# Waymo's self-driving taxis will cover 100 square miles(10x10) of Phoenix



## jocker12

Waymo is on track to become the first with a commercial self-driving taxi service.

The service is due to start this year in Phoenix, Arizona and will cover an area of 100 square miles. Importantly, the cars within this geofenced area will be able to operate autonomously 100 percent of the time.

The information was revealed by Waymo chief John Krafcik at last week's New York auto show, where he also revealed that Waymo would source 20,000 Jaguar I-Pace electric cars for its self-driving taxi service.

"Members of the public will be able to take our cars anywhere in our service area," Krafcik told media at the show, including The New York Times. "We will be driving everywhere-dense, urban centers, high-speed roads, low-speed roads, suburbs; there's every driving scenario to be imagined."

Waymo, formerly the Google Self-Driving Car Project, remains undeterred by last month's crash in Tempe, Arizona in which a woman crossing a road was fatally hit by an Uber self-driving car. Krafcik said that Waymo's self-driving cars would have spotted the woman and avoided the crash.

Waymo has a fleet of 600 self-driving cars testing in 25 cities across the United States. The company has racked up more than five million miles, which is more than any other company by a significant margin.

Waymo also tests its technology in traffic situations based on actual crashes, using a closed-off track in California. The company has also run computer simulations equivalent to five billion miles of testing, with much tougher conditions than you'd normally find in real life.

Other leaders in the self-driving space include General Motors, which in January unveiled a self-driving Chevrolet Bolt EV devoid of a steering wheel and pedals. GM's plan is to start running the cars on public roads in late 2019. Ford is also delivering pizzas across Miami using Fusion sedans equipped with the company's own self-driving technology, while Nissan has a handful of self-driving Leaf electric cars ferrying passengers on a set route between the company's headquarters in Tokyo and a nearby shopping center.

https://www.motorauthority.com/news...-taxis-will-cover-100-square-miles-of-phoenix


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> The company has racked up more than five million miles


..which means absolutely nothing since there is no video showing any SDC driving on a public street with no intervention whatsoever by the driver during the entire trip.

You would think if these things were actually working properly they would be dying to show off the video of it doing so. Instead you got a bunch of general statements about these cars, with drivers in them, supposedly going millions of miles and never even a single statement that says specifically that they are driving millions of miles with no intervention whatsoever by the driver. If they were doing so they would be flatly saying "x millions of miles driven without any intervention whatsoever by the driver".

Furthermore, you still gotta convince some nuts to get him them. lol Who's gonna risk their lives in these things to begin with. Crash dummies, step on up. lol


----------



## heynow321

Lol the suburbs of Phoenix. Everyone knows that’s where the big bucks are in the transportation industry. So it took google about a decade to map a 100 x 100 mile area. The cars cannot go outside the 3-D mapped area. How long until they can map the rest of the country? A Century?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

heynow321 said:


> Lol the suburbs of Phoenix. Everyone knows that's where the big bucks are in the transportation industry. So it took google about a decade to map a 100 x 100 mile area. The cars cannot go outside the 3-D mapped area. How long until they can map the rest of the country? A Century?


There's 3,000 cities in the US. Do the math. lol


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> o it took google about a decade to map a 100 x 100 mile area


But it's not 100x100 (that would be 10.000 square miles). It is only 10 miles x 10 miles=100 square miles.

To me looks like they've wanted to give it a last shot to try to sell the software the way it is today. Inside such a small area you have nothing to build on to improve.


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> But it's not 100x100 (that would be 10.000 square miles). It is only 10 miles x 10 miles=100 square miles.
> 
> To me looks like they've wanted to give it a last shot to try to sell the software the way it is today. Inside such a small area you have nothing to build on to improve.


Lol Jesus it's even worse than I thought


----------



## Adieu

Is killing some Arizona pedestrians like on ALL sdc companies' bucket list???


----------



## jocker12

Adieu said:


> Is killing some Arizona pedestrians like on ALL sdc companies' bucket list???


They keep repeating the BS about how some people will die in order for more people to live which, even if it happens sometimes in some circumstances, doesn't mean is OK or could be acceptable at any point in time.

If you have a visually impaired wife and daughter and you want self driving cars to become a reality more than anything else in the world because of your family members future, I am 100% sure your wife and daughter won't agree with the idea of having other people killed for them to live a little bit more comfortable life.


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> Waymo is on track to become the first with a commercial self-driving taxi service.
> 
> The service is due to start this year in Phoenix, Arizona and will cover an area of 100 square miles. Importantly, the cars within this geofenced area will be able to operate autonomously 100 percent of the time.
> 
> The information was revealed by Waymo chief John Krafcik at last week's New York auto show, where he also revealed that Waymo would source 20,000 Jaguar I-Pace electric cars for its self-driving taxi service.
> 
> "Members of the public will be able to take our cars anywhere in our service area," Krafcik told media at the show, including The New York Times. "We will be driving everywhere-dense, urban centers, high-speed roads, low-speed roads, suburbs; there's every driving scenario to be imagined."
> 
> Waymo, formerly the Google Self-Driving Car Project, remains undeterred by last month's crash in Tempe, Arizona in which a woman crossing a road was fatally hit by an Uber self-driving car. Krafcik said that Waymo's self-driving cars would have spotted the woman and avoided the crash.
> 
> Waymo has a fleet of 600 self-driving cars testing in 25 cities across the United States. The company has racked up more than five million miles, which is more than any other company by a significant margin.
> 
> Waymo also tests its technology in traffic situations based on actual crashes, using a closed-off track in California. The company has also run computer simulations equivalent to five billion miles of testing, with much tougher conditions than you'd normally find in real life.
> 
> Other leaders in the self-driving space include General Motors, which in January unveiled a self-driving Chevrolet Bolt EV devoid of a steering wheel and pedals. GM's plan is to start running the cars on public roads in late 2019. Ford is also delivering pizzas across Miami using Fusion sedans equipped with the company's own self-driving technology, while Nissan has a handful of self-driving Leaf electric cars ferrying passengers on a set route between the company's headquarters in Tokyo and a nearby shopping center.
> 
> https://www.motorauthority.com/news...-taxis-will-cover-100-square-miles-of-phoenix


