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

NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#231

Post by rendang »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #208
rufus_foreman wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A shortage, in economic terms, is a condition where the quantity demanded is greater than the quantity supplied at the market price" -- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortage.asp We have a labor shortage. Economists don't assume that markets will clear. There are many reasons why they often don't. Given that wages are about as high as they have ever been in our lifetimes, and unemployment is about as low as i…

Why keep stressing about wages being high? Do you people not understand basic inflation? At any point in time wages will always be highest they’ve ever been. In many places in the US, three years ago $100 bought you a week’s worth of food. Now it buys you a day’s worth. Maybe two. Even in poor countries food has 3x in prices in two years. Jobs are high because everyone has to work, wife, husband, even children in som…

The poster you're replying to means that inflation-adjusted wages are roughly at an all time high, which is true:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB

Aside from the distortion from the pandemic unemployment wave, people make more now than ever before. All of this data is publicly accessible.

No, food has not inflated 3.5x, and food is also a pretty small portion of Americans' spending.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#232

Post by Retric »

pb7 wrote: post #219
checkyoursudo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that we live in a relatively good time right now, but I do wonder if this is the best it has ever been in the history of humanity. We have more pollution (air, water, noise, light), more cancer, more heart disease, more obesity, more addiction, more suicide, much worse environmental impact, and so on (though these are the worst that I can think of off the top of my head). Your points about safety, vi…

Not interested in commenting on the rest but do we have more cancer or are we better at detecting cancer?

No both the absolute and rate of of cancers has increased. Even if you ignore environmental factors older people get more cancer and we have more older people today. Age adjusted cancer rates for some kinds of cancers have dropped because fewer people smoke etc, but it’s not universal across all cancers.

We do also detect more cancers early, but that also makes cancer treatment look better. Aka 5 year survival rates look better when you start the clock sooner.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#233

Post by pb7 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #171
tchaffee wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning seems logical at first glance so I can understand why you would come to your conclusions. History shows you to be wrong. It doesn't take a high IQ to use a machine to hugely increase your productivity. And in some cases the machine is easier to operate. I'll take a car over a horse any day. Salaries for low skill jobs in the US are going up. UPS drivers now get paid close to $200k. The labor shortage i…

> UPS drivers now get paid close to $200k. The key being that UPS drivers are unionized . If your argument is that the increasingly obsolete humans need to band together and take wealth back from the owners of the robots, then I agree.

The actual key being that they get paid somewhere around half that. Other industries don't calculate the overtime potential or benefits in the total compensation figure but of course this gets clicks and misinformation spreads like wildfire.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#234

Post by pb7 »

Retric wrote: post #232
pb7 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not interested in commenting on the rest but do we have more cancer or are we better at detecting cancer?

No both the absolute and rate of of cancers has increased. Even if you ignore environmental factors older people get more cancer and we have more older people today. Age adjusted cancer rates for some kinds of cancers have dropped because fewer people smoke etc, but it’s not universal across all cancers. We do also detect more cancers early, but that also makes cancer treatment look better. Aka 5 year survival rates…

You touch upon it in your comment and giving it zero weight for some reason: you can’t develop most types of cancer if you die at 30 (extreme example).

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#235

Post by mistrial9 »

pirate787 wrote: post #149
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The realization a self-driving car is not infinitely exciting is how bubbles pop. This particular bubble was formed mostly by Tesla hyping up the coming of their fleet of millions of robotaxis that will turn every other car immediately obsolete, “like owning a horse”, and Teslas will 100x in price, and Tesla will be the most valuable company in the world. And all that, over a product they still can’t ship (and won’t)…

Your Luddite take is profoundly wrong, and has been consistently proven wrong at every single technological turn in history. We have more robots than even today, and yet a labor SHORTAGE. Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone. We will end the misery caused to millions from injury and tragedy, and the billions of dol…

> a labor SHORTAGE

this is moronic. If anyone reading this has had the experience of being abused for low-skill work, wages stolen, unfair terms with no insurance or benefits, or in a new twist, a contractor who was unexpectedly terminated with no warning.. please add your insights

the actual history of labor is that Slave Labor, Peasants and Indentured Workers, are the biggest part of large scale industry since the Pyramids. Actual people use and abuse "workers" to the fullest extent possible..

