We're going commercial
getcruise.com
We're going commercial
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: We're going commercial
#2No post body was provided.
Re: We're going commercial
#3Quoted post unavailable.
Why would I do that? I started using Uber when it came out because I lived in SF, where the dispatch companies would tell you someone was coming in 15 minutes only to have no one show up, and when you did get a cab they'd drive maniacally while screaming into their phone only to tell you that they don't take credit cards (until you explain that's the only way they're getting paid, and then they do take credit cards).
People talk about how unfair Uber is and how horrible it's been for taxi drivers, but at least in SF they constantly abused a position of power given to them by the government (making it illegal for non-cabbies from picking up people to give them rides). Good riddance.
Re: We're going commercial
#4Quoted post unavailable.
Why would I do that? I started using Uber when it came out because I lived in SF, where the dispatch companies would tell you someone was coming in 15 minutes only to have no one show up, and when you did get a cab they'd drive maniacally while screaming into their phone only to tell you that they don't take credit cards (until you explain that's the only way they're getting paid, and then they do take credit cards).…
Why? See this earlier discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31615770
This is the thin edge of the wedge.
Just say no.
Re: We're going commercial
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I do that? I started using Uber when it came out because I lived in SF, where the dispatch companies would tell you someone was coming in 15 minutes only to have no one show up, and when you did get a cab they'd drive maniacally while screaming into their phone only to tell you that they don't take credit cards (until you explain that's the only way they're getting paid, and then they do take credit cards).…
Why? See this earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31615770 This is the thin edge of the wedge. Just say no.
Eh, I am not convinced by your arguments. Technology has improved our lives and relieves us from drugery of life. But there are people out there that want Humans to suffer (Mother Teresa, et. al.) and it is a fundamentalist view that cannot be challenged through logic, reason and objectivity. The only way to defeat neo-luddism is to double down on technological progress.
It is fundamentally anti-Human in every way. Talk to a Cancer survivor sometime and ask them about technology.
Re: We're going commercial
#6For whatever reason, Cruise continues to advance and get very little buzz. I’m curious what it will take to get them discussed even half as much as Tesla (which is much farther behind) when it comes to automation.
Re: We're going commercial
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I do that? I started using Uber when it came out because I lived in SF, where the dispatch companies would tell you someone was coming in 15 minutes only to have no one show up, and when you did get a cab they'd drive maniacally while screaming into their phone only to tell you that they don't take credit cards (until you explain that's the only way they're getting paid, and then they do take credit cards).…
Why? See this earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31615770 This is the thin edge of the wedge. Just say no.
People are not going to reject a technology that reduces car accidents from the #8 cause of death to a nearly nonexistent level.
Re: We're going commercial
#8For whatever reason, Cruise continues to advance and get very little buzz. I’m curious what it will take to get them discussed even half as much as Tesla (which is much farther behind) when it comes to automation.
From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car.
In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth driving. With a robotaxi you have something inferior. But maybe it's a lot cheaper, right? The robotaxi can only compete on price because that's apparently the only advantage.
The idea of a robotaxi seems popular among people who don't like being around other people... a population perhaps over-represented here on Hacker News. Personally I don't see the point and I know I'm not alone in wondering.
If you own a car (e.g., a Tesla) that drives itself, that's a different story. Everybody can see the value proposition.
Re: We're going commercial
#9For whatever reason, Cruise continues to advance and get very little buzz. I’m curious what it will take to get them discussed even half as much as Tesla (which is much farther behind) when it comes to automation.
From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car. In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on…
The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.
Re: We're going commercial
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car. In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on…
The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.
Well, we'd have to look at the cost of the hardware and maintenance and fallback remote operators and the R&D investment to evaluate whether a robotaxi fleet is indeed cheaper. And how much cheaper is it, exactly? 5%? 10%? 15%?
Would you pay a little more to have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth (human brain + driver assist) or would you want to save a few dollars and risk having some dumb piece of software strand you in the middle of the road somewhere?
We all use Google Maps or Apple Maps when driving and most of us have seen these systems do boneheaded things. Just imagine the dumb things a robotaxi could do.
So robotaxis are perhaps mainly attractive to the very low income parts of population, people who might buy an inferior product to save a dollar or two. People who buy store-brand ketchup instead of Heinz ketchup even though it doesn't taste as good.
It's hard for a normal person to be excited about this.