The Buzzards are perched atop cactus anxiously awaiting Waymos Arrival


----------



## jocker12

tohunt4me said:


> The Buzzards are perched atop cactus anxiously awaiting Waymos Arrival


Check this out!

The pathetic reality of self driving technology (with video) - 
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin.../i-raced-a-self-driving-vehicle-in-las-vegas/

"Race walking took me 42.08 seconds. The vehicle crossed the line at 54.39 seconds."


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Lol Jesus it's even worse than I thought


Yahoos

*Square miles*:
Tallahassee Florida 100
Amarillo Texas 99
Knoxville Tennessee 98
Sacramento California 97
Milwaukee Wisconsin 96
Palm Springs California 94
Seattle Washington 83
Baltimore Maryland 80
Des Moines Iowa 80
Boise Idaho 79
Cincinnati Ohio 77
Cleveland Ohio 77
Madison Wisconsin 76


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> Check this out!
> 
> The pathetic reality of self driving technology (with video) -
> https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin.../i-raced-a-self-driving-vehicle-in-las-vegas/
> 
> "Race walking took me 42.08 seconds. The vehicle crossed the line at 54.39 seconds."


LOL! pathetic


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> Check this out!
> 
> The pathetic reality of self driving technology (with video) -
> https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin.../i-raced-a-self-driving-vehicle-in-las-vegas/
> 
> "Race walking took me 42.08 seconds. The vehicle crossed the line at 54.39 seconds."


Hahahaha!!!! That can't be real. Can it??


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> Hahahaha!!!! That can't be real. Can it??


And don't forget about bicycles. All bicycles are pathetic as well.


----------



## jocker12

goneubering said:


> Hahahaha!!!! That can't be real. Can it??


That is actually how self driving technology works.

Nobody wants to admit and have an honest discussion about the conflict between having a faster self driving car that could potentially hit and kill people (like it happened in Tempe) and a pathetically slow self driving car in order to give the braking system enough time to stop the car in case somebody steps in front of it.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> That is actually how self driving technology works.
> 
> Nobody wants to admit and have an honest discussion about the conflict between having a faster self driving car that could potentially hit and kill people (like it happened in Tempe) and a pathetically slow self driving car in order to give the braking system enough time to stop the car in case somebody steps in front of it.


Never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life.


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> Never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life.


I'm mean I've seen bigger yahoos, just not all bunched together like this.


----------



## getawaycar

jocker12 said:


> They keep repeating the BS about how some people will die in order for more people to live which, even if it happens sometimes in some circumstances, doesn't mean is OK or could be acceptable at any point in time.


The Nazis said the same thing about their experiments on living human subjects, which is why there are international laws against. It's okay that some people will die from our experiments, it's for the greater good! But when companies test their self-driving vehicles on public roads, it makes everyone on the road a human guinea pig. Which makes these companies likely to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.


----------



## jocker12

getawaycar said:


> The Nazis said the same thing about their experiments on living human subjects, which is why there are international laws against. It's okay that some people will die from our experiments, it's for the greater good! But when companies test their self-driving vehicles on public roads, it makes everyone on the road a human guinea pig. Which makes these companies likely to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.


Actually comparing most corporate product development to Nazi experiments is not far from reality.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life.


If tomatopaste ever went to a surgical convention, he would get up on stage, give his own opinions on the best way to perform surgery, and when every doctor in the room would tell him he's completely wrong, he would say: "I've never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life."


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> If tomatopaste ever went to a surgical convention, he would get up on stage, give his own opinions on the best way to perform surgery, and when every doctor in the room would tell him he's completely wrong, he would say: "I've never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life."


The vaunted UP community is not made up of brain surgeons.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> The vaunted UP community is not made up of brain surgeons.


It's not abut brain surgeons, it's about being skilled in whatever field you are in whether it's medicine, plumbing, construction, or... in the case of the UP community... transportation.

But I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves:


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> It's not abut brain surgeons, it's about being skilled in whatever field you are in whether it's medicine, plumbing, construction, or... in the case of the UP community... transportation.
> 
> But I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves:
> 
> View attachment 222179


If my goal on here was to be liked I'd join in the group think.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> If my goal on here was to be liked I'd join in the group think.


I think your goal has been to gather data.

And to do that you feel like you had to troll people just to get a reaction.

You got more than enough data from me alone.

Problem is... it's not what your bosses want to hear.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> I think your goal has been to gather data.
> 
> And to do that you feel like you had to troll people just to get a reaction.
> 
> You got more than enough data from me alone.
> 
> Problem is... it's not what your bosses want to hear.


Inside the totalitarian propaganda states, the useful idiots with the job of spreading the system's narrative pathetic propaganda, were meant to be lined up and shot after their job was finished. Why? Because they would have been the worst enemies after understanding the lies they intoxicated the society with.