This "shortage" language in the USA has an agenda, and is flatly manipulative IMHO

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#236

Post by vorpalhex »

sofixa wrote: post #224
pirate787 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your Luddite take is profoundly wrong, and has been consistently proven wrong at every single technological turn in history. We have more robots than even today, and yet a labor SHORTAGE. Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone. We will end the misery caused to millions from injury and tragedy, and the billions of dol…

> We can rethink our cities and move parking to the periphery Just moving parking to the periphery won't make American cities better or more walkable. > Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone If you're assuming that self-driving cars will be perfect and segregated, conditions will always be perfect (e.g. no pedestria…

It also won't cure cancer or make me toast in the morning, but being able to move parking has big meaningful advantages that are likely to be leveraged!

If you think you can convince the 3rd largest country by landmass in the world to just swap over to trains and buses - great.

In the meantime, let's approach other solutions too. Self driving cars are here, are actively used in areas without trains, and seem like they solve some real problems and maybe create a few new ones.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#237

Post by Retric »

pb7 wrote: post #234
Retric wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No both the absolute and rate of of cancers has increased. Even if you ignore environmental factors older people get more cancer and we have more older people today. Age adjusted cancer rates for some kinds of cancers have dropped because fewer people smoke etc, but it’s not universal across all cancers. We do also detect more cancers early, but that also makes cancer treatment look better. Aka 5 year survival rates…

You touch upon it in your comment and giving it zero weight for some reason: you can’t develop most types of cancer if you die at 30 (extreme example).

Because it’s irrelevant when the global age adjusted cancer rates are increasing overall.

An increasing number of people under 30 are developing cancer. America is only 4% of global population, if you want a better picture look at China and India which have both skyrocketed pollution levels recently.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#238

Post by Eric_WVGG »

bastawhiz wrote: post #72
jwr wrote: post #5

As a programmer, I won't put myself into that thing. I'm also not happy to be an unwilling participant in this experiment. Given the state of technology and our capabilities to write bug-free software (Seriously, we can't even get things like buying airline tickets correct), I think it's way too early to approve those vehicles on city streets.

I ride a motorcycle. I'll trust a machine to check its mirrors. I won't trust a person. I'll ride ten miles and see twenty people on their phones, holding a cup of coffee, turning around to look at their kids, whatever. I get cut off by people who don't look both ways. I get cut off by people who do look both ways and think they will be out of my way before I get close to them. I get cut off by people making turns th…

Bicyclist here. The biggest danger to me are trucks and buses that swing around corners without visible signals. Electrics can slap more cameras and enforce blind spots.

But the biggest of all — which this article repeatedly notes — is enforced speed limits. We could have that on “human cars” of course with GPS speed limiters, but that is of course politically impossible despite there not even being a coherent argument for why cars that can move faster than 75mph are legal to sell.

Drivers can pick and choose which laws to abide (see that incident just last week where David Simon made the case that speeding in school zones is just find); ultimately, a computer can be forced to do what it’s told. https://hellgatenyc.com/david-simon-got-a-speeding-ticket-in...

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#239

Post by danmaz74 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #217
rob74 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If robo-taxis actually manage to reduce the number of people that own cars, it also has other advantages - mainly less need for parking spaces.

A robo-taxi driving 24/7 replaces 24 cars driving 1h/day, 23 of which are parked on average. This would be a huge improvement in resource efficiency.

Only if there weren't rush hours.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#240

Post by nemothekid »

pirate787 wrote: post #149
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The realization a self-driving car is not infinitely exciting is how bubbles pop. This particular bubble was formed mostly by Tesla hyping up the coming of their fleet of millions of robotaxis that will turn every other car immediately obsolete, “like owning a horse”, and Teslas will 100x in price, and Tesla will be the most valuable company in the world. And all that, over a product they still can’t ship (and won’t)…

Your Luddite take is profoundly wrong, and has been consistently proven wrong at every single technological turn in history. We have more robots than even today, and yet a labor SHORTAGE. Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone. We will end the misery caused to millions from injury and tragedy, and the billions of dol…

>We can rethink our cities and move parking to the periphery.

I seriously doubt that technology will fix what is ultimately a political problem.

Somebody will benefit, but I’m unsure it will be fair to say humanity will benefit

Post reply on HN