# We need to stop pretending that the autonomous car is imminent



## jocker12

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future


This is the dumbest article I've read all year. None of his arguments are valid.


----------



## tohunt4me

Kill the Transhumanist Robo Cars !

Silly Robot.
Roads are for PEOPLE !


----------



## RamzFanz

tomatopaste said:


> This is the dumbest article I've read all year. None of his arguments are valid.


Exactly. It's pure nonsense. The author has no knowledge on this subject.

1) People don't need to buy these, they will be TNCs.

2) Hacking can be said about any technology and would be far harder with a SDC.

3) No infrastructure changes are needed.

Etc.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> This is the dumbest article I've read all year. None of his arguments are valid.


Do you understand how everything you say or show here is corporate bull shit?


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> Do you understand how everything you say or show here is corporate bull shit?


Flying Cars coming soon !

Oh wait 
Thats the 1930's model. . . .

Any day now . . .

Its only been 87 years. . . soon, very soon.

ROADS WILL BE OBSOLETE !


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Exactly. It's pure nonsense. The author has no knowledge on this subject.
> 
> 1) People don't need to buy these, they will be TNCs.
> 
> 2) Hacking can be said about any technology and would be far harder with a SDC.
> 
> 3) No infrastructure changes are needed.
> 
> Etc.


People won't own sdc's because they won't like them. Otherwise, I've seen you express the idea of GM being a reliable partner. What do you know about GM's corporate crime and shenanigans? They only partner with Lyft because Lyft gives them a platform to test in real life environment, but if GM wants to develop their own platform who is there to stop them ?


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Do you understand how everything you say or show here is corporate bull shit?


Don't hate the Tomato, he's just the messenger.



jocker12 said:


> People won't own sdc's because they won't like them. Otherwise, I've seen you express the idea of GM being a reliable partner. What do you know about GM's corporate crime and shenanigans? They only partner with Lyft because Lyft gives them a platform to test in real life environment, but if GM wants to develop their own platform who is there to stop them ?


They won't own them cause they won't need to own them. GM doesn't need Lyft to test in real life. They are already doing that via Cruise which they bought last year.






All they have to do is expand the program. The 100,000 number wasn't pulled out of a hat. It's what the SDC companies know they can produce this year.

I am going to recommend you be given a timeout form UP until you start doing your homework.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> People won't own sdc's because they won't like them. Otherwise, I've seen you express the idea of GM being a reliable partner. What do you know about GM's corporate crime and shenanigans? They only partner with Lyft because Lyft gives them a platform to test in real life environment, but if GM wants to develop their own platform who is there to stop them ?


Homework, Sparky. Do it.

*Lyft to offer rides in self-driving cars in San Francisco area*

https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN1BI1R0-OCABS


----------



## jocker12

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future

This is the beginning of the end. Here is where this technology is going - San Francisco is considering legislation that would ban sidewalk delivery robots - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/16/15...tion-ban-autonomous-delivery-robots-sidewalks

"Don't hate the Tomato, he's just the messenger."

I know you are mesmerized by corporate speech, but they are lying to you kid. That's what corporations do. Do you need any examples for the car manufacturers lies?

How about your loving Google? - Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion

Testing would take decades.

And the flaws in the software? Is hilarious - Laying a trap for self-driving cars - https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/03/17/laying-a-trap-for-self-driving-cars/amp/


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future
> 
> This is the beginning of the end. Here is where this technology is going - San Francisco is considering legislation that would ban sidewalk delivery robots - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/16/15...tion-ban-autonomous-delivery-robots-sidewalks
> 
> "Don't hate the Tomato, he's just the messenger."
> 
> I know you are mesmerized by corporate speech, but they are lying to you kid. That's what corporations do. Do you need any examples for the car manufacturers lies?
> 
> How about your loving Google? - Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion
> 
> Testing would take decades.
> 
> And the flaws in the software? Is hilarious - Laying a trap for self-driving cars - https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/03/17/laying-a-trap-for-self-driving-cars/amp/


Where do you find these idiot writers? And why aren't you willing to educate yourself so you can tell when they're full of crap? Self driving cars have an onboard 3D map. They don't need lines. Some people go through life blaming others for why they're so unhappy. Self driving cars are amazing yet, all you can do is whine. Sad. Very sad.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Where do you find these idiot writers? And why aren't you willing to educate yourself so you can tell when they're full of crap? Self driving cars have an onboard 3D map. They don't need lines. Some people go through life blaming others for why they're so unhappy. Self driving cars are amazing yet, all you can do is whine. Sad. Very sad.


You know what's funny? The people hyping up for this technology will be the same to reject it and forget it after they will understand its limitations.

I know it hurts to realize how your beloved corporations like Google, Tesla or Apple are lying to you. But that is exactly what they are doing in order to sell their products. They don't fight for progress. Their only objective is maximum profit, not progress or saving lives. If progress will stay in their way to make profit, they will fight against progress.

Self driving cars don't need lines on the road? Who told you to keep repeating this corporate bull shit? Do you really believe this crap that is thrown at you by the corporations to maintain the hype and somehow justify their useless investment in self drivable cars? In a real life environment those sensors won't be able to distinguish were the road is anymore (rainy dark night). Without the lines, they will simply process the dark mud on the side of the road as the same as the asphalt.

Unlike most of you here, I had the chance to talk to self driveble Google cas engineers, and ask them questions. It is stupid to call the software an AI. There is NOTHING remotely close to an AI. The software needs to be as simple as possible, because a learning machine artificial intelligence it will start making conflicting decisions like a human, and you don't want that to happen. Why do you think Waymo is quiet about the Google project? Because they are about to release the cars on the road, or because they realized there are way to many variables to work with and it become virtually impossible to handle the challenge ?

You are only educated by the corporate propaganda that will make you bite the worm like a "smart" fish you are, and end up on their plates to be consumed.

Cars will be owned by TNC's? And without a driver, who will punch the numbers at the entrance of a gated community for the car to go and pick up the riders? Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?

You say the interiors won't be trashed because monitoring systems inside the cars? Do you know why all the security cameras anywhere are OUT of reach? Because people will cover them with tape or bubble gum in order to do the damage. Without a driver, people will behave inside the self drveble cars like they behave in a movie theater. Do you know how the movie theater looks like after the movie? Well, because of that, every single car will need to be checked after every single ride, so you need to build a whole new infrastructure to check and clean those health hazards you think you'll like in the future.

Kid, you have no clue!


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> You know what's funny? The people hyping up for this technology will be the same to reject it and forget it after they will understand its limitations.
> 
> I know it hurts to realize how your beloved corporations like Google, Tesla or Apple are lying to you. But that is exactly what they are doing in order to sell their products. They don't fight for progress. Their only objective is maximum profit, not progress or saving lives. If progress will stay in their way to make profit, they will fight against progress.
> 
> Self driving cars don't need lines on the road? Who told you to keep repeating this corporate bull shit? Do you really believe this crap that is thrown at you by the corporations to maintain the hype and somehow justify their useless investment in self drivable cars? In a real life environment those sensors won't be able to distinguish were the road is anymore (rainy dark night). Without the lines, they will simply process the dark mud on the side of the road as the same as the asphalt.
> 
> Unlike most of you here, I had the chance to talk to self driveble Google cas engineers, and ask them questions. It is stupid to call the software an AI. There is NOTHING remotely close to an AI. The software needs to be as simple as possible, because a learning machine artificial intelligence it will start making conflicting decisions like a human, and you don't want that to happen. Why do you thing Waymo is quiet about the Google project? Because they are about to release the cars on the road, or because they realized there are way to many variables to work with and it become virtually impossible to handle the challenge ?
> 
> You are only educated by the corporate propagabda that will make you bite the worm like a "smart" fish you are, and end up on their plates to be consumed.
> 
> Cars will be owned by TNC's? And without a driver, who will punch the numbers at the entrance of a gated community for the car to go and pick up the riders? Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?
> 
> You say the interiors won't be trashed because monitoring systems inside the cars? Do you know why all the security cameras anywhere are OUT of reach? Because people will cover them with tape or bubble gum in order to do the damage. Without a driver, people will behave inside the self drveble cars like they behave in a movie theater. Do you know how the movie theater looks like after the movie? Well, because of that, every single car will need to be checked after every single ride, so you need to build a whole new infrastructure to check and clean those health hazards you think you'll like in the future.
> 
> Kid, you have no clue!


I'm beginning to think Uber drivers are not the best and the brightest


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> I'm beginning to think Uber drivers are not the best and the brightest


Hahahaha.... Yeah.... With this attitude I am not going to be a "well known member"... Are you 5? hahahaha

At least, you're admitting you are beginning to think.... Your first step forward!


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> People won't own sdc's because they won't like them. Otherwise, I've seen you express the idea of GM being a reliable partner. What do you know about GM's corporate crime and shenanigans? They only partner with Lyft because Lyft gives them a platform to test in real life environment, but if GM wants to develop their own platform who is there to stop them ?


Nothing. If they want to start at zero market share and screw over a company they invested $500M in, they could.


----------



## Luber4.9

jocker12 said:


> Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> You know what's funny? The people hyping up for this technology will be the same to reject it and forget it after they will understand its limitations.
> 
> I know it hurts to realize how your beloved corporations like Google, Tesla or Apple are lying to you. But that is exactly what they are doing in order to sell their products. They don't fight for progress. Their only objective is maximum profit, not progress or saving lives. If progress will stay in their way to make profit, they will fight against progress.
> 
> Self driving cars don't need lines on the road? Who told you to keep repeating this corporate bull shit? Do you really believe this crap that is thrown at you by the corporations to maintain the hype and somehow justify their useless investment in self drivable cars? In a real life environment those sensors won't be able to distinguish were the road is anymore (rainy dark night). Without the lines, they will simply process the dark mud on the side of the road as the same as the asphalt.
> 
> Unlike most of you here, I had the chance to talk to self driveble Google cas engineers, and ask them questions. It is stupid to call the software an AI. There is NOTHING remotely close to an AI. The software needs to be as simple as possible, because a learning machine artificial intelligence it will start making conflicting decisions like a human, and you don't want that to happen. Why do you think Waymo is quiet about the Google project? Because they are about to release the cars on the road, or because they realized there are way to many variables to work with and it become virtually impossible to handle the challenge ?
> 
> You are only educated by the corporate propaganda that will make you bite the worm like a "smart" fish you are, and end up on their plates to be consumed.
> 
> Cars will be owned by TNC's? And without a driver, who will punch the numbers at the entrance of a gated community for the car to go and pick up the riders? Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?
> 
> You say the interiors won't be trashed because monitoring systems inside the cars? Do you know why all the security cameras anywhere are OUT of reach? Because people will cover them with tape or bubble gum in order to do the damage. Without a driver, people will behave inside the self drveble cars like they behave in a movie theater. Do you know how the movie theater looks like after the movie? Well, because of that, every single car will need to be checked after every single ride, so you need to build a whole new infrastructure to check and clean those health hazards you think you'll like in the future.
> 
> Kid, you have no clue!