Their masters knew the idiots should be eliminated.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> Inside the totalitarian propaganda states, the useful idiots with the job of spreading the system's narrative pathetic propaganda, were meant to be lined up and shot after their job was finished. Why? Because they would have been the worst enemies after understanding the lies they intoxicated the society with.
> 
> Their masters knew the idiots should be eliminated.


I alluded to the Tomato that this is his inevitable fate, but I don't think he listened to my warning.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> I alluded to the Tomato that this is his inevitable fate, but I don't think he listened to my warning.


This is true. The Tomato was all like:


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> This is true. The Tomato was all like:


Three words buddy: buy life insurance!


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Three words buddy: buy life insurance!


Well, those individuals were chosen in the first place because their obsession with the cause and the lack of understanding about what their masters were doing.

So, they disappeared like a puff of smoke in the wind believing they were the victims of an unfortunate mistake.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

I don't believe for a second that Waymo is going to release cars in a 100 square mile area fully autonomous dealing with pedestrians and graffic in 2018.

If I am wrong, you can put a cork in Tesla's self-driving, this will prove that they are indeed as far behind as that recent report claimed.


----------



## tomatopaste

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I don't believe for a second that Waymo is going to release cars in a 100 square mile area fully autonomous dealing with pedestrians and graffic in 2018.
> 
> If I am wrong, you can put a cork in Tesla's self-driving, this will prove that they are indeed as far behind as that recent report claimed.


1. You're wrong
2. Tesla is already done


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

tomatopaste said:


> 1. You're wrong
> 2. Tesla is already done


Well they have 8.5 months left to have these pilot-less vehicles driving around 100 square miles of surface streets while navigating accidents, roadworks, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.

Uh, good luck. Mind you, not a single other company on the planet (and many are trying) has even solved level 3 autonomy, but you're apparently backing the idea that waymo will have level 4 solved this year. Please bump this on Jan 1, 2019.


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Well they have 8.5 months left to have these pilot-less vehicles driving around 100 square miles of surface streets while navigating accidents, roadworks, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.
> 
> Uh, good luck. Mind you, not a single other company on the planet (and many are trying) has even solved level 3 autonomy, but you're apparently backing the idea that waymo will have level 4 solved this year. Please bump this on Jan 1, 2019.


 "Waymo's vehicles only operate in geographical regions which have been extensively mapped i.e. modeling in rich 3D detail with tons of (semi-supervised) human annotations.

So, to an extent, they bypass the perception problem by registering against these human labeled environments: for instance, they already know where in 3D space traffic lights and signs are present.

For object detection or scene classification, they use active 3D sensors, which don't get fooled by the sort of adversarial examples you likely have in mind.

The bigger problem is that of human drivers or pedestrians actively trying to disrupt the autonomous vehicle. Similarly, whay if someone places a fake stop sign on a highway? Even a human driver is not impervious to such actions."

They also have problems with left turns. Here is a video of a *Waymo car running a red light on a left turn* -






And here is the google street view of that sign - totally got thru the red light
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.298...4!1s6yZtR1jxmxa1QQ2kSYzWOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## MHR

jocker12 said:


> If you have a visually impaired wife and daughter and you want self driving cars to become a reality more than anything else in the world because of your family members future, I am 100% sure your wife and daughter won't agree with the idea of having other people killed for them to live a little bit more comfortable life.


I have a blind son. SDCs becoming reality/commonplace isn't as really as big of a deal in the blind community as one might be inclined to believe.


----------



## jocker12

MHR said:


> I have a blind son. SDCs becoming reality/commonplace isn't as really as big of a deal in the blind community as one might be inclined to believe.


The reason I've made that specific comment was because one particular user frequently posting here made a stupid joke on a post about discriminating between men and women drivers.










Later on, after I've posted his stupidity over and over again, he came back mentioning they are inferior drivers because they are visually impaired, so his joke backfired and he couldn't take it anymore.

He is a self driving cars enthusiast, or I should say self driving cars obsessed, and thinks he knows about technology, business and transportation better than anybody else. In reality, he hopes self driving cars will provide a better future for his teenage daughter, the "inferior" driver he was joking about.

If he reads your comment probably will understand the reality, even if I personally think he is in complete denial.

It is not a sin to hope the best for your family, but self driving cars and technology is one of the biggest hoaxes in known history, and he genuinely believes more people will need to die in order for autonomous cars to get better (almost like Nazi's were saying while experimenting on inmates.)

Thank you for your comment and tell your son uberpeople community sends him many regards.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

jocker12 said:


> "Waymo's vehicles only operate in geographical regions which have been extensively mapped i.e. modeling in rich 3D detail with tons of (semi-supervised) human annotations.
> 
> So, to an extent, they bypass the perception problem by registering against these human labeled environments: for instance, they already know where in 3D space traffic lights and signs are present.
> 
> For object detection or scene classification, they use active 3D sensors, which don't get fooled by the sort of adversarial examples you likely have in mind.
> 
> The bigger problem is that of human drivers or pedestrians actively trying to disrupt the autonomous vehicle. Similarly, whay if someone places a fake stop sign on a highway? Even a human driver is not impervious to such actions."
> 
> They also have problems with left turns. Here is a video of a *Waymo car running a red light on a left turn* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the google street view of that sign - totally got thru the red light
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.298...4!1s6yZtR1jxmxa1QQ2kSYzWOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


That's great for them they have it all mapped. Now as long as the environment they have mapped is entirely static, I have no doubt their system will work very well indeed. So really all they need now is to remove people walking out in front of cars, other cars crossing traffic at weird times, cars broken down, emergency vehicles, finding safe spaces to stop to pick up passengers, etc.

