Live data from Hacker News

NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

nytimes.com

261–270 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#261
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreed. They were clearly told not to do that and didn't follow their directions. It sounds like a potential safety hazard to me. They could just have reported what you said - they were told not to touch the wheel, and are concerned that in reality this could be a problem because there are too many people for at least one person not to do something dumb, or fall onto while doing something dumb etc.

If there are self driving cars on the road with a "press here to instantly cause an accident" widget fixed to the dash it's a problem regardless. Testing involves trying out exceptional inputs to find out how the system responds.

If you dive over the seat in a Lyft to grab the wheel and yank it on the freeway, it's going to get pretty interesting, too.

It's an already-extent but not frequent threat. The main difference is a change in the amount of social pressure to not do this. That change probably makes it worth exploring a little.

If Waymo chooses, those steering actuators have enough oomph to always win.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#262

Am I the only one finding it hard to be excited for this? It seems like automated taxis: 0. Encourage the use of cars in cities rather than public transit & walkability. 1. Centralize wealth by replacing payments to many drivers with payments to one large company. 2. Allow for further surveillance of individuates. It seems likely that Google will eventually create ad inventory by adding screens to the cars and incorp…

I feel like this is such a HackerNews take.

Headline: Self-driving cars are actually a thing!

"Yeah so here's why that's not very exciting and actually bad."

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#263

But… why couldn’t we just build more and better trains?

Sure, but it would cost a few billion. For just modestly sized stretch of rail and a couple of stations and trains. Waymo is of course not cheap but they can do a lot with a few billion. Rail just isn't cheap. Privately funded rail tracks are basically not a thing in most countries. Just too expensive to be interesting to normal investors. Especially if they are looking for ROI measured in years rather than decades/c…

While there's some truth to this, the myriad externalized costs of a car-based city may dwarf the apparent "savings". Once you consider the dollar and social costs of car pollution, parking, accidents, etc. it isn't so simple.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#264
post #77

> The Waymo rides were affordable, ranging from $18 to $21 Goes to show you what world these journalists are living on that think that's totally acceptable for a five mile ride. I'll stick with public transit.

Public transit is cheap if your time is not worth much

I'm sure the time of a person posting on HN all the time is infinitely valuable.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#265
post #257

The technology is pretty amazing, but does anyone else feel like we (the public) got duped? What I wanted was for my own car to drive itself so I could relax and make better use of car time. I also wanted some new novel ways of interacting with cars to make them feel more like public transit that would be enabled by driverless technology. What we got was ... SciFi Uber. We are not going to be allowed to own the cars,…

It’s not actually here yet so economies haven’t actually been employed. It’s still a tech beta, though I’m not sure our Teslas will ever really do the thing.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#266
post #14

> My ride was so smooth, the novelty began to wear off, turning a trip to the future into just another journey across town. This is the only nod in the article to how futuristic and revelatory this innovation. The journalists sound so bored. I wonder if this is a function of how “around the corner” this tech has felt for so long? Have we somehow become jaded to this innovation before it has even arrived? Were journal…

Reminds me of "If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories":

http://web.archive.org/web/20040929041451/http://www.shrovet...

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#267
post #257

The technology is pretty amazing, but does anyone else feel like we (the public) got duped? What I wanted was for my own car to drive itself so I could relax and make better use of car time. I also wanted some new novel ways of interacting with cars to make them feel more like public transit that would be enabled by driverless technology. What we got was ... SciFi Uber. We are not going to be allowed to own the cars,…

It’s not actually here yet so economies haven’t actually been employed. It’s still a tech beta, though I’m not sure our Teslas will ever really do the thing.

Are you not aware of how FSD beta performs in SF?

There are several videos where Tesla FSD beats cruise and Waymo in getting to random destinations, with no interventions.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#268
post #14

> My ride was so smooth, the novelty began to wear off, turning a trip to the future into just another journey across town. This is the only nod in the article to how futuristic and revelatory this innovation. The journalists sound so bored. I wonder if this is a function of how “around the corner” this tech has felt for so long? Have we somehow become jaded to this innovation before it has even arrived? Were journal…

I think the indifference is a function of just how marginal the utility is.

Before self-driving cars, it's either: (1) I'm getting chauffeured around (2) I'm doing something tedious and boring until I arrive at my destination.

With self-driving cars: (1) I'm getting chauffeured around (2) I'm doing something tedious and boring or something entertaining until I arrive at my destination.

Like who cares how novel and futuristic the implementation is? The utility is nearly the same.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#270
post #14

> My ride was so smooth, the novelty began to wear off, turning a trip to the future into just another journey across town. This is the only nod in the article to how futuristic and revelatory this innovation. The journalists sound so bored. I wonder if this is a function of how “around the corner” this tech has felt for so long? Have we somehow become jaded to this innovation before it has even arrived? Were journal…

I feel like it was literally just riding in a car. Sure the car had no driver but what I took from this article is that there was nothing significant or interesting about the whole experience, which is exactly what we'd want if the goal is a future where these are common.

Right. In terms of overall end user experience, it wouldn't, and shouldn't, feel different from just getting an ordinary Uber. The real self-driving revolution people have wanted is most/all consumer cars on the roads being self-driving so that you can (in theory) dedicate time to other things and be less likely to get in a collision, but that's far away.
Post reply on HN