In the future when we've boarded up all our windows, a quadcopter with a gun isn't walking up my stairs, kicking down my door and then murdering everyone in the house as it does a sweep.
NotMyOldRedditName
joined 3 years ago
It'd be interesting to see something built ontop of things like IPLD or IPFS (which uses IPLD)
Speed isn't really a important factor for something like this.
They claim they'll do it now, but its because of all the backlash they've been getting.
Also, what they claim theyll do and the quality of it, will probably be different than if it was legislated.
Just because something is logged, doesnt mean its monitored like that.
Even without monitoring though when something does trigger someone to look, you now have a record.
They absolutely should have been monitoring for things like this though.
I guess they weren't happy with Amazon claiming the largest polluting datacenter with its 7.65GW plans, and went for a 9.2GW natural gas plan. Who's gonna go for 15?
Waymos got 220 million miles and 0 deaths so far. They'd be close to 3 by now going by human averages. I dont know far they'll make it, but you know whenever it does happen, there will be a huge uproar.
I was just looking into this a bit more, “managed to get out appropriately” is potentially actually going through the bollard after it fucked up.
It broke the law going in there, but reversing through the intersection (crosswalk) to get out is also against the law in Austin and many many places.
I know a lot of people do it (and I think I've seen a Tesla do it before too) but if you're stopped at an intersection and you fuck up and are slightly in the crosswalk, you're in most places, not allowed to back up. If you back up, you could actually be cited for 2 infractions, one blocking the intersection, and then another for the backing up. (edit: and in this case, it's just a matter of property damage if they go over it, and they're plastic because they know people will hit them, which is also sad)
I really doubt the car was smart of enough to realize I'm not allowed to reverse, and i could safely drive over this though. I think something else in its decision making process happened with failures all over the place.
I can't wait to see what the NHSTA report on this one says, hopefully there's some meaningful info in it.
Maybe we'll even hear it called home for help and a person drove it over? There was one report where a support person remotely drove it into a chain at slow speed.
Im not saying it should, and in this case and have clearly said what it did was wrong.
Im just trying to reason out how or why something like that may have happened, and at first bad map data seemed like it could be part of it wtf went wrong. (edit: even OP said they looked into it, implying they thought that might be a factor too!)
Road says go right. Oh shit its tight but I can make it. Im fucked. YOLO!!!!
And yes, it shouldn't have ignored the bicycle signage or the white line.
Have you never driven around a construction local traffic ~~road~~ only sign that gets placed in the middle of the road or blocking a lane? AVs need to be able to do weird things like this, but in the correct situations, which this was not.
It did take the obstacles into account though at first. It was going very slowly and managed to squeeze itself into that bad spot, before ultimately realizing it was stuck and deciding to go over them once it had gone too far (I would love to know how the fuck it decided to do that last part though)
What it didn't take into account from the start was the white line or bike lane sign, but those first bollards on their own it made it past.
If it had bad navigation data, that could have conceivably played a part, but bad map data seems less likely given there's an image of that intersection from 2024.
Everything about this was still very bad obviously, but even if it wasn't the case here, bad map data could get you into a bad situation like that if you can drive between the initial bollards.
Definitely no part about protecting jobs, definitely none.
State Sen. Joe Vitale, D-Middlesex, said he’s against this bill because the industry would “eliminate jobs for no other reason than to save a few bucks” and full-service gas would become more expensive.
As a coalition of organized labor, immigrant rights, and disability community advocates, we are coming together to oppose these proposed changes to New Jersey’s unique fueling rules because it will eliminate gas station attendant jobs that working families of diverse backgrounds depend on. While few to none of these workers are unionized, the New Jersey State AFL-CIO seeks to protect all jobs throughout New Jersey. Additionally, eliminating these jobs would be painful for vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities, the elderly and people with children, who rely on attendants to help them gas up. This bill would hurt consumers and provide little in return.
Companies will always try to get the most money out of you sure, but if I hop in a Uber and it says it's $20.00, it's going to be $20.00. Is that $20 a rip off, quite possibly, but I know that upfront, unlike a random driver trying to scam me and I don't know until the end.
Oh wow, that's cool. I didn't know they had date stamps on it like that. Definitely more than enough time to have updated the maps, especially since I believe Tesla uses data from google for navigation.
view more: next ›
We promise to access the brains from behind so your face still looks great!