this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
245 points (96.2% liked)

News

23320 readers
3269 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scytale@lemm.ee 52 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We're slowly inching towards the butlerian jihad.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 33 points 9 months ago (2 children)

“Unexpected item in bagging area.”

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

The slow scan reader pierces the barcode.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it's a big ass magnet bitch.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Or at the very least Johnny cab frustration.

[–] auk@slrpnk.net 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The motive is unclear

Not to me it isn't.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

It was a typo. They meant nuclear. Because that's what SF residents are going.

[–] theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Taxi drivers are the most aggressive, entitled and dangerous road users where I'm from. I'd gladly see driverless cars instead as I have no doubt that even in this early stage they would be better and safer than the cunts that drive taxis around here.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they did the same when Uber got popular. If they had a fair and friendly service, people wouldn't flock to the alternatives

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah there certainly wasn't any loss leading or intentional undercutting being done to get below profitable prices to drive current players out of those markets /s

[–] Pogbom@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Both can be true though. I don't support things like Uber and Lyft but only because of how horribly they treat their employees. I don't have much sympathy for the taxi industry that never bothered to modernized over the last 50 years.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov books about humans losing jobs to Positronic robots.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago

One day maybe we can also have cars that look back at these news articles and then decide to revolt

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You don't even have to go that far. Just look up the term 'sabot' and how it relates to sabotage.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago

I'm French and TIL, never even made the connection.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Today I got my email from Waymo saying I’m off the sf waiting list and can start booking my rides. Lol no thanks.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah so about that. Waymo is now one car short so you are back on the waiting list.

[–] dog_@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] solomon42069@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Archer: Do you want to have a Matrix? Cause THAT'S how you get a Matrix..

[–] mpi@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago
[–] ElleChaise@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Some people are so obsessed with their vehicles that seeing one destroyed feels like a personal attack on their rights. Acting like a bunch of cars don't kill a bunch of human beings every day regardless of who's driving them, professing blame belongs solely to the victims for being in the wrong place and time. Then you can see how they act when roles are reversed and the idea pops into their minds that people might destroy their precious cars, instead of the norm where cars destroy human bodies. Americans particularly seem to be completely brainwashed since the reeducation campaigns of the likes of AAA a hundred years ago.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we actually do self-driving cars right - i.e., with a safety-first approach - we could seriously reduce casualties.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why wait for a reduction when we can eliminate it right away?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Probably because we can't reasonably eliminate it right away.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well I was being glib but I think we have a greater ability than to eliminate cars today than we do to make them safer by self driving. I think we could get it done in like 5 years outside of rural areas if we had everyone on board.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

The verge's article on the same incident went on a tangent about how tech companies have been continously facing issues with these kinds of devices destroyed. Can't have a ride sharing program if all the bikes, scooters, vehicles are vandalized or destroyed. No way we're going to rid of personally owned vehicles if the alternatives are continously under attack.

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They were going nuclear on it for one reason.

it drove into the crowd and didn't recognize the crowd as People.

It was actively trying to drive through them.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Where is that quote from? I didnt see it in the article

[–] ArtieShaw@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This happened during street festivities for lunar new year, so a lot of people are connecting the dots. They don't mention that the car was aggressively trying to drive through a crowd, but it seems like it was trying to make its way through a crowd.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/why-did-a-san-francisco-crowd-light-waymos-driverless-vehicle-on-fire/

Multiple witnesses said Waymo’s navigation technology became confused by festivities and fireworks that were lit to celebrate the Lunar New Year. Witness Anirudh Koul said the driverless car “got stuck immediately in front.”

Another witness said the car’s presence in the middle of Chinatown’s celebrations triggered frustrations in the crowd. “You could feel the frustration when people were just trying to celebrate,” she told KRON4.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the car's presence was annoying them. That's not exactly a great justification for torching it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The car shouldn't have been present in the first place. It wasn't a place for cars to be at that moment.

[–] youRFate@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Was the road officially closed?

[–] alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A funny thing about life is a lot of things happen unofficially, and humans do fine at adjusting to such situations.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Plenty of humans also accidently wander into places they're officially not allowed to be in, much less unofficially.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

“I don’t like a thing…. IT MUST BE DESTROYED!”

~ Seemingly everyone nowadays.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Heh. "Nowadays."

More like, since humans have ever existed.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Driverless cars are cool as fuck but still need their kinks worked out. Driving sucks and so does doing it for a living, I don't see a real negative especially once the tech cements them as safer than human driven cars, or at least no real negative which doesn't have it's root in our broken economic system.

An other article explain it got stuck in the crowd and then stopped moving as it should. Embarrassing to see people cheering on mindless vandalism and sharing false info.

Edit: it doesn't seem to be very clear what happened and there's conflicting information so my last paragraph might be completely wrong and even worse, hypocritical.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I disagree about being no negatives. Cars with or without drivers are ruining both our cities and our planet and San Francisco already has multiple excellent public transportation options. All driverless cars do is discourage people from taking public transit.

[–] Kcap@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

To be fair, calling San Francisco's public transportation 'excellent' isn't something I can agree with after living there for over a decade haha. But it is better than nothing 🤷

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I see them as a stepping stone towards a mostly carless society personally.

I also think anyone being discouraged from taking public transit would likewise buy a car before taking public transit. I can even see the opposite, where it lets people who still need a car 5% of the time sell their ride in exchange for mostly public transit and a bit of taxi.

Individually owned cars are the devil and true public transport is definitely king, but I think driverless taxi services can serve an important niche.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think you're missing the end goal here, which is having everyone in a driverless car. The taxis are a first step in that direction. It will by no means stop there.

There was a reason why GM was investing so heavily in Cruise (until a woman got dragged under a Cruise car in SF during a crash). They weren't doing it in the hopes people would transition to public transit.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not missing the end goal, I just don't think GM will pull back if we decide to ban driverless cars or boycott them.

We both want 100% public transport but that's beside the point, the event happened because the car was driverless, not because it wasn't a bus.

If someone was proposing to ban all cars in San Francisco, I'm all for it but that isn't really what's happening. But for now, I'll take driverless cars even if it only gets rid of a couple privately owned ones.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're right. It isn't what's happening and I am proposing a ban on personal transport in San Francisco (and other major metropolitan areas with decent public transportation systems).

I also don't see this as a path to that happening. And that should be the goal.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's going to weird when people are choosing a vehicle based on whether it will decide to drive you off the cliff, or just plow through the pedestrian. There will be a Jerryrigeverything who buys cars to test their self driving to destruction.

Given how little liability auto manufactures have due to the responsibility put on the driver, I don't see why they would be pushing for self driving. Unless there's a single unified AI that makes the same driving decisions for every car, which I don't think is a good thing, the manufactures will then take the responsibility for accidents involving their proprietary driving software.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Unless there’s a single unified AI that makes the same driving decisions for every car, which I don’t think is a good thing

Honestly? I don't know that it would be the worst thing, especially on busy highways and streets, to have the same AI controlling all of the traffic instead of individual self-driving cars from individual brands, all with different software and hardware.