Just so much nonsense. These have been covered many times and it's all silliness.

But here we go again:

SDCs don't need lines on the road. They use internal 3D maps and landmarks. MIT (not a corporation) says they can place the car within a centemeter with their ground penatrating radar even with a snow covered road. Oh, and they have found a way to build these GPRs for a few hundred dollars.

If you need assistance you call a car with an attendant in it. Amazing how easy that was to solve.

You cover the camera you get detected in a trillionth of a second and charged fees. Simple. If you make a mess you get charged a fee. Simple.


----------



## empresstabitha

jocker12 said:


> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future


o.o i totally forgot their was an autonomous section to this forum. Anyways all these points are valid and you have to be ignorant of hiw technology really works to not see that.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Just so much nonsense. These have been covered many times and it's all silliness.
> 
> But here we go again:
> 
> SDCs don't need lines on the road. They use internal 3D maps and landmarks. MIT (not a corporation) says they can place the car within a centemeter with their ground penatrating radar even with a snow covered road. Oh, and they have found a way to build these GPRs for a few hundred dollars.
> 
> If you need assistance you call a car with an attendant in it. Amazing how easy that was to solve.
> 
> You cover the camera you get detected in a trillionth of a second and charged fees. Simple. If you make a mess you get charged a fee. Simple.


How much of MIT research do you find in a final corporate product? Hint - what MIT does it is out of corporate focus because MIT doesn't care about corporations profits. I can tell you about MIT graphene research and discoveries but still the implementation is over 3 decades away.

If GM is involved in this I know for a fact how autonomous technology it will end up in tears. GM only uses Lyft at this point because Lyft has a wider presence around the US and subsequently has the capability to test in different environments with no absolute legal implications for GM.

A car with an attendant defies the purpose of autonomous. I've heard Lyft calling this a hybrid system with a person inside the car. If you need a person in the car it doesn't make any sense to make that car self drivable, because you have somebody inside to do the driving.

So you are a happy trigger individual willing to charge people without proof of ill intent? Covering a camera it's not a crime. If they don't do anything, just looking for a reason to sue the TNC, they got you big time. You are also not aware of privacy laws. Do you wonder why there are no cameras inside restrooms or fitting rooms? If the passenger decides to change his/her clothes and you make a video of it, you are screwed. In order to charge them you have to have proof that person was the one to make the mess, otherwise you have no reason. You have to check the cars after every single ride, because if they cover the camera and spread spit or semen in the car, undetectable by a regular lens, and have other riders get inside, you have a problem. If they get infected because of that, you have a bigger problem.


----------



## jocker12

empresstabitha said:


> o.o i totally forgot their was an autonomous section to this forum. Anyways all these points are valid and you have to be ignorant of hiw technology really works to not see that.


You have no clue what I am talking about!

The problem is not with the technology, which is meant for ideal conditions (which doesn't exist). The main and only problem is with the corporations that are intentionally lying the general public, promising to make the technology work in ANY conditions.

Corporations are not fighting for progress or to save lives. Their ONLY goal is their profits. If progress will put their profits in danger, they will fight against progress. Let me give you an example here - drunk driving. Easy fix and eliminate it. How? Connect a simple breathalyzer to the ignition. Any car manufacturer can do it, but it doesn't. Why? Because eliminating drunk driving is not a priority even if it can be easily done. Idiots will argue how a passenger could blow the breathalyzer in order to start the car for the drunken driver, but I am telling you how no passenger in his/her right mind, it will start the car for a drunk to drive it.

Corporations have a product they had invested a lot of money in, to sell. It is not finished and it cannot be finished, because you are dealing with too many variables on the road and the software to control the robot should be as simple as possible. Imagine what would happen with a learning system if there are more than one good decisions to make. Which one it will be the one to go for? The learning system it will trigger a debate because it lacks context, which most humans don't.

By the way my friend. I like technologies, but when corporations are not lying about their products. I am having a lot of fun with a video drone and follow all the FAA regulations. Because of those regulations, if you study that topic, I can tell you for sure, there will be NO flying cars either. Corporations will say flying cars are almost here, but they won't educate the general public about the rules in between which those flying objects are allowed to take off and operate, because they want the public to stay stupid and waste money on corporate shit products.


----------



## WeirdBob

RamzFanz said:


> You cover the camera you get detected in a trillionth of a second and charged fees.


Fun Physics Facts:

The speed of light in a vacuum is ~ 0.0118 inches in a picosecond (aka one trillionth of a second).


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Where do you find these idiot writers? And why aren't you willing to educate yourself so you can tell when they're full of crap? Self driving cars have an onboard 3D map. They don't need lines. Some people go through life blaming others for why they're so unhappy. Self driving cars are amazing yet, all you can do is whine. Sad. Very sad.


your sentences are cringe-inducingly disjointed and sound like they were written by a high school sophomore. any bets on this kids age? from the way he argues and the "points" he makes, I'm going with early high school at the oldest. Also, definitely a product of the American public education system.



RamzFanz said:


> You cover the camera you get detected in a trillionth of a second and charged fees. Simple. If you make a mess you get charged a fee. Simple.


hey einstein, you know they make these things called ball caps and sunglasses right? or if you want to go really high tech, ski masks. you can also use pre-paid credit cards or stolen cards too. it's extremely easy to conceal ones identity.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> How much of MIT research do you find in a final corporate product? Hint - what MIT does it is out of corporate focus because MIT doesn't care about corporations profits. I can tell you about MIT graphene research and discoveries but still the implementation is over 3 decades away.


Lots. MIT followed up with this ground breaking use by reinventing the ground penetrating radar so it will only cost a few hundred to add it to a SDC. Sounds like they cared about profits to me.



jocker12 said:


> If GM is involved in this I know for a fact how autonomous technology it will end up in tears. GM only uses Lyft at this point because Lyft has a wider presence around the US and subsequently has the capability to test in different environments with no absolute legal implications for GM.


GM partnered with Lyft to have instant market share when SDCs go live a couple of years from now (if not sooner). My guess is they will buy Lyft at some point.



jocker12 said:


> A car with an attendant defies the purpose of autonomous. I've heard Lyft calling this a hybrid system with a person inside the car. If you need a person in the car it doesn't make any sense to make that car self drivable, because you have somebody inside to do the driving.


A car with an attendant would be an upgraded service likely to cost more. You don't have the attendant drive because we suck at driving.



jocker12 said:


> So you are a happy trigger individual willing to charge people without proof of ill intent? Covering a camera it's not a crime. If they don't do anything, just looking for a reason to sue the TNC, they got you big time. You are also not aware of privacy laws. Do you wonder why there are no cameras inside restrooms or fitting rooms? If the passenger decides to change his/her clothes and you make a video of it, you are screwed. In order to charge them you have to have proof that person was the one to make the mess, otherwise you have no reason. You have to check the cars after every single ride, because if they cover the camera and spread spit or semen in the car, undetectable by a regular lens, and have other riders get inside, you have a problem. If they get infected because of that, you have a bigger problem.


I never said charge them for a crime. I said charge them a fee. Now, if the car was vandalized while that passenger was in it after they covered the camera, that would be a crime. So, recovry of costs, fees, plus a crime.



jocker12 said:


> You are also not aware of privacy laws. Do you wonder why there are no cameras inside restrooms or fitting rooms? If the passenger decides to change his/her clothes and you make a video of it, you are screwed. In order to charge them you have to have proof that person was the one to make the mess, otherwise you have no reason. You have to check the cars after every single ride, because if they cover the camera and spread spit or semen in the car, undetectable by a regular lens, and have other riders get inside, you have a problem. If they get infected because of that, you have a bigger problem.


I am, in fact, aware of privacy laws. They vary by state. MOST states allow video recording with no notice. Many allow video and audio. They all just require notice like a window sticker or sign. Hence why security cameras are almost everywhere.

So, no, you're not screwed. You simply notify them of A/V or V recording and you're covered.

Covering a camera could also be covered in the TOS including that the ride will end immediately and there will be additional fees along with an account suspension. Problem resolved.

In civil court you only need the preponderance of evidence. Passenger enters car, passenger disables all of the security cameras, car is damaged. There you go. Any jury or judge would decide for the plaintiff.

Of course, it would be a simple insurance claim for the SDC owner.


----------



## heynow321

RamzFanz said:


> You don't have the attendant drive because we suck at driving.
> 
> r.


Actually no we don't.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> your sentences are cringe-inducingly disjointed and sound like they were written by a high school sophomore. any bets on this kids age? from the way he argues and the "points" he makes, I'm going with early high school at the oldest. Also, definitely a product of the American public education system.
> 
> hey einstein, you know they make these things called ball caps and sunglasses right? or if you want to go really high tech, ski masks. you can also use pre-paid credit cards or stolen cards too. it's extremely easy to conceal ones identity.


Hey Hawkings, you know you'll have to have a phone and account that doesn't accept pre-paid cards? If you think they won't require ID to get an account and attach a credit card, I'm betting you're mistaken.

Besides, this is all just silly anyways. There actually won't be hoards of people stealing credit cards, creating fake accounts, and wearing masks just to risk prison over vandalism. It's not a reality based problem. And if it does happen, it's called insurance.



heynow321 said:


> Actually no we don't.


30,000 dead, 3 million injured, 2 million of them permanently, and $871B lost per year. And that's JUST the US.

Worldwide it's 1.2 million dead and 20 to 50 million injured.

You do the math.


