 296 posts

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#211

Post by ashtonkem »

filoleg wrote: post #197
ashtonkem wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present. It’s not like cities with low pedestrian fatalities are stuck in the Middle Ages. Places where pedestrians are separated from cars can and should go faster. Secondly I find it disturbing that discussions around acceptable traffic fatalities focus on unnamed and unspecified people as the apparently acceptable fatalities in pursuit of shorter…

> we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present. I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would wager to guess that a good chunk of road injuries and deaths happen not just between drivers and pedestrians, but between drivers and other drivers. Also, most areas in the US where pedestrians can be present are already limited to 25mph/35mph.

60% of the 2019 road fatalities in Los Angeles were non-drivers. So drivers represent a good chunk, but not even a majority. Of course this statistic is going to very wildly based on which city we’re talking about.

To be fair to my original point, we can also reduce driver fatalities by slowing down highways and offering non-car transit options. The lowest hanging fruit in this area is probably shifting cargo transit from road to rail as much as possible, which might actually save the public money, since interstate highway companies receive billions of dollars in subsidy via subsidized road maintenance.

Secondarily would be high speed rail between major metropolitan areas, which would potentially save both road miles (and deaths) but drastically shorten the commute for some citizens.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#212

Post by ashtonkem »

BurningFrog wrote: post #206
ashtonkem wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present. It’s not like cities with low pedestrian fatalities are stuck in the Middle Ages. Places where pedestrians are separated from cars can and should go faster. Secondly I find it disturbing that discussions around acceptable traffic fatalities focus on unnamed and unspecified people as the apparently acceptable fatalities in pursuit of shorter…

> I think this let’s a lot of people push off that moral calculus as something that happens to other, lesser, people The main person I put at risk when driving fast is me. Others too, sure, but mostly me. So it's not at all bout killing "other lesser people". People mostly just think some risks are worth the reward.

Where I am, Los Angeles, that is simply not true. 60% of the people killed here by a car in 2019 weren’t in a car. And that’s not even accounting for drivers who were driving reasonably and were killed by someone who was not.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#213

Post by empath75 »

rtkwe wrote: post #84
nabla9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost 40 percent of those in households making less than $40,000 a year had lost a job in March. Tech sector has had it easy so far.

It's going to be a bit weird because a lot of those should come back because the underlying business didn't suddenly become nonviable.

They may have. Movie theaters and night clubs for example.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#214

Post by squnch »

djsumdog wrote: post #86

It's still keeping the self-driving unit thought, even though there's a good chance it won't ever be successful. I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all. I bet if you did a study and ran the numbers, it would be cheaper to put down rail on existing roads and make them rail-car only, automate those and subsidize rail cars. I feel in the minority in thinking self driving tech will ever be viable. I've work…

Are you talking about "successful" as "no fatalities" or "fewer fatalities than those caused by texting meatbag drivers?" The former is impossible, the latter is certainly not.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#215

Post by redis_mlc »

MiroF wrote: post #171
djsumdog wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any self driving cars on the road that don't have a safety driver, and the ones that are out there get confused all the time. The Uber one had a software dev turn off the lidar sensor to test the computer vision at night and it ended up killing a woman crossing the street.

Waymo/Cruise and Uber aren't even in the same class and as I said, Waymo/Cruise cars go thousands of miles without driver intervention. Waymo cars go 11,000+ miles without driver intervention on average. I would encourage doing actual research into this subject, rather than relying on your gut or the news articles you read.

Spare me.

Most self-driving is done in warm climates, in a circle. These companies are amassing thousands of empty miles on the same streets every day to impress people who don't know any better.

I lived on a branch of the main Google circuit, and often they were the only traffic for most of the day. Even saw three Google vehicles in a line, but two were more common.

What's the value of "self-driving" with no weather, traffic or route variation? PR and regulatory filing stats.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#216

Post by staticassertion »

djsumdog wrote: post #86

It's still keeping the self-driving unit thought, even though there's a good chance it won't ever be successful. I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all. I bet if you did a study and ran the numbers, it would be cheaper to put down rail on existing roads and make them rail-car only, automate those and subsidize rail cars. I feel in the minority in thinking self driving tech will ever be viable. I've work…

That's interesting that you feel that way. Living in SF I see self driving cars all the time - how do you account for that?

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#217

Post by nogridbag »

MiroF wrote: post #150
mattlondon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car going at 5mph is still going to kill or main a pedestrian if it hits them. I agree that speed and general "cars forever!" approach is not great, but there is always room for improvement ... e.g. could tech have saved that 1 person who died in Oslo? Why just stop at "the Oslo model"? Why not do that and autonomous tech? It would be worth it if it saved just a handful of lives a year.

> A car going at 5mph is still going to kill or main a pedestrian if it hits them. what?

I think this happens fairly often in Manhattan. There's lots of box trucks simply making turns at 5mph and pedestrians crossing obliviously with headphones on or looking at their phones.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#218

Post by staticassertion »

mattlondon wrote: post #121
ashtonkem wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always been extremely dubious about the “self driving to save lives” angle for one very specific reason: we already know how to save lives. Slow. The. Cars. Down. Oslo managed to get their car deaths down to 1 in 2019. 1, in a city of 600,000. Los Angeles killed 240 that year, or 36x more per capita. And yet, we don’t actually apply any known techniques to reduce fatalities. If we really cared about saving lives…

A car going at 5mph is still going to kill or main a pedestrian if it hits them. I agree that speed and general "cars forever!" approach is not great, but there is always room for improvement ... e.g. could tech have saved that 1 person who died in Oslo? Why just stop at "the Oslo model"? Why not do that and autonomous tech? It would be worth it if it saved just a handful of lives a year.

5MPH is roughly as fast as a brisk walk... it should not kill anyone.

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#219

Post by throwxmlphell »

iamleppert wrote: post #117

I went to a recruiting event that was put on by Cruise. It was disguised as a marketing "advisory board" where they asked us questions like "What motivates you as an engineer when looking for a new job? Would changing the world help?" "Would you like to be rewarded handsomely?" "Which of these statements most resonate with you?" They paid me $500 for about an hour to sit through their sales pitch. Then I finally cave…

I've been an interviewer at Cruise, including on panels where Kyle was part of the committee. Trust me, there are many employees who want to have a decent recruiting experience, and a lot of engineers who want to ask questions that are actually worth your time. The bullshit you experienced is 100% top-down from Kyle. For years there has been tremendous pressure to hit headcount goals and to throw money at the problem versus trying to establish quality. (why? well headcount is one of the only needles Kyle can move himself that suggests to GM that there is progress). Kyle claims (explicitly) he's trying to build a strong "brand" for Cruise resumes, but the data and employee feedback just don't support that claim. It's just one of the several areas where Kyle insists on shooting his feet off year after year and won't actually listen to feedback (yes even when he asks for "direct feedback").

Re: GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff

#220

Post by filoleg »

ashtonkem wrote: post #211
filoleg wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present. I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would wager to guess that a good chunk of road injuries and deaths happen not just between drivers and pedestrians, but between drivers and other drivers. Also, most areas in the US where pedestrians can be present are already limited to 25mph/35mph.

60% of the 2019 road fatalities in Los Angeles were non-drivers. So drivers represent a good chunk, but not even a majority. Of course this statistic is going to very wildly based on which city we’re talking about. To be fair to my original point, we can also reduce driver fatalities by slowing down highways and offering non-car transit options. The lowest hanging fruit in this area is probably shifting cargo transit…

>60% of the 2019 road fatalities in Los Angeles were non-driver

Non-driver != pedestrian. Non-drivers include car passengers.

Post reply on HN