# Alphabet drops a billion dollars on Lyft.



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

https://www.recode.net/2017/10/19/16503628/alphabet-lyft-ride-hail-investment-billion


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

BAM!! A slap in Ubers face!

Increased the value of Lyft by 50% and gave them $$ to keep the price war going while they keep playing with SDCs.


----------



## Irishjohn831 (Aug 11, 2017)

Someone needs to start compensating drivers fairly, driverless cars will be tied up in years of red tape before flopping


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Irishjohn831 said:


> Someone needs to start compensating drivers fairly, driverless cars will be tied up in years of red tape before flopping


Reality is going to bite you in the butt. And not in a good way.


----------



## Irishjohn831 (Aug 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Reality is going to bite you in the butt. And not in a good way.


Government sticks their nose into everything, at times for good reason.

There are stringent safety standards that take years upon years before these cars are released for road use.

If one of these cars as much as bumps a curb, it's done.

The government is also not going to allow labor that generates tax monies and keeps unemployment levels low in favor of robot cars.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Irishjohn831 said:


> Government sticks their nose into everything, at times for good reason.
> 
> There are stringent safety standards that take years upon years before these cars are released for road use.
> 
> ...


Both the House and Senate have passed self driving cars bills. They are taking a laissez-faire approach to self driving cars because they have no other choice. Any country that tries to prevent self driving cars will be left in the dust. Mayor de Commio in NY is trying to put on a brave face for the taxi union but even de Commio will have to back down in the end.


----------



## Irishjohn831 (Aug 11, 2017)

National safety commission can pull the plug at any moment, I’m sure taxi and tlc drivers will be happy to dismantle these cars, and if I’m not mistaken the bills passed require an engineer Behind the wheel of each and every vehicle as a default. 

Engineers don’t work for uber rates and it’s a long way from non engineer supervised cars.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh they made an enemy now.

Taxis won't destroy uber, Google will.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Irishjohn831 said:


> National safety commission can pull the plug at any moment, I'm sure taxi and tlc drivers will be happy to dismantle these cars, and if I'm not mistaken the bills passed require an engineer Behind the wheel of each and every vehicle as a default.
> 
> Engineers don't work for uber rates and it's a long way from non engineer supervised cars.


You are mistaken. Car companies don't even have to include a steering wheel or pedals. It's weeks before non engineer supervised cars hit the road. Google is launching their commercial self driving taxi service in Phoenix before Christmas, with no safety driver.

Even the people's republic of California sees the writing on the wall.

*Totally driverless cars could be allowed on California roads by June 2018*
*http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-dmv-driverless-california-20171011-story.html*


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You are mistaken. Car companies don't even have to include a steering wheel or pedals. It's weeks before non engineer supervised cars hit the road. Google is launching their commercial self driving taxi service in Phoenix before Christmas, with no safety driver.


Source?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Mista T said:


> Source?


http://www.techradar.com/news/googles-self-driving-cars-could-be-on-our-roads-this-year

Cars with no steering wheel, no pedals and nobody at all inside could be driving themselves on California roads by the end of the year, under proposed new state rules that would give a powerful boost to the fast-developing technology.

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-dmv-driverless-california-20171011-story.html


----------



## Irishjohn831 (Aug 11, 2017)

No, they are allowed on roads with an engineer as default. 

Why did the ford pinto get sued for leaving a rubber gasket for impact in the 1970’s when gas tanks were exploding, they didn’t need to add it according to you. 

Engineer in car for a long, Long time


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Interesting stuff, thanks for the link!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Irishjohn831 said:


> No, they are allowed on roads with an engineer as default.
> 
> Why did the ford pinto get sued for leaving a rubber gasket for impact in the 1970's when gas tanks were exploding, they didn't need to add it according to you.
> 
> Engineer in car for a long, Long time


Driverless cars - with nobody behind the wheel - could be on California roads and highways by June 2018 - LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-dmv-driverless-california-20171011-story.html


----------



## Jc. (Dec 7, 2016)

Irishjohn831 said:


> National safety commission can pull the plug at any moment, I'm sure taxi and tlc drivers will be happy to dismantle these cars, and if I'm not mistaken the bills passed require an engineer Behind the wheel of each and every vehicle as a default.
> 
> Engineers don't work for uber rates and it's a long way from non engineer supervised cars.