----------



## heynow321

RamzFanz said:


> Hey Hawkings, you know you'll have to have a phone and account that doesn't accept pre-paid cards? If you think they won't require ID to get an account and attach a credit card, I'm betting you're mistaken.
> 
> Besides, this is all just silly anyways. There actually won't be hoards of people stealing credit cards, creating fake accounts, and wearing masks just to risk prison over vandalism. It's not a reality based problem. And if it does happen, it's called insurance.
> 
> 30,000 dead, 3 million injured, 2 million of them permanently, and $871B lost per year. And that's JUST the US.
> 
> Worldwide it's 1.2 million dead and 20 to 50 million injured.
> 
> You do the math.


Yeah, it actually requires 10,000 years of driving before you are likely to get killed in a car accident based on current accident rates and the amount people drive. You apparently don't know how insurance works. If an event continues to happen repeatedly like say...for example...an SDC being vandalized (have someone jump in front of it so it stops, have another smash a window or slash a tire....or even easier, just throw a brick from afar or from around a corner into the cars windshield) they'll stop insuring that event or rates will be prohibitively high.

I love how you guys choose not to accept such simple scenarios which will be a real and serious problem. Must be an interesting world to live in.

let the following sink in - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving*. So, let's say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles.". _According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss data Institute, "There were 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2015 in which 35,092 deaths occurred. This resulted in 10.9 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled", so Chris Urmson is correct, and a person needs to drive for 10.000 years in average to get to the unfortunate point of the possibility of being killed in a car accident. So, the cars and the real people driving them are incredibly safe at this point, and is no reason for anybody to actually panic because "driving is not safe" and needs to be replaced.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> Yeah, it actually requires 10,000 years of driving before you are likely to get killed in a car accident based on current accident rates and the amount people drive. You apparently don't know how insurance works. If an event continues to happen repeatedly like say...for example...an SDC being vandalized (have someone jump in front of it so it stops, have another smash a window or slash a tire....or even easier, just throw a brick from afar or from around a corner into the cars windshield) they'll stop insuring that event or rates will be prohibitively high.


The world isn't going to suddenly turn into roving gangs of vandals. I know you picture anarchy around every corner, but it's not going to happen.



heynow321 said:


> I love how you guys choose not to accept such simple scenarios which will be a real and serious problem. Must be an interesting world to live in.


I like to call it "reality."



heynow321 said:


> let the following sink in - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving*. So, let's say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles.". _According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss data Institute, "There were 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2015 in which 35,092 deaths occurred. This resulted in 10.9 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled", so Chris Urmson is correct, and a person needs to drive for 10.000 years in average to get to the unfortunate point of the possibility of being killed in a car accident. So, the cars and the real people driving them are incredibly safe at this point, and is no reason for anybody to actually panic because "driving is not safe" and needs to be replaced.


Over twice as many deaths as breast cancer. Should we stop worrying about breast cancer? Seven times as many as war so war is cool too?

Why did he neglect to mention the 20-50 million injuries worldwide, most of them permanent? Let that sink in.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> but it's not going to happen.


Please tell us you can walk on water and see through walls...

"Over twice as many deaths as breast cancer. Should we stop worrying about breast cancer? Seven times as many as war so war is cool too?"

You lost us here. I have a feeling you don't understand the metrics used. There is very little over one single death for 100 million miles driven in average. By establishing the number of deaths per driven distance you can estimate the probable frequency by dividing the total distance driven to an estimated number of miles driven by a person during an year. For his estimate, Chris used 8695 miles driven per year per driver in average. If you use 15000 miles per year per driver in average, then a driver should drive for 6666 years in order to potentially find himself or herself in an accident that would cause a human death.

If you can tell me if any cancer or any war that will cause 1 death in estimated 10 thousand years will make that death relevant, like 1 death in estimated 10 thousand years of driving a car is NOT relevant at all for any driver, I will really appreciate it.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Please tell us you can walk on water and see through walls...
> 
> "Over twice as many deaths as breast cancer. Should we stop worrying about breast cancer? Seven times as many as war so war is cool too?"
> 
> You lost us here. I have a feeling you don't understand the metrics used. There is very little over one single death for 100 million miles driven in average. By establishing the number of deaths per driven distance you can estimate the probable frequency by dividing the total distance driven to an estimated number of miles driven by a person during an year. For his estimate, Chris used 8695 miles driven per year per driver in average. If you use 15000 miles per year per driver in average, then a driver should drive for 6666 years in order to potentially find himself or herself in an accident that would cause a human death.
> 
> If you can tell me if any cancer or any war that will cause 1 death in estimated 10 thousand years will be make that death relevant, like 1 death in estimated 10 thousand years of driving a car is NOT relevant at all for any driver, I will really appreciate it.


Why are you trying to argue that 40k U.S. deaths is too small a number to worry about?


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Why are you trying to argue that 40k U.S. deaths is too small a number to worry about?


What general public was cleverly lead to believe is that self drivable cars will save LIVES, and Silicon Valley provided the statistics they needed in order to make you believe that is true. Nobody checked on what was said and they got away with it. The bigger the lie, the more people are going to believe it.

When you put everything in context and understand how many miles are driven by how many drivers on the road, any child can understand the gross exaggeration of self drivable cars enthusiasts like yourself.

When you listen to what Urmson says, and I don't think anybody can accuse him being against the autonomous cars idea as long as that was his job at Google and it is today at his company Aurora, you understand how actually safe driving is and why car manufacturers are not delighted by the useless "progress" Silicon Valley seems to be obsessed with lately.

1 statistical death in 5 to 10 thousand years (depending on how many miles you estimate people drive in average during a year) it's nothing.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> What general public was cleverly lead to believe is that self drivable cars will save LIVES, and Silicon Valley provided the statistics they needed in order to make you believe that is true. Nobody checked on what was said and they got away with it. The bigger the lie, the more people are going to believe it.
> 
> When you put everything in context and understand how many miles are driven by how many drivers on the road, any child can understand the gross exaggeration of self drivable cars enthusiasts like yourself.
> 
> When you listen to what Urmson says, and I don't think anybody can accuse him being against the autonomous cars idea as long as that was his job at Google and it is today at his company Aurora, you understand how actually safe driving is and why car manufacturers are not delighted by the useless "progress" Silicon Valley seems to be obsessed with lately.
> 
> 1 statistical death in 5 to 10 thousand years (depending on how many miles you estimate people drive in average during a year) it's nothing.


Some arguments are unwinnable and should never be attempted. Pointing out it's only 1 in however many thousands is a loser from square one. When someone can say it will save 40k deaths, it's over.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> Some arguments are unwinnable and should never be attempted. Pointing out it's only 1 in however many thousands is a loser from square one. When someone can say it will save 40k deaths, it's over.


My advice - listen to Chris Urmson.

If it's about self driving cars technology, is no winnable argument anybody could make and understand how Hollywood movies are only fiction.

You are being lied to and manipulated.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

I have a deposit on a model 3. In great part because of EAP and eventual FSD. I have no idea when FSD will be here. Elon said it was technically doable in two years and he said that a little while ago. However, when I see some of the pretty funny (funny but almost very deadly) mishaps by EAP it makes me wonder if the car is too stupid to reliably crest a hill without veering over the lines, are we truly on the cusp of being able to take a nap while the car navigates roads under construction with wonky lane markings? Maybe not so soon.

As for hacking it doesn't bother me at all. Everything can be hacked and we rely on it nonetheless. Go into any hospital and it's full of machines keeping patients alive. Their lives hang in the balance of these machines. All hackable; everything is. Aren't lots of airplanes also fly by wire and similarly hackable?

This is a neat vid. I don't know if the tesla was actually on autopilot, but look at the very weird way in which the road shifts. Either the EAP failed, or the human driver did. And I could absolutely see myself doing the same thing. You lock in on the lines, and then they change in some idiotic way. Scenarios like this are tricky to deal with:


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> My advice - listen to Chris Urmson.
> 
> If it's about self driving cars technology, is no winnable argument anybody could make and understand how Hollywood movies are only fiction.
> 
> You are being lied to and manipulated.


You mean this Chris Urmson?

1:01 to 1:20 on the video


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> You mean this Chris Urmson?
> 
> 1:01 to 1:20 on the video


Allow me to solve this struggle for you.

You know, when you get older you get wiser?

The answer to your question is, the older one or if you prefer, the later - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving"*_


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> This is the dumbest article I've read all year. None of his arguments are valid.


Seems pretty on-point to me. Of course, until SDC actually move out of development and testing phases and into what we tech developers call the production environment, the answer to the "when " question is just a matter of subjective opinion.


jocker12 said:


> but I am telling you how no passenger in his/her right mind, will start the car for a drunk to drive it.


Didn't we as a nation collectively and, figuratively, do that last November?


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Allow me to solve this struggle for you.
> 
> You know, when you get older you get wiser?
> 
> The answer to your question is, the older one or if you prefer, the later - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving"*_


And then what does he say?

Chris Urmson: "let's say the technology is good but not that good and someone dies every 50 million miles, we're going to have twice as many accidents and fatalities on the road... that experience with the technology becoming falsely comfortable is one of the challenges.'

He's talking about driver assist vs fully autonomous self driving and why driver assist is dangerous because people become complacent. Chris is a smart guy. Way too smart to even think about making the argument that 1.2 million deaths per yr is not big deal.

Sometimes people just become senile? When's the last time you were checked?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> Way too smart to even think about making the argument that 1.2 million deaths per yr is not big deal.


Assessment of the value of human life is not related to intelligence in any way. Stalin's IQ was estimated to be at least 140, yet for him 1.2 million deaths annually would have been an unacceptably low quantity.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> Seems pretty on-point to me. Of course, until SDC actually move out of development and testing phases and into what we tech developers call the production environment, the answer to the "when " question is just a matter of subjective opinion.


According to General Motors it will be months not years.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/gm-and-cruise-announce-first-mass-production-self-driving-car.201472/



The Gift of Fish said:


> Assessment of the value of human life is not related to intelligence in any way. Stalin's IQ was estimated to be at least 140, yet for him 1.2 million deaths annually would have been an unacceptably low quantity.


Are you sure that's the argument you want to make? I'm thinking you might want to use the edit button on that one.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> According to General Motors it will be months not years.


"Vogt wouldn't give too many details about when he expected Cruise's fully autonomous software to be *ready to be tested on public roads* but said that he anticipates it will be a matter of *months, not years.*"

Looks like they're some way behind Waymo, which is already testing its fully autonomous software on public roads. Not impressed.



tomatopaste said:


> Are you sure that's the argument you want to make? I'm thinking you might want to use the edit button on that one.