My adversarial situations don't just require proper object identification but proper decision making.

I believe we'll get there. But not this year. Waymo will either keep pilots in the car as a "just in case", or operate in other happy path situations designed to minimize issues.


----------



## tomatopaste

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Well they have 8.5 months left to have these pilot-less vehicles driving around 100 square miles of surface streets while navigating accidents, roadworks, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.
> 
> Uh, good luck. Mind you, not a single other company on the planet (and many are trying) has even solved level 3 autonomy, but you're apparently backing the idea that waymo will have level 4 solved this year. Please bump this on Jan 1, 2019.


Waymo has been operating their early rider fully autonomous taxi service in Phoenix for almost six months. Level 4 has been solved for years. The only difference in what they've been doing for six months and the soon to be launched commercial service is running people's credit cards.



MHR said:


> I have a blind son. SDCs becoming reality/commonplace isn't as really as big of a deal in the blind community as one might be inclined to believe.


nonsense


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I believe we'll get there.


Actually we won't, because the automation the way self driving cars developers lie about and want the general public to dream for, it't IMPOSSIBLE.

If you want more information about it you should read this - The Seven Deadly Myths of "Autonomous Systems" - http://www.jeffreymbradshaw.net/publications/IS-28-03-HCC_1.pdf
paper written by *Jeffrey M. Bradshaw* (a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition),* Robert R. Hoffman *(a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition), *David D. Woods *(a professor at The Ohio State University in the Institute for Ergonomics) and *Matthew Johnson (*a research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition).

"The immediate catalyst for this article is a recent (2012) US Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Report on "The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems."(115 pages) - https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has been operating their early rider fully autonomous taxi service in Phoenix for almost six months. Level 4 has been solved for years. The only difference in what they've been doing for six months and the soon to be launched commercial service is running people's credit cards.


No sir- the difference between the early rider program and fully launching is finding people that will pay.

Anyone will take something for free. When you ask them to pay now you're asking them to choose between what they already use, Uber, and a service that:

-Is all pool all the time, no fast single rides
-can't go on the freeway
-will still be relegated to a specific geofenced area
-is a weird robo experience not a human driver like they are used to

Add that all up and it's doubtful at best that customers will want to actually pay.

Now, those are all the reasons why I think Waymo is going to have a hard time finding paying customers let alone customers in such large numbers they will challenge Uber.

Tell me again what reasons you have to feel the opposite? Oh right, because the Waymo CEO said so. Actually if you re-read his quote he says by end of year 2018 Waymo will have launched the service- he didn't say tons of people will then elect to pay for it.


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> "Waymo's vehicles only operate in geographical regions which have been extensively mapped i.e. modeling in rich 3D detail with tons of (semi-supervised) human annotations.
> 
> So, to an extent, they bypass the perception problem by registering against these human labeled environments: for instance, they already know where in 3D space traffic lights and signs are present.
> 
> For object detection or scene classification, they use active 3D sensors, which don't get fooled by the sort of adversarial examples you likely have in mind.
> 
> The bigger problem is that of human drivers or pedestrians actively trying to disrupt the autonomous vehicle. Similarly, whay if someone places a fake stop sign on a highway? Even a human driver is not impervious to such actions."
> 
> They also have problems with left turns. Here is a video of a *Waymo car running a red light on a left turn* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the google street view of that sign - totally got thru the red light
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.298...4!1s6yZtR1jxmxa1QQ2kSYzWOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


LOL! any day now...once they get red lights figured out that is.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> No sir- the difference between the early rider program and fully launching is finding people that will pay.
> 
> Anyone will take something for free. When you ask them to pay now you're asking them to choose between what they already use, Uber, and a service that:
> 
> -Is all pool all the time, no fast single rides
> -can't go on the freeway
> -will still be relegated to a specific geofenced area
> -is a weird robo experience not a human driver like they are used to
> 
> Add that all up and it's doubtful at best that customers will want to actually pay.
> 
> Now, those are all the reasons why I think Waymo is going to have a hard time finding paying customers let alone customers in such large numbers they will challenge Uber.
> 
> Tell me again what reasons you have to feel the opposite? Oh right, because the Waymo CEO said so. Actually if you re-read his quote he says by end of year 2018 Waymo will have launched the service- he didn't say tons of people will then elect to pay for it.


Early signs of dementia:

-Is all pool all the time, no fast single rides - *✓*
-can't go on the freeway - *✓*
-will still be relegated to a specific geofenced area - and?
-is a weird robo experience not a human driver like they are used to - *✓*


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Early signs of dementia:
> 
> -Is all pool all the time, no fast single rides - *✓*
> -can't go on the freeway - *✓*
> -will still be relegated to a specific geofenced area - and?
> -is a weird robo experience not a human driver like they are used to - *✓*


As usual I don't know what you're saying. I mean I get the joke where you say that my comments look like I have early dementia but why do those comments look like a person who has dementia? You don't really say.

Probably because you can't.

Sad.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> As usual I don't know what you're saying. I mean I get the joke where you say that my comments look like I have early dementia but why do those comments look like a person who has dementia? You don't really say.
> 
> Probably because you can't.
> 
> Sad.


Do you want me to lie to you, give you false hope? Not only if Phoenix toast this year, San Francisco is toast as well. If not toast at least on fire.