I'm an engineer and I'm driving for luber...


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Irishjohn831 said:


> No, they are allowed on roads with an engineer as default.
> 
> Why did the ford pinto get sued for leaving a rubber gasket for impact in the 1970's when gas tanks were exploding, they didn't need to add it according to you.
> 
> Engineer in car for a long, Long time


First, they aren't engineers. Anyone can apply to be a Waymo driver.

Tomato already pointed out the federal legislation that will override all local legislation. It's very SDC friendly, so no, red tape won't be holding them up. It passed the house unanimously and is already out of committee.

They are also exempt from crash safety standards for the time being, IIRC. If they come out as electric low speed urban vehicles, those don't have to meet safety standards either.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Mista T said:


> BAM!! A slap in Ubers face!
> 
> Increased the value of Lyft by 50% and gave them $$ to keep the price war going while they keep playing with SDCs.


Safety tip: never piss off a company that can dump a billion dollars into your competitor's bank account mostly out of spite.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Do you think the billion is coming from Google counting on Uber losing the lawsuit?

"UBER pays for Google to own LYFT stock" - Headline of the future


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Allow me to bring some perspective here, context type of thing.

Cost of Apollo program

*NASA's budget peaked in 1964-66, when it consumed roughly 4% of federal spending*. The agency was building up to the first moon landing; the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and universitycontractors.

In March 1966, NASA officials told Congress that the 1959-72 "run-out cost" of the Apollo program would be an estimated $22.718 billion. The total cost turned out to be between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (*about $136 billion in 2007 dollars, 169.41 billion in 2017 dollars).*

The costs of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets came to about $83 billion in 2005 dollars. Apollo spacecraft cost $28 billion, including the Command/Service Module, $17 billion; Lunar Module, $11 billion; and launch vehicles (Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V cost about $46 billion in 2005 dollars)."

More than 50 years later and after the moon landing and after Apollo program successfully came to fruition..... ARE WE ON THE MOON YET?

Spending billions means nothing.

Is sad to see how Nickelodeon crap brained washed the millennials into believing money will change the reality.... Hahahaha.... You are funny!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Mista T said:


> Do you think the billion is coming from Google counting on Uber losing the lawsuit?
> 
> "UBER pays for Google to own LYFT stock" - Headline of the future


I think it has become personal with Google and they're happy to help with Uber's demise.



jocker12 said:


> Allow me to bring some perspective here, context type of thing.
> 
> Cost of Apollo program
> 
> ...


What point are you trying to make here, Sparky?



RamzFanz said:


> First, they aren't engineers. Anyone can apply to be a Waymo driver.
> 
> Tomato already pointed out the federal legislation that will override all local legislation. It's very SDC friendly, so no, red tape won't be holding them up. It passed the house unanimously and is already out of committee.
> 
> They are also exempt from crash safety standards for the time being, IIRC. If they come out as electric low speed urban vehicles, those don't have to meet safety standards either.


*Congress's push to get self-driving cars on the road faster*
*https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/20/tech/congress-s-push-get-self-driving-cars-road-faster*



jocker12 said:


> Allow me to bring some perspective here, context type of thing.
> 
> Cost of Apollo program
> 
> ...


Self driving cars are more difficult than landing on the moon. Many more variables to deal with. However it's also easier in one respect, it's not a one time shot. We are landing on the moon everyday with self driving cars. It's not like we're going to push a button and pray that it works. It's already working.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Allow me to bring some perspective here, context type of thing.
> 
> Cost of Apollo program
> 
> ARE WE ON THE MOON YET?


We landed on the moon July 20, 1969. Made several other trips during the early seventies. Decided to stop going because there wasn't much there and getting there was the main objective.