Why? You think wrong - my argument contains fact only and is therefore correct. I was simply correcting your attempt to correlate intelligence with concern for human life, which is unsubstantiated.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> "Vogt wouldn't give too many details about when he expected Cruise's fully autonomous software to be *ready to be tested on public roads* but said that he anticipates it will be a matter of *months, not years.*"
> 
> Looks like they're some way behind Waymo, which is already testing its fully autonomous software on public roads. Not impressed.


So is GM and Cruise. Watch these two video and not only will you be impressed but you'll probably wake up the whole house saying: HOLY SHIT!

video 1.





video 2.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> So is GM and Cruise. Watch these two video and not only will you be impressed but you'll probably wake up the whole house saying: HOLY SHIT!
> 
> video 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> video 2.


This vehicle won't be the answer for rideshare, especially not in a built up urban area like San Francisco. This car based on the Bolt, which is an electric car with a 200 mile range.

In San Francisco there are approximately 30,000 Uber vehicles. If they are replaced by electric SDC, then about half of these cars will be charging at any one time. Uber would need a lot big enough to charge 15,000 vehicles concurrently; that lot would be around half a mile wide and half a mile long. There are no vacant lots of that size within the city. There will be big enough spaces 10 or 20 miles outside the city, but there's that 200 mile range 0f the cars to consider. Maybe they would have several smaller lots of just a few thousand cars capacity each but even so, that's not going to happen in such a congested city.

Uber would have to buy the land for their charging lot, and a 1/4 square mile piece of land (half a mile x half a mile, a.k.a. huge) 10 - 20 miles outside of San Francisco would run into 10s of millions, just for the land. Let's call it $50m. Then they build this charging lot, and buy and install 15,000 charging stations in it. Tesla says that each of its Supercharger stations costs $270,000 to build, with each station being able to charge 12 cars. Extrapolating this, a 15,000 capacity station would cost $337 million to build. There would, however be economies of scale, so let's call it $200 million. That's a total cost for the charging lot of $250 million.

But wait, there's more, and this is the current (no pun intended) show stopper. Bolts have battery capacities of 60 Kwh. By my calculations, charging 15,000 Bolts at the same time would require approximately 330 megawatts of electricity, which happens to be more than the entire output of the local power plant in San Jose. Is California going to want to devote the entire production of the San Jose power plant to Uber? No. All those rich folk living in Silicon Valley would be most upset if their lights suddenly went out. So what would Uber do? Build its own power plant? Of course, sir. That will be an extra billion dollars to you, sir.

But let's forget about practicalities/reality and assume that the Power Plant Fairy flies in one night and magics up a 330 megawatt power plant for Uber. We still haven't counted the cost of the cars.

A regular Bolt with no SDC capacity costs around $40,000. An SDC may cost around $50,000 but there would be volume discounts, so call it $40,000. $40,000 x 30,000 vehicles = $1.2 billion. With the cost of the charging lot we're now at 1.45 billion dollars. And that's just for one city of 30,000 Uber vehicles. Uber has a fleet of around 600,000 cars in the US. If we extrapolate the cost for the 30,000 cars up to 600,000 then the setup cost, just to purchase the vehicles and to be able to charge them, would be $29 billion. There would be other associated costs, which would put the total somewhere around $35 billion.

Keep in mind that Uber has, at this stage, only around $6 billion of investor cash left. And out of that money it'll continue to pay around $2 billion per year in operating losses.

People talk about SDC and how wonderful the technology is, and it is. But people don't think about the huge expense required to incorporate this technology on a massive scale in terms of the cost of the vehicles themselves, the facilites required to run them, or the infrastructure improvements required. In the mean time, Uber can't even run its own Xchange fleet of Corollas and Elantras without losing millions of dollars. But I digress; SDC are coming, and they will eventually replace human drivers in rideshare. But to think that it will happen anytime soon, considering _everything _that's involved, is naive.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> And then what does he say?
> 
> Chris Urmson: "let's say the technology is good but not that good and someone dies every 50 million miles, we're going to have twice as many accidents and fatalities on the road... that experience with the technology becoming falsely comfortable is one of the challenges.'
> 
> He's talking about driver assist vs fully autonomous self driving and why driver assist is dangerous because people become complacent. Chris is a smart guy. Way too smart to even think about making the argument that 1.2 million deaths per yr is not big deal.
> 
> Sometimes people just become senile? When's the last time you were checked?


Chris Urmson has a product to sell and he wants to sell, but the numbers he presents, if you really listen and analyze what he's saying, are not in his favor at all.

Your denial is so strong, you don't even want to accept the reality presented by a top self drivable cars engineer, when suddenly people really pay attention to his words. I know you feel like a fish that swallowed a hook and now is desperately trying to escape.

You trying to insult without reason is boring. When unaducated people run out of logic, they start vomiting insults. Make sure you don't choke on your own puke because corporations don't like already dead fish on their plates. Their job is to inflict gradual pain on the stupid fish and kill them slowly.

And one more thing about your lack of education on car manufacturers industry. Do you know what General Motors is? It is funny how the moment they announced their interest for self drivable cars I knew for sure this game is doomed to fail. You could take a brake, go to the nearest library and for your curiosity read this - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

As it stands in this article published on May 27, 2017 - GM is latest automaker accused of diesel emissions cheating - http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/companies/gm-emissions-cheating/index.html

Also about GM's ignition cover up from 2014 - 124 dead people - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch_recalls

Do you realize how ridiculous you look by getting excited about what GM is doing?


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> This vehicle won't be the answer for rideshare, especially not in a built up urban area like San Francisco. This car based on the Bolt, which is an electric car with a 200 mile range.
> 
> In San Francisco there are approximately 30,000 Uber vehicles. If they are replaced by electric SDC, then about half of these cars will be charging at any one time. Uber would need a lot big enough to charge 15,000 vehicles concurrently; that lot would be around half a mile wide and half a mile long. There are no vacant lots of that size within the city. There will be big enough spaces 10 or 20 miles outside the city, but there's that 200 mile range 0f the cars to consider. Maybe they would have several smaller lots of just a few thousand cars capacity each but even so, that's not going to happen in such a congested city.
> 
> Uber would have to buy the land for their charging lot, and a 1/4 square mile piece of land (half a mile x half a mile, a.k.a. huge) 10 - 20 miles outside of San Francisco would run into 10s of millions, just for the land. Let's call it $50m. Then they build this charging lot, and buy and install 15,000 charging stations in it. Tesla says that each of its Supercharger stations costs $270,000 to build, with each station being able to charge 12 cars. Extrapolating this, a 15,000 capacity station would cost $337 million to build. There would, however be economies of scale, so let's call it $200 million. That's a total cost for the charging lot of $250 million.
> 
> But wait, there's more, and this is the current (no pun intended) show stopper. Bolts have battery capacities of 60 Kwh. By my calculations, charging 15,000 Bolts at the same time would require approximately 330 megawatts of electricity, which happens to be more than the entire output of the local power plant in San Jose. Is California going to want to devote the entire production of the San Jose power plant to Uber? No. All those rich folk living in Silicon Valley would be most upset if their lights suddenly went out. So what would Uber do? Build its own power plant? Of course, sir. That will be an extra billion dollars to you, sir.
> 
> But let's forget about practicalities/reality and assume that the Power Plant Fairy flies in one night and magics up a 330 megawatt power plant for Uber. We still haven't counted the cost of the cars.
> 
> A regular Bolt with no SDC capacity costs around $40,000. An SDC may cost around $50,000 but there would be volume discounts, so call it $40,000. $40,000 x 30,000 vehicles = $1.2 billion. With the cost of the charging lot we're now at 1.45 billion dollars. And that's just for one city of 30,000 Uber vehicles. Uber has a fleet of around 600,000 cars in the US. If we extrapolate the cost for the 30,000 cars up to 600,000 then the setup cost, just to purchase the vehicles and to be able to charge them, would be $29 billion. There would be other associated costs, which would put the total somewhere around $35 billion.
> 
> Keep in mind that Uber has, at this stage, only around $6 billion of investor cash left. And out of that money it'll continue to pay around $2 billion per year in operating losses.
> 
> People talk about SDC and how wonderful the technology is, and it is. But people don't think about the huge expense required to incorporate this technology on a massive scale in terms of the cost of the vehicles themselves, the facilites required to run them, or the infrastructure improvements required. In the mean time, Uber can't even run its own Xchange fleet of Corollas and Elantras without losing millions of dollars. But I digress; SDC are coming, and they will eventually replace human drivers in rideshare. But to think that it will happen anytime soon, considering _everything _that's involved, is naive.


This is the perfect car for San Francisco, given that most San Franciscans are smug granola eaters.






Of the 30k Uber cars in SF, at most 1/3 are operating at the same time, 10k. The self driving taxi company, in this case GM, knows exactly where to stage the cars on a typical Thursday at 4pm. So they're twice as efficient and thus only need 5k cars.

200 mile range is more than sufficient for one day. But you can also do a quit charge for 30 minutes and get another 90 miles. Cost per gallon for Uber drivers in SF is what, 3 bucks or more?. The cost per mile for GM Bolt will be a fraction of what Uber drivers are paying.

The self driving taxi service will be owned and operated by GM/Cruise so I'm guessing GM will give GM quite a discount. Your monthly car payment on the Corolla is many times greater.

Keep in mind Uber has nothing to do with this. GM would love nothing more than to put Uber out of business. GM says they can produce at least 200,000 Bolts per year. They will need five thousand to put Uber out of business in San Francisco.



jocker12 said:


> Chris Urmson has a product to sell and he wants to sell, but the numbers he presents, if you really listen and analyze what he's saying, are not in his favor at all.


So when you said we should listen to Chris Urmson, what, that's no longer operable? It's all so confusing.


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> So when you said we should listen to Chris Urmson, what, that's no longer operable? It's all so confusing.


Again, you are not listening to what he's saying during the same discussion with the Recode journalist - "The company really wants to make a product. I believe that deeply. There's very little value in working on technology if you don't get it out there and get it helping people."

Of course is confusing because you cannot believe he is so honest about this dirty game they are playing. Acknowledging how the statistics of 1 death in 5 to 10 thousand years are correct and also admitting how their main objective as a company is solely to sell their product (because there is no real safety issue) is an eye opener.


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> When you put everything in context and understand how many miles are driven by how many drivers on the road, any child can understand the gross exaggeration of self drivable cars enthusiasts like yourself.
> ng.


don't underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. guys like ramz and tomato suffer greatly from it.



