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

San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 504 posts

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#481

Post by njarboe »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #443
njarboe wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cars were invented today, they would be too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Almost nothing has been invented since 1970 that can cause any harm. Safety first and all that.

Personal computers cause all kinds of harm (in addition to the benefits).

Not much physical harm and very little liability. I think computers and software was the one place people could make what they wanted and sell it without much worry of getting sued out of existence and that is why there was so much advancement. Software licenses are pretty amazing with the "as is" clause that seems to hold up.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#482

Post by MathCodeLove »

marcellus23 wrote: post #432
MathCodeLove wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one else provided examples nor asked for any. Perhaps you should ask for examples instead of assuming I'm acting out of malice. Here's a link to the full video for probably the most widely recognized case in the history of police brutality, the killing of George Floyd. Does the context this video provides make the officers actions okay? No, I don't think so. Does it make those actions appear much, much more reason…

> Does the context this video provides make the officers actions okay? No, I don't think so. I understand and appreciate that social media can (and has) exaggerated things, which you've demonstrated, but I don't see how this demonstrates that police brutality is not a problem, or is an exaggerated problem. Ultimately you agree the police officer's actions were not okay. The Verge article which I referred to originall…

The difference is on one hand you have people sharing videos that make police look like they're suffocating people and hitting them with cars for the fun of it, and on the other you see that they're often in a situation where they've already tried a tactful approach, where they themselves are being met with or have been met with violence, and where the expediency of the moment required a difficult decision that may or may not have been correct.

I've seen videos of protesters surrounding police vehicles trying to destroy them and harm the officer inside. That's a situation where running people over to get away would absolutely be acceptable.

Tear gas is a great way to safely control crowds without firing gunshots. I've been subjected to it myself and while it's not pleasant, no lasting damage results from it.

Stop trying to act like context doesn't matter, it always does and here even more so.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#483

Post by MathCodeLove »

enneff wrote: post #470
MathCodeLove wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should shared roads be preferred over sidewalks? I see quite a few potential disadvantages but no real advantages whatsoever.

There’s an entirety different worldview that you are missing here. Check out this great YouTube channel which goes into a lot of detail about how our cities and towns could be better designed. https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

I'll check it out, thanks

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#484

Post by s1artibartfast »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #480
s1artibartfast wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no interest in defending the actions of the Unabomber. I did feel that you were using the tautology of murder to ignore my actual point. >You: His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. >Me: That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. If the unabomber said as part of the manifesto that the sky is blue, would you now reject that the sky is blue? The…

Whether the sky is blue has no moral component. The Unabomber was saying 1) what he thought was wrong with society, and 2) how we should make a better society. These judgments ("wrong" and "better") presuppose some definition of "good". But the guy was deliberately killing people. Am I supposed to believe his definition of what "good" is? No, I'm supposed to suspect that it's seriously skewed. (In fact, he's giving m…

I think we might just have to agree to disagree.

I feel that you view his acts of murder as inseparably linked to the manifesto, and that people can not accept manifesto to be true, while condemning the murders.

This ignores the possibility of a completely pacifist implementation of the manifesto's ideals.

My understanding is that a significant portion of it is not necessarily a call to violence, as much as a call to action. It states the technology and collectivism should be rejected, and this could be either a violent or non-violent process.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#485

Post by marcellus23 »

MathCodeLove wrote: post #482
marcellus23 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the context this video provides make the officers actions okay? No, I don't think so. I understand and appreciate that social media can (and has) exaggerated things, which you've demonstrated, but I don't see how this demonstrates that police brutality is not a problem, or is an exaggerated problem. Ultimately you agree the police officer's actions were not okay. The Verge article which I referred to originall…

The difference is on one hand you have people sharing videos that make police look like they're suffocating people and hitting them with cars for the fun of it, and on the other you see that they're often in a situation where they've already tried a tactful approach, where they themselves are being met with or have been met with violence, and where the expediency of the moment required a difficult decision that may o…

> Tear gas is a great way to safely control crowds without firing gunshots. I've been subjected to it myself and while it's not pleasant, no lasting damage results from it.

It’s literally banned in warfare. Sorry but this is ridiculous.

No, running people over is never a proper response to violence. They’re policemen. They should disengage. Not plow into literal citizens of the country they’re supposed to be protecting. (Anyway, the videos did not show anyone trying to get inside the car — the protesters were behind barricades. Try watching them.)

Again, you haven’t given any actual evidence this is happening. The single piece of evidence you gave is still a case of clear cut brutality, you admitted it yourself.