Establishing a moon base to launch vehicles for further space exploration would be the next logical step.

However.

If it were me running the show I'd construct a facility in orbit to assemble spacecraft and launch them from space where there is very little gravitational pull so less fuel would be needed for a misson to Mars for example.

They built a space station out there it wouldn't be much of a stretch.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> Decided to stop going because there wasn't much there and getting there was the main objective.


I don't think so. According to Gizmodo -

"Just a year after Apollo 11 landed, NASA began to reprioritize: plans for a space station were revived, and in 1970, they announced that Apollo 20 would be cancelled in favor of the creation of a new venture: Skylab. On September 2nd, 1970, the agency announced the final three Apollo missions: Apollo 15, 16 and 17. The agency was forced to contend with political pressure as well: In 1971, the White House intended to completely cancel the Apollo program after Apollo 15, but ultimately, the two remaining Apollo missions were kept in place. Harrison Schmitt, who had been training for Apollo 18, was bumped up to Apollo 17 after NASA faced pressure from scientists to send one of their own to the Moon.

In the forty-two years since those words were spoken, nobody has stepped on the Moon. _The levels of federal spending which NASA had received before 1966 had become untenable to a public which had become financially wary, particularly as they experienced a major oil crisis in 1973, which shifted the nation's priorities. _Spending in space was something that could be done, but with far more fiscal constraints than ever before, limiting NASA to research and scientific missions in the coming years. Such programs included the development of the Skylab program in 1973, and the Space Shuttle program, as well as a number of robotic probes and satellites.

This shift in priorities deeply impacted the willpower of policymakers to implement new exploratory missions to the Moon and beyond. Optimistic dreams of reaching Mars had long since perished, and _as NASA focused on the Space Shuttle, the physical infrastructure which supported lunar missions vanished_: No longer were Saturn V rockets manufactured, and unused rockets were turned into museum displays. _The entire technical and manufacturing apparatus, which has supported both military and civilian operations, had likewise begun to wind down._ The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and its successors began to freeze the numbers of missiles which could be deployed by both the United States and Soviet Union in 1972, and each country largely began to step down their operations. *The urgency which fueled the Cold War arms race had begun to cool, and along with it, the support for much of the efforts required to bring people into space and to the Moon*."

They shifted to a Space Shuttle program, but my point is, after we lost many good people, everything was shut down. "Two of the program's 134 flights have ended in tragedy, killing 14 astronauts in all. Recent NASA estimates peg the shuttle program's cost through the end of last year at $209 billion (in 2010 dollars) - $234.619 billion in 2017 dollars.

So, $404.029 billion (2017 dollars) later, both programs are DEAD. Spending enormous sums of money doesn't prove anything, doesn't mean the subject of that spending will became mainstream technology that will change the future. Looking back you can easily understand the errors of that insane past, when peoples dreams proved to be way larger than those people real capabilities, despite the insane amount of money the poured into it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I don't think so. According to Gizmodo -
> 
> "Just a year after Apollo 11 landed, NASA began to reprioritize: plans for a space station were revived, and in 1970, they announced that Apollo 20 would be cancelled in favor of the creation of a new venture: Skylab. On September 2nd, 1970, the agency announced the final three Apollo missions: Apollo 15, 16 and 17. The agency was forced to contend with political pressure as well: In 1971, the White House intended to completely cancel the Apollo program after Apollo 15, but ultimately, the two remaining Apollo missions were kept in place. Harrison Schmitt, who had been training for Apollo 18, was bumped up to Apollo 17 after NASA faced pressure from scientists to send one of their own to the Moon.
> 
> ...


This is just silly. Those programs were successful and achieved their goals, we've simply moved on to new challenges and technologies.

Comparing not-for-profit government programs to for-profit systems is nonsense. Every major auto company and most major tech companies in the WORLD aren't just throwing away billions and all lying to shareholders.