RamzFanz said:


> The world isn't going to suddenly turn into roving gangs of vandals. I know you picture anarchy around every corner, but it's not going to happen.
> 
> in.


you should read up on seattle's experiment with self cleaning public toilets from around 10 years ago. they were so disgusting and vandalized that even the homeless stopped using them.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-5-million-automated-public-toilets-sold-for-12000/

The high-tech public toilets, with sanitizing water jets and automatic doors, were installed in 2004 to accommodate tourists and transients in Pioneer Square, Capitol Hill, the central waterfront, Pike Place Market and the Chinatown International District. But the city canceled its contract this spring *after the commodes became filthy hide-outs for drug use and prostitution.*

yeah...people are wonderful and always behave in a good manner when not being supervised or dealing with the threat of retaliation. must be part of your fake reality that you live in.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Again, you are not listening to what he's saying during the same discussion with the Recode journalist - "The company really wants to make a product. I believe that deeply. There's very little value in working on technology if you don't get it out there and get it helping people."
> 
> Of course is confusing because you cannot believe he is so honest about this dirty game they are playing. Acknowledging how the statistics of 1 death in 5 to 10 thousand years are correct and also admitting how their main objective as a company is solely to sell their product (because there is no real safety issue) is an eye opener.


How do you manage to get out of bed in the morning knowing all these evil capitalists are out to get you?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> Of the 30k Uber cars in SF, at most 1/3 are operating at the same time, 10k. The self driving taxi company, in this case GM, knows exactly where to stage the cars on a typical Thursday at 4pm. So they're twice as efficient and thus only need 5k cars.
> 
> 200 mile range is more than sufficient for one day. But you can also do a quit charge for 30 minutes and get another 90 miles.


Drivers also know where to be on a typical Thursday at 4pm. GM won't get any efficiency gains out of that.

I was wondering if you would bring up utilization. Yes, not all human Ubers are in use concurrently. But neither will the SDC be. As above, charging stations capable of charging thousands of cars will not be located in San Francisco. Call it a 15 mile ride over to East Bay or South Bay to charge, and 15 miles back - a quick charge to get just another 90 miles wouldn't do much good. Just as it is most efficient for us to fill our cars with gas instead of stopping every 90 miles, so it will be most efficient when SDC fill up completely. For that reason, the 30,000 cars does not go down to 10,000. Let's say 20,000.

But, the range restrictions will mean that not all SDC cars can take all rides. The ride allocation software will have to pass over cars which are running low on battery and allocate longer trips only to cars with enough battery to do the trip and then get to a charging station, plus keep a little power in reserve. So, more cars are required, and the number of cars required goes back up to 30,000.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> Drivers also know where to be on a typical Thursday at 4pm. GM won't get any efficiency gains out of that.
> 
> I was wondering if you would bring up utilization. Yes, not all human Ubers are in use concurrently. But neither will the SDC be. As above, charging stations capable of charging thousands of cars will not be located in San Francisco. Call it a 15 mile ride over to East Bay or South Bay to charge, and 15 miles back - a quick charge to get just another 90 miles wouldn't do much good. Just as it is most efficient for us to fill our cars with gas instead of stopping every 90 miles, so it will be most efficient when SDC fill up completely. For that reason, the 30,000 cars does not go down to 10,000. Let's say 20,000.
> 
> But, the range restrictions will mean that not all SDC cars can take all rides. The ride allocation software will have to pass over cars which are running low on battery and allocate longer trips only to cars with enough battery to do the trip and then get to a charging station, plus keep a little power in reserve. So, more cars are required, and the number of cars required goes back up to 30,000.


They'll have 500 plugless charging stations in the city as well (see video). Also its range is 238 not 200. With a 30 minutes quick charge in the city you're at 328. I know you want range to be an issue but it's just not.

No way in H do human drivers have anything close to the info the self driving taxi company will have. Surge becomes moot with SD taxis. We're still at 5k cars needed.

Battery technology is advancing rapidly and this is why car companies are moving more and more to ev's.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> Also its range is 238 not 200.


(1) That's manufacturer _claimed _range for a Bolt, and (2) The Bolt has no electrical load from SDC sensors, lasers, servo motors etc. 200 miles is therefore a very generous estimate of range.


> I know you want range to be an issue but it's just not.


It's neither an issue or a non-issue. It is what it is - a shorter EV range than gas cars, combined with a one hour charge time vs 5 minute tank-up, combined with the need to go to remote out-of-city charging stations simply means that more EV cars will be required than if these limitations did not exist. Is this good or bad? It's great if you're a GM assembly line worker. For others, maybe not so much.


> Surge becomes moot with SD taxis.


Obvious; SDC will not require incentivization.  However, upfront pricing will still gouge pax when there are more requests than available cars.


> We're still at 5k cars needed.


Lol, no.... each SDC will not replace six human driven cars, for the reasons mentioned. Lower range, longer recharge time, lack of sufficient nearby charging capacity etc etc. Even if SDC replaced half of the human Uber cars, you still haven't explained how the extra demand on the electrical grid is going to be satisfied, or who is going to pay for that, or how long it will take to upgrade the grid infrastrucure. Many power companies say that we are close to blackout conditions in many areas, yet suddenly we're going to be able to plug in millions of electric cars and drain thousands of extra gigawatt hours from the grid? Nope. It will happen, eventually, but it'll take quite a few years.


> Battery technology is advancing rapidly and this is why car companies are moving more and more to ev's.


Advances in battery technology facilitate a move to EV, but that is not the reason why EV is currently trending.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> (1) That's manufacturer _claimed _range for a Bolt, and (2) The Bolt has no electrical load from SDC sensors, lasers, servo motors etc. 200 miles is therefore a very generous estimate of range.


The cars will be driven optimally by computers. It'll be 250 in SDC mode.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Lol, no.... each SDC will not replace six human driven cars, for the reasons mentioned. Lower range, longer recharge time, lack of sufficient nearby charging capacity etc etc. Even if SDC replaced half of the human Uber cars, you still haven't explained how the extra demand on the electrical grid is going to be satisfied, or who is going to pay for that, or how long it will take to upgrade the grid infrastrucure. Many power companies say that we are close to blackout conditions in many areas, yet suddenly we're going to be able to plug in millions of electric cars and drain thousands of extra gigawatt hours from the grid? Nope. It will happen, eventually, but it'll take quite a few years.


Half of Uber's 30k drivers only drive 3 times a month. They need 30k drivers only because it's barely a job to begin with. 5k full time cars is all they need. Cars are charged at night. And it's only 5k.


----------



## empresstabitha

tomatopaste said:


> Why are you trying to argue that 40k U.S. deaths is too small a number to worry about?


Because there are over 3 million people in the US and over 7 billion in the world. Trust me humanity is safe.



tomatopaste said:


> So is GM and Cruise. Watch these two video and not only will you be impressed but you'll probably wake up the whole house saying: HOLY SHIT!
> 
> video 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> video 2.


Haha I've seen this car in SF and you know what it kept stopping at a green light because it was confused by other cars and pedestrians


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/5/16257314/stop-autonomous-self-driving-cars-not-coming-soon-future
> 
> This is the beginning of the end. Here is where this technology is going - San Francisco is considering legislation that would ban sidewalk delivery robots - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/16/15...tion-ban-autonomous-delivery-robots-sidewalks
> 
> "Don't hate the Tomato, he's just the messenger."
> 
> I know you are mesmerized by corporate speech, but they are lying to you kid. That's what corporations do. Do you need any examples for the car manufacturers lies?
> 
> How about your loving Google? - Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion
> 
> Testing would take decades.
> 
> And the flaws in the software? Is hilarious - Laying a trap for self-driving cars - https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/03/17/laying-a-trap-for-self-driving-cars/amp/


Google also invests HEAVILY in Transhumanism.
Google D.A.R.P.A. IS BIG BROTHER.



RamzFanz said:


> Just so much nonsense. These have been covered many times and it's all silliness.
> 
> But here we go again:
> 
> SDCs don't need lines on the road. They use internal 3D maps and landmarks. MIT (not a corporation) says they can place the car within a centemeter with their ground penatrating radar even with a snow covered road. Oh, and they have found a way to build these GPRs for a few hundred dollars.
> 
> If you need assistance you call a car with an attendant in it. Amazing how easy that was to solve.
> 
> You cover the camera you get detected in a trillionth of a second and charged fees. Simple. If you make a mess you get charged a fee. Simple.


Like uber Navigation.
Pin drop is between 800 to 1500 lost avenue.
Good Luck.



WeirdBob said:


> Fun Physics Facts:
> 
> The speed of light in a vacuum is ~ 0.0118 inches in a picosecond (aka one trillionth of a second).


Well
That settles it !
We suck all the air out of Robo cars once passengers are Locked in !



RamzFanz said:


> Hey Hawkings, you know you'll have to have a phone and account that doesn't accept pre-paid cards? If you think they won't require ID to get an account and attach a credit card, I'm betting you're mistaken.
> 
> Besides, this is all just silly anyways. There actually won't be hoards of people stealing credit cards, creating fake accounts, and wearing masks just to risk prison over vandalism. It's not a reality based problem. And if it does happen, it's called insurance.
> 
> 30,000 dead, 3 million injured, 2 million of them permanently, and $871B lost per year. And that's JUST the US.
> 
> Worldwide it's 1.2 million dead and 20 to 50 million injured.
> 
> You do the math.


Population control.
Nature has Lions.
We have Cars.



tomatopaste said:


> According to General Motors it will be months not years.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/gm-and-cruise-announce-first-mass-production-self-driving-car.201472/
> 
> Are you sure that's the argument you want to make? I'm thinking you might want to use the edit button on that one.


Is THIS what be brought G.M. out of Bankruptcy to do !?!?

SCREW AMERICANS OUT OF JOBS AND RIGHTS ?
Should have SOLD THEIR ASSETS AT AUCTION !


----------



## tomatopaste

tohunt4me said:


> Google also invests HEAVILY in Transhumanism.
> Google D.A.R.P.A. IS BIG BROTHER.
> 
> Like uber Navigation.
> Pin drop is between 800 to 1500 lost avenue.
> Good Luck.
> 
> Well
> That settles it !
> We suck all the air out of Robo cars once passengers are Locked in !
> 
> Population control.
> Nature has Lions.
> We have Cars.
> 
> Is THIS what be brought G.M. out of Bankruptcy to do !?!?
> 
> SCREW AMERICANS OUT OF JOBS AND RIGHTS ?
> Should have SOLD THEIR ASSETS AT AUCTION !


