Waymo and Uber partner to bring autonomous driving technology to Uber

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 23, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #352

ghaff wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An SDC has many of the same operational costs (and maybe more) than a human-driven car. (Also garaging, cleaning, etc. As well as the support staff if a car gets in trouble somehow.) You can admittedly assume electric and assume operational costs may be lower than say a Prius today. But I don't consider it a given that a company which purchases and operates an SDC fleet from Waymo can operate profitably while undercu…

Consumer reports puts the cost per mile at $0.49 for a Prius ( https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/best-cars-blog/20... ). That includes electrical and maintenance. That's still less than a regular car, but it's still a larger number than most people consider. It would be possible to say its less, though I'd tend to suggest it would be more than the Prius since there's no human custodian of the car to handle t…

Post by zamnos » Tue, May 23, 2023, 10:55 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #355

bryanlarsen wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using robots to cut costs and thus prices is not anticompetitive.

Using Android's market share to push or encourage the use of a Waymo robot taxi booking application that is in competition with Uber and Lyft might be seen as anticompetitive. Other comments elsewhere are "No but if you're Google you can put it on literally every android phone quite quickly." and "All Google would need to do is push a notification to every Android phone that has Google Maps (so, all of them) that say…

Post by panarky » Tue, May 23, 2023, 11:24 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #263

panarky wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea let's just keep workers in such a precarious state that they not only must sell their labor for pennies, but incredibly they must now supply the capital to the corporation, all to do a job that isn't even necessary for a human to do, is hazardous for the worker and the public, and generates tremendous amounts of pollution. Why the "optics" aren't already absolute dog shit is left as an exercise for the reader.

This is a strawman. He's advocating that things shouldn't become worse than they are, you are ignoring that point and instead just talking about how bad things are now (without any regard to how worse this would make it).

Post by zamnos » Tue, May 23, 2023, 11:33 PM UTC

deepzn wrote: post #364

shmatt wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla's competitors were able to get government FSD permits without all that data. Maybe that data isn't really important to achieve the target

if we're talking about overall effectiveness, then I think it is. Maybe passing a minimum threshold and having a safety effective of say 95% vs 99% or something. It's obviously going to be a very high percentage threshold that needs to be crossed to allow the public to use it. So, right now it's like a trial experiment with FSD, but I definitely feel like a data advantage would play out into a higher safety rating be…

Post by minwcnt5 » Wed, May 24, 2023, 1:00 AM UTC

zamnos wrote: post #367

deepzn wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we're talking about overall effectiveness, then I think it is. Maybe passing a minimum threshold and having a safety effective of say 95% vs 99% or something. It's obviously going to be a very high percentage threshold that needs to be crossed to allow the public to use it. So, right now it's like a trial experiment with FSD, but I definitely feel like a data advantage would play out into a higher safety rating be…

just to nitpick, but with airline travel about five or six nines (99.9999%) safe, that is, one fatality every million miles of travel or so, 95% vs 99% is nowhere near good enough. https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/how-safe-were-commerci...