It's set to launch a paid taxi service in Phoenix this year and expand passenger trials to a second city.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...g-down-pact-with-honda-could-include-delivery


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Do you want me to lie to you, give you false hope? Not only if Phoenix toast this year, San Francisco is toast as well. If not toast at least on fire.
> 
> It's set to launch a paid taxi service in Phoenix this year and expand passenger trials to a second city.
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...g-down-pact-with-honda-could-include-delivery


Sir, all you are doing is saying that waymo plans to open these services to the public and then you claim that the public will automatically flock to it.
Where's the proof that what you are saying about public demand is anything more than a fantasy? Do you have public petitions signed by millions of people saying how excited they are to start riding in a robo car? News flash: uber had such petitions in their early days before rolling into a new market.

anyone can say anything. What you need is proof to backup what you are saying.

For example:

I can lift a car up
I can fly
I can read minds

Proof? Who needs proof! I said it didn't I?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> "Waymo's vehicles only operate in geographical regions which have been extensively mapped i.e. modeling in rich 3D detail with tons of (semi-supervised) human annotations.
> 
> So, to an extent, they bypass the perception problem by registering against these human labeled environments: for instance, they already know where in 3D space traffic lights and signs are present.
> 
> For object detection or scene classification, they use active 3D sensors, which don't get fooled by the sort of adversarial examples you likely have in mind.
> 
> The bigger problem is that of human drivers or pedestrians actively trying to disrupt the autonomous vehicle. Similarly, whay if someone places a fake stop sign on a highway? Even a human driver is not impervious to such actions."
> 
> They also have problems with left turns. Here is a video of a *Waymo car running a red light on a left turn* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the google street view of that sign - totally got thru the red light
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.298...4!1s6yZtR1jxmxa1QQ2kSYzWOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


wow, i been driving for 24 years and i never even seen a single human do that



tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has been operating their early rider fully autonomous taxi service in Phoenix for almost six months. Level 4 has been solved for years. The only difference in what they've been doing for six months and the soon to be launched commercial service is running people's credit cards.
> 
> nonsense


Theres about 10 seconds showing people in the back and like 5 seconds showing the view from in the car driving, no video showing detailed info of it doing everything right.

Just another promotional vid showing nothing.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> wow, i been driving for 24 years and i never even seen a single human do that
> 
> Theres about 10 seconds showing people in the back and like 5 seconds showing the view from in the car driving, no video showing detailed info of it doing everything right.
> 
> Just another promotional vid showing nothing.


Does it matter? Waymo has chosen to control what they allow the public to see. They've also told the public what they're going to do. Choosing to ignore that won't change things.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has chosen to control what they allow the public to see.


Of course. If they show actual video of the cars, they will see they don't work.

Want proof ?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Sir, all you are doing is saying that waymo plans to open these services to the public and then you claim that the public will automatically flock to it.
> Where's the proof that what you are saying about public demand is anything more than a fantasy? Do you have public petitions signed by millions of people saying how excited they are to start riding in a robo car? News flash: uber had such petitions in their early days before rolling into a new market.
> 
> anyone can say anything. What you need is proof to backup what you are saying.
> 
> For example:
> 
> I can lift a car up
> I can fly
> I can read minds
> 
> Proof? Who needs proof! I said it didn't I?


To deny what's right in front of your face and say self driving cars will never work is bad enough, to say: ok they might work but the public won't use it is just delusional


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> To deny what's right in front of your face and say self driving cars will never work is bad enough, to say: ok they might work but the public won't use it is just delusional


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


>


You mean three years ago they weren't ready to launch? Is that what you're saying?



uberdriverfornow said:


>


The human driver was probably fired.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> You mean three years ago they weren't ready to launch? Is that what you're saying?


no, i'm saying they are never ready for launch and it has been proven by the fact that there is no video ever released showing that they work but plenty of video showing they will never work



tomatopaste said:


> The human driver was probably fired.


If he was smart, he quit first. Nobody would want to be caught in that situation a second time, basically a sitting duck for another Waymo car on the road to run a red light and hit.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> no, i'm saying they are never ready for launch and it has been proven by the fact that there is no video ever released showing that they work but plenty of video showing they will never work


Waymo has been operating their early rider program since Nov with no one in the driver's seat. They're adding 1 million self driving miles every 3 months. Have you heard of even a fender bender caused by Waymo's self driving cars?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has been operating their early rider program since Nov with no one in the driver's seat. They're adding 1 million self driving miles every 3 months. Have you heard of even a fender bender caused by Waymo's self driving cars?


Do you think the video I just posted of Waymo running a red light just happens to be the only one ever ? We know there are many more out there, but Waymo themselves will never release them.



tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has been operating their early rider program since Nov with no one in the driver's seat. They're adding 1 million self driving miles every 3 months. Have you heard of even a fender bender caused by Waymo's self driving cars?


What does that tell you when I found more video of them running red lights and blocking intersections than you found of them not running red lights and not blocking intersections ?


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Do you think the video I just posted of Waymo running a red light just happens to be the only one ever ? We know there are many more out there, but Waymo themselves will never release them.


I'm sure in the 9 years Google has been operating self driving cars on everyday roads they have a lot of videos of their cars getting confused. I'm also sure in the over 5 million miles they've driven, they've never caused an accident.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Do you think the video I just posted of Waymo running a red light just happens to be the only one ever ? We know there are many more out there, but Waymo themselves will never release them.
> 
> What does that tell you when I found more video of them running red lights and blocking intersections than you found of them not running red lights and not blocking intersections ?