If you replace smart phones with carrier pigeons, Uber Amish could work. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> How do you manage to get out of bed in the morning knowing all these evil capitalists are out to get you?


Nobody here is interested in what you ask yourself while staring at your reflection in the mirror.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> Cars are charged at night. And it's only 5k.


Nope. Charging once per night would only give 1/2 a day's operation. Just for that reason you'd be back up to 10,000 cars.



tomatopaste said:


> The cars will be driven optimally by computers. It'll be 250 in SDC mode.


Nope.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> Nope. Charging once per night would only give 1/2 a day's operation. Just for that reason you'd be back up to 10,000 cars.


Correct. But you can get 160 miles with 1 hr fast charge. 2 fast charges in 24 hrs gives you 320 mile daily range. For the SF fleet, 5k cars, you only need a few hundred fast charging stations.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> Correct. But you can get 160 miles with 1 hr fast charge. 2 fast charges in 24 hrs gives you 320 mile daily range. For the SF fleet, 5k cars, you only need a few hundred fast charging stations.


So now you're not saying they would be charged just at night. You sound a bit confused


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> Nope. Charging once per night would only give 1/2 a day's operation. Just for that reason you'd be back up to 10,000 cars.
> 
> Nope.


I will concede your point that the sensors ect will draw more power if you will concede my brilliant point that the cars will be driven optimally by computers. However you also have to concede fast charging makes this whole discussion moot.



The Gift of Fish said:


> So now you're not saying they would be charged just at night. You sound a bit confused


No, they will still be charged at night but not the slow charge that only gives them a half charge. They'd use the fast charge and start out with the full 238 mile range. Then a 1 hour fast charge in the city during the day for another 160. Total daily range: 398. And no human interaction required.


----------



## heynow321

empresstabitha said:


> Haha I've seen this car in SF and you know what it kept stopping at a green light because it was confused by other cars and pedestrians


I slowed down that video to normal speed and picked apart all the **** ups it made. the thing can't make rights on reds. it slows down and gets confused in the middle of the road when someone comes up behind it. it's way too cautious (would slow down traffic enormously). etc.

the thing is a joke.

Here's the post:

I'd suggest everyone watch this video at half speed so you can really see how many times this thing &%[email protected]!*s up or takes actions that would cause massive slowdowns.

1:01 - the car stalls and can't seem to figure out what the parked car on the right is doing despite having plenty of room to get by on the left. do shit like this during rush hr and it will cause major back ups.

1:30 - the car doesn't choose to go around a left turning car despite having plenty of room to do so, will cause back ups and be incredibly frustrating for passengers.

1:52 - the car waits for the light to cycle to turn right instead of turning right on a red despite having opportunities to do so. that will piss off passengers and further increase traffic.

2:48 - the car just stops in the middle of the road and seems to be confused by the car on the left despite having open road in front of it. awesome for traffic and passengers.

2:54 - "stop 2" the car just blocks the lane despite having plenty of room to pull over 10 feet in front of it. Other drivers will love that!

3:00 - another missed opportunity to turn right safely but instead it just sits there.

3:26 - another botched right turn despite having plenty of room.

4:09 - the thing just stops in the middle of a wide open road with nothing blocking it! how the &%[email protected]!* is that safe?

4:00 - 4:30 - the thing is not accelerating nearly as fast as the rest of traffic allowing a ton of cars to get in front of it with the huge gaps it's creating. Hope passengers have all the time in the world to get to where they're going.

4:47 - the thing just stops in the middle of the lane before a green light with no obstructions. again, how safe.

5:25 - "stop 3" blocks the lane again despite having an open parking spot right in front of it.

5:46 - plenty of room to move forward but it decides to stop and block the lane while a car in front is turning left.

6:11 - could have easily made the light safely, chose to stop. how frustrating for a potential passenger.

8:01 - the thing is obviously confused by the cars around it and slows down despite having wide open road in front of it allowing more cars to jump in front of it. Sure hope these passengers aren't in a hurry.

8:15 - unable to make a right on the red light despite having a huge opportunity to do so. guess we just aren't turning right on reds anymore.

8:27 - "stop 5" blocks the lane again despite having a parking spot RIGHT next to it that any human could have easily pulled into.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> I slowed down that video to normal speed and picked apart all the &%[email protected]!* ups it made. the thing can't make rights on reds. it slows down and gets confused in the middle of the road when someone comes up behind it. it's way too cautious (would slow down traffic enormously). etc.
> 
> the thing is a joke.
> 
> Here's the post:
> 
> I'd suggest everyone watch this video at half speed so you can really see how many times this thing &%[email protected]!*s up or takes actions that would cause massive slowdowns.
> 
> 1:01 - the car stalls and can't seem to figure out what the parked car on the right is doing despite having plenty of room to get by on the left. do shit like this during rush hr and it will cause major back ups.
> 
> 1:30 - the car doesn't choose to go around a left turning car despite having plenty of room to do so, will cause back ups and be incredibly frustrating for passengers.
> 
> 1:52 - the car waits for the light to cycle to turn right instead of turning right on a red despite having opportunities to do so. that will piss off passengers and further increase traffic.
> 
> 2:48 - the car just stops in the middle of the road and seems to be confused by the car on the left despite having open road in front of it. awesome for traffic and passengers.
> 
> 2:54 - "stop 2" the car just blocks the lane despite having plenty of room to pull over 10 feet in front of it. Other drivers will love that!
> 
> 3:00 - another missed opportunity to turn right safely but instead it just sits there.
> 
> 3:26 - another botched right turn despite having plenty of room.
> 
> 4:09 - the thing just stops in the middle of a wide open road with nothing blocking it! how the &%[email protected]!* is that safe?
> 
> 4:00 - 4:30 - the thing is not accelerating nearly as fast as the rest of traffic allowing a ton of cars to get in front of it with the huge gaps it's creating. Hope passengers have all the time in the world to get to where they're going.
> 
> 4:47 - the thing just stops in the middle of the lane before a green light with no obstructions. again, how safe.
> 
> 5:25 - "stop 3" blocks the lane again despite having an open parking spot right in front of it.
> 
> 5:46 - plenty of room to move forward but it decides to stop and block the lane while a car in front is turning left.
> 
> 6:11 - could have easily made the light safely, chose to stop. how frustrating for a potential passenger.
> 
> 8:01 - the thing is obviously confused by the cars around it and slows down despite having wide open road in front of it allowing more cars to jump in front of it. Sure hope these passengers aren't in a hurry.
> 
> 8:15 - unable to make a right on the red light despite having a huge opportunity to do so. guess we just aren't turning right on reds anymore.
> 
> 8:27 - "stop 5" blocks the lane again despite having a parking spot RIGHT next to it that any human could have easily pulled into.


Could you also break down the drive.ai video for us? Seems like the key is having something lodged up your keister in order to catch these glaring flaws.

Thanks, Tomato


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> This vehicle won't be the answer for rideshare, especially not in a built up urban area like San Francisco. This car based on the Bolt, which is an electric car with a 200 mile range.
> 
> In San Francisco there are approximately 30,000 Uber vehicles. If they are replaced by electric SDC, then about half of these cars will be charging at any one time. Uber would need a lot big enough to charge 15,000 vehicles concurrently; that lot would be around half a mile wide and half a mile long. There are no vacant lots of that size within the city. There will be big enough spaces 10 or 20 miles outside the city, but there's that 200 mile range 0f the cars to consider. Maybe they would have several smaller lots of just a few thousand cars capacity each but even so, that's not going to happen in such a congested city.
> 
> Uber would have to buy the land for their charging lot, and a 1/4 square mile piece of land (half a mile x half a mile, a.k.a. huge) 10 - 20 miles outside of San Francisco would run into 10s of millions, just for the land. Let's call it $50m. Then they build this charging lot, and buy and install 15,000 charging stations in it. Tesla says that each of its Supercharger stations costs $270,000 to build, with each station being able to charge 12 cars. Extrapolating this, a 15,000 capacity station would cost $337 million to build. There would, however be economies of scale, so let's call it $200 million. That's a total cost for the charging lot of $250 million.
> 
> But wait, there's more, and this is the current (no pun intended) show stopper. Bolts have battery capacities of 60 Kwh. By my calculations, charging 15,000 Bolts at the same time would require approximately 330 megawatts of electricity, which happens to be more than the entire output of the local power plant in San Jose. Is California going to want to devote the entire production of the San Jose power plant to Uber? No. All those rich folk living in Silicon Valley would be most upset if their lights suddenly went out. So what would Uber do? Build its own power plant? Of course, sir. That will be an extra billion dollars to you, sir.
> 
> But let's forget about practicalities/reality and assume that the Power Plant Fairy flies in one night and magics up a 330 megawatt power plant for Uber. We still haven't counted the cost of the cars.
> 
> A regular Bolt with no SDC capacity costs around $40,000. An SDC may cost around $50,000 but there would be volume discounts, so call it $40,000. $40,000 x 30,000 vehicles = $1.2 billion. With the cost of the charging lot we're now at 1.45 billion dollars. And that's just for one city of 30,000 Uber vehicles. Uber has a fleet of around 600,000 cars in the US. If we extrapolate the cost for the 30,000 cars up to 600,000 then the setup cost, just to purchase the vehicles and to be able to charge them, would be $29 billion. There would be other associated costs, which would put the total somewhere around $35 billion.
> 
> Keep in mind that Uber has, at this stage, only around $6 billion of investor cash left. And out of that money it'll continue to pay around $2 billion per year in operating losses.
> 
> People talk about SDC and how wonderful the technology is, and it is. But people don't think about the huge expense required to incorporate this technology on a massive scale in terms of the cost of the vehicles themselves, the facilites required to run them, or the infrastructure improvements required. In the mean time, Uber can't even run its own Xchange fleet of Corollas and Elantras without losing millions of dollars. But I digress; SDC are coming, and they will eventually replace human drivers in rideshare. But to think that it will happen anytime soon, considering _everything _that's involved, is naive.