Finally, again, even if they are “a few bad apples”, they not get punished. And their supposedly valiant comrades don’t stop them from doing these things. The system is corrupt.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#486

Post by scoot »

conductr wrote: post #386
jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

My wife's 96 year old grandfather still has a driver's license because he passes some ridiculous vision test with 1 of his eyes. He can't read a newspaper or see a television well enough to enjoy sports (previously his favorite thing). He says he's memorized the vision test at his doctor's office and when asked the doctor refuses to file a report (or whatever procedural thing is required to remove his driving abiliti…

If there's one thing that seems the be much more forgiving in the US, it's car insurance. How has his premium and excess not become unmanageably expensive? Or not to have been denied insurance?

UK car insurance feels more like US health insurance. High premiums, and heaven forbid if you get into an accident.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#487

Post by thatguy0900 »

dtparr wrote: post #224
thatguy0900 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I got my license I was advised to do it in nearby Kentucky, since they didnt have a driving portion of the test at all, all you had to do was a written quiz

When was that? KY requires a road test now. Also, it requires you to prove KY residency. I'm surprised people were able to get KY licenses without being residents before.

About 9 years ago, and the people advising me were working off information older than that I'm sure.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#488

Post by bo1024 »

ricochet11 wrote: post #156
bo1024 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to your point: it doesn’t bother me so much that the AI system doesn’t share these priorities. What I worry about is that the companies designing them are not incentivized to.

surely a company is absolutely incentivized to share these priorities? every accident is a hit to their profits and pr.

No, because they can benefit even more from recklessness than the expected profit/PR damage. Someone already mentioned Tesla, but there is also the Volvo emissions scandal, Boeing's safety failures, and many more examples.

At the extreme end, picture a company that manages to get an okay from the city of SF for public testing, but whose internal tests show there is a small but significant risk of serious accidents and the product needs another two years of development to be safe. Their funding runs out in one year.

What do you think they would do?

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#489

Post by jen20 »

yardie wrote: post #216
fho wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote: There was an old lady living nearby who despite being 80+ years still driving around in her 20 year old car. She literally ran over traffic cones and ... a child on a tricycle [1] and never got prosecuted. She recently passed away ... sad, but the streets around here are definitely safer now. (This was in Germany just for reference) [1] The child was fine it was a low speed collision ... but still ...

There was recently an accident in Miami Beach. Elderly woman driving a Bentley reversed into a terrace restaurant. Killing 1 and injury 6, including a 3yo [0]. No charges filed because being senile driver (and voter) is not against the law. [0] https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/02/25/recalling-trag...

In the UK there’s a catch all for this called “driving without due care and attention”.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#490

Post by MathCodeLove »

marcellus23 wrote: post #485
MathCodeLove wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is on one hand you have people sharing videos that make police look like they're suffocating people and hitting them with cars for the fun of it, and on the other you see that they're often in a situation where they've already tried a tactful approach, where they themselves are being met with or have been met with violence, and where the expediency of the moment required a difficult decision that may o…

> Tear gas is a great way to safely control crowds without firing gunshots. I've been subjected to it myself and while it's not pleasant, no lasting damage results from it. It’s literally banned in warfare. Sorry but this is ridiculous. No, running people over is never a proper response to violence. They’re policemen. They should disengage. Not plow into literal citizens of the country they’re supposed to be protecti…

Did you read anything or are you just going to project your own bias on the discussion?

"It's banned in warfare" doesn't make it some egregious WMD. It's banned because all chem weapons are banned per the Geneva convention and adding particular exceptions is a dangerous path to go down. Every single basic trainee in the US Armed Forces is subjected to it and they all turn out just fine (or well, if they don't it's not because of the tear gas exposure). You're using the term as if it's some catch all that ends any and all conversation. Would you like to suggest an alternative to safely controlling dangerous crowds?

> They should disengage

The exact situation I laid out was protestors surrounding an officers vehicle and beating it trying gain access to do him bodily harm. Would you like to suggest how he can disengage? I'd love to hear any ideas you have because driving away is quite literally the safest option there. The alternative is to shoot the people trying to attack him. One most likely results in broken bones where the other most likely results in death. Here's an example in which people swarmed the car that showed up on screen and the officer had to run someone over to escape personal harm. Frankly if protestors surround a vehicle, don't move or clear the way when asked multiple times and given multiple warning, then they 100% deserve to be run over. That's their fault. Don't surround an occupied vehicle in a violent environment and expect nothing to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bou2MzSGfvs

I didn't say it was "clear cut brutality". I said it probably wasn't okay, but that it's more nuanced than people such as yourself would like to make it appear.

Are you going and holding every single software engineer that writes malware or privacy invading adware responsible? Oh no? Guess that makes you just as bad as them.

Edit: And I should add, nor have you provided evidence to the contrary. How many videos are there of police intentionally ramming into completely peaceful protestors? I'd wager there aren't very many. You're the one claiming that any potentially adverse action taken by a police officer is wrong despite any co-factors or context. Show me a video where the police are running someone over and, with all the context and surrounding information, it still looks absolutely unreasonable.

Post reply on HN