Self driving cars are already a reality and in service. There will be operational fleets numbering in the thousands of cars in major metropolotoin areas before the end of this decade.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Those programs were successful and achieved their goals


Those programs were a waste of public money with very few achievements. Of course, you can speculate today how they were successful, but I am telling you those programs got canceled because 2 main reasons - Loss of life and overspending. My last story linked - NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion - Was it Worth It? ends with a short and clear conclusion - "As for history's verdict? It will likely fall somewhere in between, experts say. "It's not all one way or all the other, in terms of success or failure," Launius said. "The nuances associated with this are going to be signficant in trying to assess the legacy of the shuttle." Logsdon voiced similar sentiments. People "will view it with mixed feelings," he said. *"It did some remarkable things. But we flew it for too long, and it cost too much."*

Now I will invite you to a simple exercise of logic. If the initial Apollo program plan was to land on the moon, racing the Soviet Union for the space, why did we go back six more times? As long as the goal was achieved with Apollo 11, why NASA and the US sent 6 more missions (one failed to land - Apollo 13) *after* we won the race to the moon? I agree how it doesn't make any sense to just run to be the first landing on the moon and then come back and stop everything, but why go back? I think we wanted to stay on the moon, and* we failed*.

Long story short, those programs are no more, and again, burning humongous amounts of money on a project, no matter how revolutionary or humanitarian that project is, gives you ZERO guarantee that project will succeed, or last, or change anything.



RamzFanz said:


> Comparing not-for-profit government programs to for-profit systems is nonsense


Again, I am speaking about spending in a generous context.



RamzFanz said:


> Self driving cars are already a reality and in service.


Self driving cars are a reality as much as Segway technology is. Stores around the nation and around internet are selling the Segways, but guess what? Nobody buys them for the promised mobility and revolutionary technology. People don't care for useless new technologies and love mobility the way they got used to using existing technologies. That is the reality, no matter if you like it or not.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Those programs were a waste of public money with very few achievements. Of course, you can speculate today how they were successful, but I am telling you those programs got canceled because 2 main reasons - Loss of life and overspending. My last story linked - NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion - Was it Worth It? ends with a short and clear conclusion - "As for history's verdict? It will likely fall somewhere in between, experts say. "It's not all one way or all the other, in terms of success or failure," Launius said. "The nuances associated with this are going to be signficant in trying to assess the legacy of the shuttle." Logsdon voiced similar sentiments. People "will view it with mixed feelings," he said. *"It did some remarkable things. But we flew it for too long, and it cost too much."*
> 
> Now I will invite you to a simple exercise of logic. If the initial Apollo program plan was to land on the moon, racing the Soviet Union for the space, why did we go back six more times? As long as the goal was achieved with Apollo 11, why NASA and the US sent 6 more missions (one failed to land - Apollo 13) *after* we won the race to the moon? I agree how it doesn't make any sense to just run to be the first landing on the moon and then come back and stop everything, but why go back? I think we wanted to stay on the moon, and* we failed*.
> 
> ...


We went back to the moon because we could. We had invested billions into developing the capability. Eventually we no longer had a reason to go. The moon is a boring dust covered rock and new goals were on the horizon, namely LEO satellites and science. Hence the space stations and shuttle.

You are ignoring how many industries were developed based on these technologies. Governments don't invest to make a profit but they help others do so by doing the initial heavy lifting.

People love existing technologies and reject new ones? Come on man, that's beneath you.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> We went back to the moon because we could


We went back to the moon because of the military. And we failed.



RamzFanz said:


> The moon is a boring dust covered rock


Then why race to be the first there in the first place? Do you think we only discovered how the moon was a dust covered rock ONLY AFTER we landed there? In my opinion, that was a military strategically vital place at that time, like self driving cars developers say how that technology is vital for the future today.... and we FAILED.



RamzFanz said:


> People love existing technologies and reject new ones?


People reject the USELESS new ones. It is called SEGWAY, and promised mobility and convenience in the same field, transportation. How many segways do you see on the streets today?


----------

