> Self driving cars are not important other than for a few exec ego
This is where you really go off the rails. You can't possibly believe this.
This is where you really go off the rails. You can't possibly believe this.
It's ego because it's a gold rush revenue source if it plays off and various CEOs have been pushing because while stock price is rising for the bubble, they're earning.
Self driving cars could potentially end car accidents outright, saving 40,000 lives in just the US per year. But that would put some mechanics out of business.
If we (tech fans) really wanted to help alleviate the problems roads have (traffic, accidents, etc) - public mass transit is the way to go.
But I guess .. where’s the immediate hype-based profit in that? (think: “omg blockchain… I mean nft… I mean ai!!1!!”)
It is freedom. Life is "energy wasting" too, but don't let that get in the way of ideological virtue-signaling...
Those working in the mass transit industry call passengers "cattle" for a reason.
Roads may have problems but the alternative you're proposing is far worse.
Yes, one can get into the car and drive and live “the way of the road” like Ricky’s dad on TPB but again:
How is that freedom?
“Freedom” is american marketing.
It is freedom
Sorry, but "far worse" is simply excessive.
Living in a large European city, namely Paris, and having experienced both car and mass transit, I prefer the second option a lot, to the point I sold my car without replacement about 6 years ago after 2 years of barely using it.
There is of course the ecological aspects, but even in terms of quality of life, I much prefer public transports: it's cheaper, it's less stressful, it's more predictable and I'm able to do other things like reading while transiting.
By comparison, in this context (dense urban area), cars, with their needs (maintenance, parking, etc) are actually more constrain than freedom.
And that's not like I'm a unique case, most of my colleagues either use public transports or (e)bikes, car users are a minority (~20%).
In Paris, there is even a large proportion of the population who didn't even have a driving license at all.
Doesn't it means that mass transit is the perfect solution? no. But in dense urban area, it's probably the best compromise.
I think mostly people are talking at cross purposes though. I too live in a large European city and getting around by car is incredibly constraining (traffic, parking, other drivers etc) while using the public transport system, while not perfect, is smooth in comparison.
However, for less dense areas, eg going on holiday somewhere in the countryside, it is much more convenient to have a car and I suspect that many people are coming from this angle. In those circumstances, I will rent a car as necessary. It doesn’t happen often so I still save in comparison with the cost of owning a car.
Living in sparse suburbs is probably hell without a car. This is partly because of poor town planning but also, I imagine, because a certain set of people want to have that much space. The trouble is that the externalities of the car travel are generally concentrated elsewhere, so it’s a bit unfair.
I don't see how it's pretend. Sure its not true freedom in the sense there's no cost or rules, but cars allow for spontaneity and a way to easily go off the beaten track.
Cars are liberating in the same way a horse would have been hundreds of years ago. A car allows me to go where I want, when I want and that's worth any cost.
They make the average person's life better and I wouldn't want to live in a world where I couldn't drive.
Currently, Americans spend about 100 billion hours driving every year, which is about 11 million man-years.
If you can't see the transformative impacts of freeing up that much time for people to enjoy any other activities, whether it be doing work, reading a book, sleeping, or eating chicken nuggets, then I honestly have no idea what to say.
I just found it somewhat ironic that instead of considering alternatives, people would rather hold out for self driving cars, which may never happen, to reduce time wasted in driving.
Before the damn'demic had the thought that the reason people commute long distance is partly because company VIP's all like to live a) close to work. b) next to each other. Which due to suburbanization forces everyone else to commute. This seems like an incredible waste of societies resources whose costs are born by poor and middle class people. I think the whole work from home thing is a rebellion against that basic unfairness.
If you think about it getting misted because your car plows into oncoming traffic is actually not that bad because some day others will be able to pay $15,000 for DLC in their car that unlocks “road head”. It’s basically on the same level as antibiotics or the Haber-Bosch process in its necessity for the flourishing of mankind
Somehow, when we build a $2 billion Central Subway in San Francisco, through some of the very densest neighborhoods in all of America, with a realized daily ridership of ~3,000, there are no jokes about how unimportant the train is compared to fertilizer.
Far too many people are so selfish that they get hung up on questions like “Could this cause death or grevious bodily harm to me or others on the road?” and do not have the ethical fortitude or wherewithal to focus on “What could the abstract concept of ‘transformative’ mean at an unknown point in the future?”
> there are no jokes about how unimportant the train is compared to fertilizer.
This is a good point. There is basically no meaningful difference between a self driving Tesla and a train. The only explanation for why you don’t hear people discussing the myriad times that commuter trains veer into traffic or otherwise behave in dangerous and unpredictable ways must be collective ignorance and hypocrisy.
I'll happily admit there are problems with autonomous vehicles today, and that is not what I dispute. What I dispute is that autonomous vehicles are not important. And of course they are. They would free up more human time than any other invention on the horizon.
However, to the non sequitur point about safety, we are not designing a system from scratch. The existing system has two million crashes per year in the US alone. If the new system has one million crashes, that's a massive improvement.
> There is basically no meaningful difference between a self driving Tesla and a train. The only explanation for why you don’t hear people discussing the myriad times that commuter trains veer into traffic or otherwise behave in dangerous and unpredictable ways must be collective ignorance and hypocrisy.
Once again, you've quickly switched the point to something different. The question was if an astronomically expensive train that carries a mere 3,000 riders a day is also worthy of derision, since few people use it, and all it does is replace walking, freeing them up to play Wordle during their commute.
I also liked how you brought up trains and then said I’ve switched the point when I responded to your point about a train.
I concede that your point about San Francisco’s train ridership is unassailable proof that self driving cars are as important as water treatment and germ theory. Since it is the only train in the world and has less than stellar ridership, it is proof positive that the very concept is worse than a car that drives itself into oncoming traffic.
It is a shame that the author of the article did not take a moment to consider ridership numbers of the San Francisco rail project as his car was attempting a u turn on the freeway. A small minded person could find themself thinking about impending death and not specific train projects worthy of derision.