While I have to applaud your creativity in creating strawmen arguments, your numbers are absurd. A retail plugless car charger is $3,500. Five thousand Bolts requiring 2 one hr charges a day, (gives you a range of 320 miles) you would need 416 (no human interaction, charging stations.) 416 x 3,500 is just under 1.5 million (at retail, off the shelf). Not 337 million.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

tomatopaste said:


> While I have to applaud your creativity in creating strawmen arguments, your numbers are absurd. A retail plugless car charger is $3,500. Five thousand Bolts requiring 2 one hr charges a day, (gives you a range of 320 miles) you would need 418 (no human interaction, charging stations.) 416 x 3,500 is just under 1.5 million (at retail, off the shelf). Not 337 million.


SSshhhh. I plan on selling car chargers to Uber/Cruise/etc


----------



## jocker12

tomatopaste said:


> While I have to applaud your creativity in creating strawmen arguments, your numbers are absurd. A retail plugless car charger is $3,500. Five thousand Bolts requiring 2 one hr charges a day, (gives you a range of 320 miles) you would need 416 (no human interaction, charging stations.) 416 x 3,500 is just under 1.5 million (at retail, off the shelf). Not 337 million.


 It will be very interesting to understand if you'll be willing to put your money where your mouth is.... So, first question - Do you have any savings? Second question - If you don't, how about your parents? Third question - Would you invest your savings(or theirs) in the autonomous cars industry today? I can help you with that - *3 Top Driverless Car Stocks to Buy Now*


----------



## Oscar Levant

tomatopaste said:


> Where do you find these idiot writers? And why aren't you willing to educate yourself so you can tell when they're full of crap? Self driving cars have an onboard 3D map. They don't need lines. Some people go through life blaming others for why they're so unhappy. Self driving cars are amazing yet, all you can do is whine. Sad. Very sad.


For me, it's wait and see. I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that it's being tested here and there doesn't necessarily translate as happening soon to the general market.



jocker12 said:


> You know what's funny? The people hyping up for this technology will be the same to reject it and forget it after they will understand its limitations.
> 
> I know it hurts to realize how your beloved corporations like Google, Tesla or Apple are lying to you. But that is exactly what they are doing in order to sell their products. They don't fight for progress. Their only objective is maximum profit, not progress or saving lives. If progress will stay in their way to make profit, they will fight against progress.
> 
> Self driving cars don't need lines on the road? Who told you to keep repeating this corporate bull shit? Do you really believe this crap that is thrown at you by the corporations to maintain the hype and somehow justify their useless investment in self drivable cars? In a real life environment those sensors won't be able to distinguish were the road is anymore (rainy dark night). Without the lines, they will simply process the dark mud on the side of the road as the same as the asphalt.
> 
> Unlike most of you here, I had the chance to talk to self driveble Google cas engineers, and ask them questions. It is stupid to call the software an AI. There is NOTHING remotely close to an AI. The software needs to be as simple as possible, because a learning machine artificial intelligence it will start making conflicting decisions like a human, and you don't want that to happen. Why do you think Waymo is quiet about the Google project? Because they are about to release the cars on the road, or because they realized there are way to many variables to work with and it become virtually impossible to handle the challenge ?
> 
> You are only educated by the corporate propaganda that will make you bite the worm like a "smart" fish you are, and end up on their plates to be consumed.
> 
> Cars will be owned by TNC's? And without a driver, who will punch the numbers at the entrance of a gated community for the car to go and pick up the riders? Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?
> 
> You say the interiors won't be trashed because monitoring systems inside the cars? Do you know why all the security cameras anywhere are OUT of reach? Because people will cover them with tape or bubble gum in order to do the damage. Without a driver, people will behave inside the self drveble cars like they behave in a movie theater. Do you know how the movie theater looks like after the movie? Well, because of that, every single car will need to be checked after every single ride, so you need to build a whole new infrastructure to check and clean those health hazards you think you'll like in the future.
> 
> Kid, you have no clue!


You have touched upon a point I have often raised, because they will have to be owned buy somebody, and that somebody will have to have warehouses in every major city where UBer operates, and then a whole infrastructure, and they somehow think that they will be able to reduce the fairs to lower than what they are now? Maybe, maybe not. My gut feeling, as that they won't be able to operate profitably even at current rates and if they can't do that, well, it was the whole point, right? Yellow cab couldn't operate profitably at $3 per mile, so how is Uber going to operate below a buck a mile and pay for the warehousing, maintenance, of hundreds of thousands of driverless cars?


----------



## tomatopaste

Oscar Levant said:


> For me, it's wait and see. I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that it's being tested here and there doesn't necessarily translate as happening soon to the general market.
> 
> You have touched upon a point I have often raised, because they will have to be owned buy somebody, and that somebody will have to have warehouses in every major city where UBer operates, and then a whole infrastructure, and they somehow think that they will be able to reduce the fairs to lower than what they are now? Maybe, maybe not. My gut feeling, as that they won't be able to operate profitably even at current rates and if they can't do that, well, it was the whole point, right? Yellow cab couldn't operate profitably at $3 per mile, so how is Uber going to operate below a buck a mile and pay for the warehousing, maintenance, of hundreds of thousands of driverless cars?


Because they will have eliminated the most expensive part, the driver. A typical Wal Mart has 2k parking spaces. The same day SDC's hit, Walmart's SDC delivery hits. SDC's free up parking spaces. SD taxi companies will be able to lease parking spaces very cheaply


----------



## IronMike60

tomatopaste said:


> Because they will have eliminated the most expensive part, the driver. A typical Wal Mart has 2k parking spaces. The same day SDC's hit, Walmart's SDC delivery hits. SDC's free up parking spaces. SD taxi companies will be able to lease parking spaces very cheaply


The driver comes with car, fuel, and maintenance. Those costs of ownership will fall on Uber.


----------



## tomatopaste

IronMike60 said:


> The driver comes with car, fuel, and maintenance. Those costs of ownership will fall on Uber.


And how's that working out for Uber? They lose 3 billion a yr. Uber's business model is a fraud.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

tomatopaste said:


> This is the dumbest article I've read all year. None of his arguments are valid.


the article has all the logic of a tomato


----------



## tomatopaste

ChortlingCrison said:


> the article has all the logic of a tomato


Any botanist will tell you tomatoes are the most logical fruit to ever exist. Tomato hate is not a good use of anyone's time.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

tomatopaste said:


> Any botanist will tell you tomatoes are the most logical fruit to ever exist. Tomato hate is not a good use of anyone's time.


Spoken like a true tomato.


----------



## empresstabitha

tomatopaste said:


> Because they will have eliminated the most expensive part, the driver. A typical Wal Mart has 2k parking spaces. The same day SDC's hit, Walmart's SDC delivery hits. SDC's free up parking spaces. SD taxi companies will be able to lease parking spaces very cheaply


You do realize if they have the opportunity to eliminate parking owners of that land will use it for something more profitable. Or cities like SF will return it to the people. They already are closing off streets so they can make them walkable area and bikeable areas. Uber payong for parking at a walmart wont happen. The owners of that land would rather build another store or condos.

You obviously don't understand business and prefer to idealize things way too much.


----------



## Oscar Levant

tomatopaste said:


> Because they will have eliminated the most expensive part, the driver. A typical Wal Mart has 2k parking spaces. The same day SDC's hit, Walmart's SDC delivery hits. SDC's free up parking spaces. SD taxi companies will be able to lease parking spaces very cheaply


This is all theory. See, I've been in business, made business plans. When I did all I theorized in the real world, every thing costs a lot more than I thought it would.

Yes, they remove the cost of the driver, but costs go way way way up with warehousing hundreds of thousands of cars, maintenance, technicians, logistics, a new layer of technical staff, admin staff, all over the world, and you are telling me that the removing of the driver is enough of a savings to offset that increase, a fleet of vehicles which is a depreciating asset in a grand scale?

I don't buy your argument, so for me, again, it's a wait and see thing.

Uber is currently taking more than 25% of the fare, it mores like 40% ( booking and service fee does it ). So, that 40% profit only pays about 40% of Uber's operating expenses as things are now, so saving 40% of driver costs, well, lets' take a closer look-- see, they want to reduce the price even more with SDCs, so they reduce the price, to, say, 60% of current rates, but that means they are not taking in more than they were at 100% paying out 40% to driver, and now they got a fleet to pay for? Do you see the math problem here? .


----------



## tomatopaste

empresstabitha said:


> You do realize if they have the opportunity to eliminate parking owners of that land will use it for something more profitable. Or cities like SF will return it to the people. They already are closing off streets so they can make them walkable area and bikeable areas. Uber payong for parking at a walmart wont happen. The owners of that land would rather build another store or condos.
> 
> You obviously don't understand business and prefer to idealize things way too much.


You realize in order for them to have the opportunity to free up land, SDC's have to exist, right. And yes, much of the land will be used to build new buildings, parks, condos, etc. But Walmart isn't going to put another Wal Mart in the parking lot of the Wal Mart immediately.

There will be a transition period. In a city like San Francisco there are tons of multi level parking facilities. These will be the parking spaces that eventually remain. All the on-street parking goes. Walmart parking lot becomes a condo. Sounding pretty sweet, don't you think?


----------



## tomatopaste

Oscar Levant said:


> This is all theory. See, I've been in business, made business plans. When I did all I theorized in the real world, every thing costs a lot more than I thought it would.
> 
> Yes, they remove the cost of the driver, but costs go way way way up with warehousing hundreds of thousands of cars, maintenance, technicians, logistics, a new layer of technical staff, admin staff, all over the world, and you are telling me that the removing of the driver is enough of a savings to offset that increase, a fleet of vehicles which is a depreciating asset in a grand scale?
> 
> I don't buy your argument, so for me, again, it's a wait and see thing.
> 
> Uber is currently taking more than 25% of the fare, it mores like 40% ( booking and service fee does it ). So, that 40% profit only pays about 40% of Uber's operating expenses as things are now, so saving 40% of driver costs, well, lets' take a closer look-- see, they want to reduce the price even more with SDCs, so they reduce the price, to, say, 60% of current rates, but that means they are not taking in more than they were at 100% paying out 40% to driver, and now they got a fleet to pay for? Do you see the math problem here? .