That you're bending yourself into a pretzel trying to disprove what's right in front of your face. The human driver effed up and probably got fired. Three years ago a Waymo car got confused. Call the FBI.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> I'm sure in the 9 years Google has been operating self driving cars on everyday roads they have a lot of videos of their cars getting confused. I'm also sure in the over 5 million miles they've driven, they've never caused an accident.
> 
> That you're bending yourself into a pretzel trying to disprove what's right in front of your face. The human driver effed up and probably got fired. Three years ago a Waymo car got confused. Call the FBI.


https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report

Still not sure if you seen this beauty.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report
> 
> Still not sure if you seen this beauty.


Video: 21:50 to 26:10








uberdriverfornow said:


> https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report
> 
> Still not sure if you seen this beauty.


I've already commented twice that the human driver effed up and probably got fired. Now three, is that enough?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> I've already commented twice that the human driver effed up and probably got fired. Now three, is that enough?


Why is the human driver at fault ?


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Why is the human driver at fault ?


Because the human driver that was driving the Pacifica ran a red light.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Because the human driver that was driving the Pacifica ran a red light.


Since when did sdc cars stop driving themselves ? Whats your source ?


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Since when did sdc cars stop driving themselves ? Whats your source ?


What's your source? Do you have a date of when this happened? Have you contacted Google to get them to explain what happened, or are you just assuming it was operating in autonomous mode because that fits your world view?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> What's your source? Do you have a date of when this happened? Have you contacted Google to get them to explain what happened, or are you just assuming it was operating in autonomous mode because that fits your world view?


lol I love to see you squirm and cry 'cause your sdc got caught blatantly running a red light a month ago

we all know there are many more incidents out there of them running red lights, thats why we have no video of them actually driving the streets lol

if google releases video of them trying to work correctly, it's going to include incidents like these where they blatantly run red lights


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> To deny what's right in front of your face and say self driving cars will never work is bad enough, to say: ok they might work but the public won't use it is just delusional


Oh Tomato. Once again you have confused what I said. (Or maybe you're just confused in general)

I never said "SDCs might work but the public won't use it"

What I said/meant was if Waymo launches an SDC taxi in the calendar year 2018 they might get a few robo fanboys to use the service (RamzFanz 's cousin?) but it will be nowhere near the number of people necessary to threaten Uber Phoenix.

You have made it very clear that the goal of all parties involved is nothing short of an overnight transportation revolution, therefore anything less means the service, in my opinion, "doesn't work".

And I absolutely have the opinion that if Waymo launches any sooner than a decade from now that will be the result.

You know what your problem is Tomato (apart from anger issues)? You're asking for the impossible.

You're asking for:

-Waymo to build an infrastructure to rival Uber
-Waymo to shoulder all the responsibilities (as opposed to Uber who pawns them off on the drivers).
-the public to do a complete 180 and decide to be driven by robots instead of humans by a LARGE MAJORITY
- the public to give up car ownership
- the tech to be flawless

And you're asking for this to happen yesterday. Not only that you are foolishly boasting that the impossible literally will happen. It's the very definition of madness.

So... that's what I said. Ok?

Any other questions?


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol I love to see you squirm and cry 'cause your sdc got caught blatantly running a red light a month ago
> 
> we all know there are many more incidents out there of them running red lights, thats why we have no video of them actually driving the streets lol
> 
> if google releases video of them trying to work correctly, it's going to include incidents like these where they blatantly run red lights


Did you contact Waymo to have them explain what happened or are you afraid the answer might not fit your world view?

I contacted Waymo because they should explain what happened.












iheartuber said:


> Oh Tomato. Once again you have confused what I said. (Or maybe you're just confused in general)
> 
> I never said "SDCs might work but the public won't use it"
> 
> What I said/meant was if Waymo launches an SDC taxi in the calendar year 2018 they might get a few robo fanboys to use the service (RamzFanz 's cousin?) but it will be nowhere near the number of people necessary to threaten Uber Phoenix.
> 
> You have made it very clear that the goal of all parties involved is nothing short of an overnight transportation revolution, therefore anything less means the service, in my opinion, "doesn't work".
> 
> And I absolutely have the opinion that if Waymo launches any sooner than a decade from now that will be the result.
> 
> You know what your problem is Tomato (apart from anger issues)? You're asking for the impossible.
> 
> You're asking for:
> 
> -Waymo to build an infrastructure to rival Uber
> -Waymo to shoulder all the responsibilities (as opposed to Uber who pawns them off on the drivers).
> -the public to do a complete 180 and decide to be driven by robots instead of humans by a LARGE MAJORITY
> - the public to give up car ownership
> - the tech to be flawless
> 
> And you're asking for this to happen yesterday. Not only that you are foolishly boasting that the impossible literally will happen. It's the very definition of madness.
> 
> So... that's what I said. Ok?
> 
> Any other questions?


You know what your problem is, iheart? I still gotta go with early onset dementia.

Uber has no infrastructure other than an app. That's why Kalancik said: what would happen if we weren't a part of the future? If we weren't part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way.

Waymo already has a passenger app, they don't need a driver app. Pax downloads the Waymo app and instantly becomes an ex Uber customer and a new Waymo customer.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol I love to see you squirm and cry 'cause your sdc got caught blatantly running a red light a month ago
> 
> we all know there are many more incidents out there of them running red lights, thats why we have no video of them actually driving the streets lol
> 
> if google releases video of them trying to work correctly, it's going to include incidents like these where they blatantly run red lights


You have no idea when it took place or in what city it took place, nor do you care.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Uber has no infrastructure other than an app.


Oh Tomato, wrong again!

The app is just one half of the Uber infrastructure. The other (and more important IMHO) half is the network of independant contractor drivers. Despite the crazy stories you hear about once in a blue moon, the drivers actually for the most part provide a pretty high quality level of service to the pax because they are incentivized to do so by the almighty dollar. Ah, capitalism!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Oh Tomato, wrong again!
> 
> The app is just one half of the Uber infrastructure. The other (and more important IMHO) half is the network of independant contractor drivers. Despite the crazy stories you hear about once in a blue moon, the drivers actually for the most part provide a pretty high quality level of service to the pax because they are incentivized to do so by the almighty dollar. Ah, capitalism!


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


>


Hey man... if you're gonna say stuff just don't be wrong and you won't hit your head against the desk! Sheesh!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Did you contact Waymo to have them explain what happened or are you afraid the answer might not fit your world view?
> 
> I contacted Waymo because they should explain what happened.


lmao, what do you want them to say to you, that it's an optical illusion?

Why the hell would I need to contact waymo for ? lmao



iheartuber said:


> Oh Tomato, wrong again!
> 
> The app is just one half of the Uber infrastructure. The other (and more important IMHO) half is the network of independant contractor drivers. Despite the crazy stories you hear about once in a blue moon, the drivers actually for the most part provide a pretty high quality level of service to the pax because they are incentivized to do so by the almighty dollar. Ah, capitalism!


You forgot how he just said Waymo never had an at fault accident and I found one in 3.4 seconds flat. He's wrong or lying all the time.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> If tomatopaste ever went to a surgical convention, he would get up on stage, give his own opinions on the best way to perform surgery, and when every doctor in the room would tell him he's completely wrong, he would say: "I've never seen a bigger bunch of clueless yahoos in my life."


"A 2011 BBC documentary on "Superbrands" found that an MRI scan of an Apple fanatic suggested that Apple was actually stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith. This reinforces earlier research by Pui-Yan Lam at Washington State University who found that Mac devotees' relationship with their technology bordered on the spiritual." from *Evil by Design: Interaction Design to Lead Us into Temptation *(page 114)

Previously I've said autonomous cars enthusiasts are like Scientologists or cult members.

For the self driving cars developers and all the corporations involved, they are only useful idiots.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> You have no idea when it took place or in what city it took place, nor do you care.


you're right I don't care when it took place since it doesn't matter, but obviously it was recently since it was uploaded recently


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> you're right I don't care when it took place since it doesn't matter, but obviously it was recently since it was uploaded recently


It was Feb. 2018, posters name Austin Cyrus, location - S Alma School Rd, Chandler, AZ

Here is the BS Waymo Send Feedback Page where Google transforms real manure coming from witnesses into "safety monitor's fault" WITHOUT releasing any data about reported incidents.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> you're right I don't care when it took place since it doesn't matter, but obviously it was recently since it was uploaded recently


Oh right. I forgot about Youtube's ban on stale videos.



jocker12 said:


> It was Feb. 2018, posters name Austin Cyrus, location - S Alma School Rd, Chandler, AZ
> 
> Here is the BS Waymo Send Feedback Page where Google transforms real manure coming from witnesses into "safety monitor's fault" WITHOUT releasing any data about reported incidents.


Little peemptive strike there, hmmm, Jockey? Afraid of what Waymo might have to say? Hmmmm, Jockey?


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> Actually comparing most corporate product development to Nazi experiments is not far from reality.


Hitler got the idea of " Concentration Camps" from reading about AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

Then he employed the same tactics.

Cant wait to see what our Camps will look like when Robots take over. . .
Government Ghettos for all . . .

" Sustainable Housing"


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> lmao, what do you want them to say to you, that it's an optical illusion?
> 
> Why the hell would I need to contact waymo for ? lmao
> 
> You forgot how he just said Waymo never had an at fault accident and I found one in 3.4 seconds flat. He's wrong or lying all the time.


Yes in 5 million miles of self driving Waymo has had one 2 mile an hour fender bender that was probably more the bus driver's fault anyway. How many fender benders in the million plus miles since they pulled the safety driver?








tohunt4me said:


> Hitler got the idea of " Concentration Camps" from reading about AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
> 
> Then he employed the same tactics.
> 
> Cant wait to see what our Camps will look like when Robots take over. . .
> Government Ghettos for all . . .
> 
> " Sustainable Housing"


Self driving cars won't work, cause, Hitler.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Oh Tomato, wrong again!
> 
> The app is just one half of the Uber infrastructure. The other (and more important IMHO) half is the network of independant contractor drivers. Despite the crazy stories you hear about once in a blue moon, the drivers actually for the most part provide a pretty high quality level of service to the pax because they are incentivized to do so by the almighty dollar. Ah, capitalism!














uberdriverfornow said:


> wow, i been driving for 24 years and i never even seen a single human do that
> 
> Theres about 10 seconds showing people in the back and like 5 seconds showing the view from in the car driving, no video showing detailed info of it doing everything right.
> 
> Just another promotional vid showing nothing.


There are hours of video showing Google self driving cars outperforming the average human driver, you choose to ignore them.

The second cyclist here probably would've ended up in the hospital or the morgue if it were a human driver instead of a SDC.

video: 24:50 to 26:10


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Oh Tomato, wrong again!
> 
> The app is just one half of the Uber infrastructure. The other (and more important IMHO) half is the network of independant contractor drivers. Despite the crazy stories you hear about once in a blue moon, the drivers actually for the most part provide a pretty high quality level of service to the pax because they are incentivized to do so by the almighty dollar. Ah, capitalism!