No, we passed the theory stage five years ago. Companies aren't dumping in billions upon billions on a theory. This is going to happen, it's already happening.
*Warehousing:*
They'll buy a lot ten miles outside the city. But they probably won't even need it. It's better to have 50 small lots throughout the city than one big one. SDC's free up parking.
*Maintenance:*
You're paying retail for maintenance now as an Uber driver. GM is using the Bolt, for one reason, because it's electric with fewer moving parts. They'll own fleets of Chevy Bolts with interchangeable parts. If the radiator blows you take it to a shop and pay retail. GM will pull one off the shelf or take one off a car that's having its ac fixed. Wait, the Bolt doesn't have a radiator.
*Staff:* the need for staff is greatly exaggerated. Rideshare apps have already eliminated the need for most taxi staff positions. Self driving taxis will reduce it even further. Won't have drivers calling in about not getting their bonuses or asking to have a pax's rating changed.
*Math: *
You can't compare self driving taxis to Uber. Uber is subsidizing 60 percent of the pax's fare with investor cash. You have to compare SD taxis to human driven taxis. Traditional taxi fleets are actually cheaper to operate per mile than Uber. Uber drivers are paying retail; on the purchase of the car, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc.

Uber is losing 3 billion a year because the pax isn't paying what it costs. Now let's get back to warehousing. How have taxis been able to operate in San Francisco for the last hundred years? Self driving taxi companies will be able to move their cars to wherever they need them at virtually no cost.


----------



## jocker12

Oscar Levant said:


> This is all theory. See, I've been in business, made business plans. When I did all I theorized in the real world, every thing costs a lot more than I thought it would.
> 
> Yes, they remove the cost of the driver, but costs go way way way up with warehousing hundreds of thousands of cars, maintenance, technicians, logistics, a new layer of technical staff, admin staff, all over the world, and you are telling me that the removing of the driver is enough of a savings to offset that increase, a fleet of vehicles which is a depreciating asset in a grand scale?
> 
> I don't buy your argument, so for me, again, it's a wait and see thing.
> 
> Uber is currently taking more than 25% of the fare, it mores like 40% ( booking and service fee does it ). So, that 40% profit only pays about 40% of Uber's operating expenses as things are now, so saving 40% of driver costs, well, lets' take a closer look-- see, they want to reduce the price even more with SDCs, so they reduce the price, to, say, 60% of current rates, but that means they are not taking in more than they were at 100% paying out 40% to driver, and now they got a fleet to pay for? Do you see the math problem here? .


You do understand you are elaborating on a childish speculation about Walmart parking lots? No company made any predictions about plans to handle their logistics but children here jump on conclusions after watching few cartoon videos, thinking corporate America is some sort of Salvation Army brotherhood meant to help the poor to become rich.

What do you do if a child tells you he wants to move on mars? Take him seriously or buy him an ice cream and make sure he goes to school to get proper education to be able to handle his life as you know is going to be and not as he dreams is going to be?


----------



## Oscar Levant

tomatopaste said:


> No, we passed the theory stage five years ago. Companies aren't dumping in billions upon billions on a theory. This is going to happen, it's already happening.
> *Warehousing:*
> They'll buy a lot ten miles outside the city. But they probably won't even need it. It's better to have 50 small lots throughout the city than one big one. SDC's free up parking.
> *Maintenance:*
> You're paying retail for maintenance now as an Uber driver. GM is using the Bolt, for one reason, because it's electric with fewer moving parts. They'll own fleets of Chevy Bolts with interchangeable parts. If the radiator blows you take it to a shop and pay retail. GM will pull one off the shelf or take one off a car that's having its ac fixed. Wait, the Bolt doesn't have a radiator.
> *Staff:* the need for staff is greatly exaggerated. Rideshare apps have already eliminated the need for most taxi staff positions. Self driving taxis will reduce it even further. Won't have drivers calling in about not getting their bonuses or asking to have a pax's rating changed.
> *Math: *
> You can't compare self driving taxis to Uber. Uber is subsidizing 60 percent of the pax's fare with investor cash. You have to compare SD taxis to human driven taxis. Traditional taxi fleets are actually cheaper to operate per mile than Uber. Uber drivers are paying retail; on the purchase of the car, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc.
> 
> Uber is losing 3 billion a year because the pax isn't paying what it costs. Now let's get back to warehousing. How have taxis been able to operate in San Francisco for the last hundred years? Self driving taxi companies will be able to move their cars to wherever they need them at virtually no cost.


In San Diego, Yellow Cab got a sweetheart deal from GM on cars, they got them real cheap, they also didn't have to pay insurance ( they were self insured) and you're right, their operating costs are less than what owner/operators pay way way less, and that's the point, at cab rates, even with these advantages , they were still unable to operate profitably and had to sell all of their cabs and convert to a cooperative system. Most of the large taxi companies, yellow, checker, and others, have gone out of business or were converted to coops.

The question is, which costs Uber less, the SDCs, or drivers? You dont really know what SDCs will cost Uber. You can do some math, make some projections,, you can do a biz plan, but I guarantee the real costs when it all does down is going to be a lot more than you think it is. These vehicles will require maintenance, have to be cleaned, and kids will really wear them down.

Then there's the issue of will people want them? Will people actually climb into these things? I've asked a lot of people, and of the many dozens I've asked about this, only one or two said they would, and they were very techie people ( in the IT biz, and one of them worked for Google ).

So far, there are no SD taxis that don't have someone sitting behind a wheel -- they are still in the testing stage. When that day comes, then we will talk . I've heard predictions ranging from 3 to 30 years. Who knows? Then there is the definition, what are we calling SDCs? According to a blog post by Zimmer ( of Lyft )  last year, "a fully autonomous fleet of cars will provide the majority of Lyft rides across the country" but such cars will start out with "a long list of restrictions. They will only travel at low speeds, they will avoid certain weather conditions, and there will be specific intersections and roads that they will need to navigate around."

For me, those restrictions are pretty close to home, I mean, my mind thinks along these lines, "well, safe under those conditions, but what if, while enroute, it momentarily goes outside those boundaries, and does so in at a critical time?
The variables are infinite, and there will always be new moments, situations not in the SDC database, which will require the ability to think.

Humans may be slower than AI, but unlike AI, humans can think. A machine cannot think. It can only process. If a situation arises that requires the ability of self-awareness to arive at the proper action, then machine will screw up. Sure, it will learn from that event, but maybe the rider gets killed. These machines will kill people, it's statistically a sure bet. Maybe they will kill less people, statistically speaking, but perception is most of the ball game with these things. And then there is the lack of humanity. Bartenders can easily be replaced by machines, but most bars have humans, last time I checked. The only reason that robots havent' taken over bartending is one word "humanity". That is an aspect no one is considering here regarding SDCs.



jocker12 said:


> You do understand you are elaborating on a childish speculation about Walmart parking lots? No company made any predictions about plans to handle their logistics but children here jump on conclusions after watching few cartoon videos, thinking corporate America is some sort of Salvation Army brotherhood meant to help the poor to become rich.
> 
> What do you do if a child tells you he wants to move on mars? Take him seriously or buy him an ice cream and make sure he goes to school to get proper education to be able to handle his life as you know is going to be and not as he dreams is going to be?


I didn't mention Walmart, methinks you are replying to another comment.


----------



## jocker12

Oscar Levant said:


> I didn't mention Walmart, methinks you are replying to another comment.


I know you didn't. However, you engage in a discussion based on a delusion. My child analogy is for you, the adult knowing how the child could think Mars is the place he wants to move to (his imagination).


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I'm beginning to think Uber drivers are not the best and the brightest


I thought you were supposed to be an Uber driver too?

Ah ha! Caught you!

You are not an uber driver



jocker12 said:


> You know what's funny? The people hyping up for this technology will be the same to reject it and forget it after they will understand its limitations.
> 
> I know it hurts to realize how your beloved corporations like Google, Tesla or Apple are lying to you. But that is exactly what they are doing in order to sell their products. They don't fight for progress. Their only objective is maximum profit, not progress or saving lives. If progress will stay in their way to make profit, they will fight against progress.
> 
> Self driving cars don't need lines on the road? Who told you to keep repeating this corporate bull shit? Do you really believe this crap that is thrown at you by the corporations to maintain the hype and somehow justify their useless investment in self drivable cars? In a real life environment those sensors won't be able to distinguish were the road is anymore (rainy dark night). Without the lines, they will simply process the dark mud on the side of the road as the same as the asphalt.
> 
> Unlike most of you here, I had the chance to talk to self driveble Google cas engineers, and ask them questions. It is stupid to call the software an AI. There is NOTHING remotely close to an AI. The software needs to be as simple as possible, because a learning machine artificial intelligence it will start making conflicting decisions like a human, and you don't want that to happen. Why do you think Waymo is quiet about the Google project? Because they are about to release the cars on the road, or because they realized there are way to many variables to work with and it become virtually impossible to handle the challenge ?
> 
> You are only educated by the corporate propaganda that will make you bite the worm like a "smart" fish you are, and end up on their plates to be consumed.
> 
> Cars will be owned by TNC's? And without a driver, who will punch the numbers at the entrance of a gated community for the car to go and pick up the riders? Who will help an old lady with her heavy luggage if she is home alone and wants to go to the airport? Who it will help you, if you have your leg in a cast, to get inside the car?
> 
> You say the interiors won't be trashed because monitoring systems inside the cars? Do you know why all the security cameras anywhere are OUT of reach? Because people will cover them with tape or bubble gum in order to do the damage. Without a driver, people will behave inside the self drveble cars like they behave in a movie theater. Do you know how the movie theater looks like after the movie? Well, because of that, every single car will need to be checked after every single ride, so you need to build a whole new infrastructure to check and clean those health hazards you think you'll like in the future.
> 
> Kid, you have no clue!


See? I'm not the only one to call this tomatoe guy a kid

My guess is he's about 26 and works in the social media arm for a SDC Dept of a company like GM.

Tomatoe your words make it very obvious you are speaking like a man in his 20s


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> I thought you were supposed to be an Uber driver too?
> 
> Ah ha! Caught you!
> 
> You are not an uber driver
> 
> See? I'm not the only one to call this tomatoe guy a kid
> 
> My guess is he's about 26 and works in the social media arm for a SDC Dept of a company like GM.
> 
> Tomatoe your words make it very obvious you are speaking like a man in his 20s


 You're giving him far too much credit. I would think early high school based on the logical fallacies he employees and the way he writes


----------



## Maven

There's a real chance that we may have a working Star-Trek like Warp-Drive before we see a true Level-five autonomous car. 
https://uberpeople.net/threads/warp-drive-coming-soon.208430/


----------