You don't need qualifiers like: 'once in a blue moon' or 'for the most part' with SDC's. SDC companies are incentivized to create a product that provides an even higher level of service than you'll ever get from Uber. Ah capitalism!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> View attachment 222948
> 
> 
> There are hours of video showing Google self driving cars outperforming the average human driver, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> The second cyclist here probably would've ended up in the hospital or the morgue if it were a human driver instead of a SDC.
> 
> video: 24:50 to 26:10


That's the same "promotional" video that many have referred to that doesn't show SDC's doing anything they say they can do. It's more of a jedi mindtrick to get you to think they are showing you something useful. There is literally nothing in that video that shows them on their own, driving for hours, not having any issues, not running red lights, stopping for school buses with their lights flashing....etc etc.



jocker12 said:


> It was Feb. 2018, posters name Austin Cyrus, location - S Alma School Rd, Chandler, AZ
> 
> Here is the BS Waymo Send Feedback Page where Google transforms real manure coming from witnesses into "safety monitor's fault" WITHOUT releasing any data about reported incidents.


No single accident can be the safety monitors fault since they are not supposed to be driving the vehicle.

That's like tomato saying that Waymo car red light violation is the drivers fault. The driver isn't driving for those 5 million of supposed rides, right ? Right. For him to say that the driver is somehow at fault(lol) basically invalidates the entire 5 million miles of supposed SDC miles driven. lol


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You don't need qualifiers like: 'once in a blue moon' or 'for the most part' with SDC's. SDC companies are incentivized to create a product that provides an even higher level of service than you'll ever get from Uber. Ah capitalism!


Yeah but what you don't understand is you cannot just let the whole company be run by computers. You need humans doing a lot of the grunt work.

And that's the problem- I don't trust the human players involved in this equation. Including you. Especially you.

You all seem like a bunch of buffoons.

And that's pitting it nicely.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> That's the same "promotional" video that many have referred to that doesn't show SDC's doing anything they say they can do. It's more of a jedi mindtrick to get you to think they are showing you something useful. There is literally nothing in that video that shows them on their own, driving for hours, not having any issues, not running red lights, stopping for school buses with their lights flashing....etc etc.
> 
> No single accident can be the safety monitors fault since they are not supposed to be driving the vehicle.
> 
> That's like tomato saying that Waymo car red light violation is the drivers fault. The driver isn't driving for those 5 million of supposed rides, right ? Right. For him to say that the driver is somehow at fault(lol) basically invalidates the entire 5 million miles of supposed SDC miles driven. lol


That's why serious people need more information before saying it's the self driving software's fault. Was it in autonomous mode or not? Was it being driven back to Waymo in manual mode by a third party maintenance company? You don't care, all you care about is there's a video showing it running a red light. Guilty until proven guilty.



uberdriverfornow said:


> That's the same "promotional" video that many have referred to that doesn't show SDC's doing anything they say they can do. It's more of a jedi mindtrick to get you to think they are showing you something useful. There is literally nothing in that video that shows them on their own, driving for hours, not having any issues, not running red lights, stopping for school buses with their lights flashing....etc etc.


Whatever Google releases you clowns will make up excuses why it doesn't count.



iheartuber said:


> Yeah but what you don't understand is you cannot just let the whole company be run by computers. You need humans doing a lot of the grunt work.
> 
> And that's the problem- I don't trust the human players involved in this equation. Including you. Especially you.
> 
> You all seem like a bunch of buffoons.
> 
> And that's pitting it nicely.


I doubt SDC companies but that much stock into whether or not the vaunted UP community trusts them or not.



tomatopaste said:


> Oh right. I forgot about Youtube's ban on stale videos.
> 
> Little peemptive strike there, hmmm, Jockey? Afraid of what Waymo might have to say? Hmmmm, Jockey?


For those of you at home wondering why Jockey only responds to other vaunted UP community posts instead of responding directly? He got tired of getting slapped around so now I'm a troll and you don't respond to trolls. Now Jockey has to wait for someone else to respond first so he can respond to that response and therefore he's not technically responding to a troll. He didn't quite think that one through. hehehehehehehehe


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> That's why serious people need more information before saying it's the self driving software's fault. Was it in autonomous mode or not? Was it being driven back to Waymo in manual mode by a third party maintenance company? You don't care, all you care about is there's a video showing it running a red light. Guilty until proven guilty.


Because the sdc is guilty. You don't seem to understand that unless the person that made that video was paying attention this woulda been a serious accident. The video recorder could have been killed by that blatant red light run. Yes, guilty because it is guilty.

Clearly you have no problem with red light runs, especially blatant ones like this where people die every day from and where you think sdc's are never supposed to do because they are supposed to be better than human drivers. Do you really think a human driver is going to just blatantly run a red light like that in full view of oncoming traffic ?

Also, driven back to Waymo in manual mode by a third part maintenance company ? What are you smoking ? I've heard some spin but this takes the cake.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Because the sdc is guilty. You don't seem to understand that unless the person that made that video was paying attention this woulda been a serious accident. The video recorder could have been killed by that blatant red light run. Yes, guilty because it is guilty.
> 
> Clearly you have no problem with red light runs, especially blatant ones like this where people die every day from and where you think sdc's are never supposed to do because they are supposed to be better than human drivers. Do you really think a human driver is going to just blatantly run a red light like that in full view of oncoming traffic ?
> 
> Also, driven back to Waymo in manual mode by a third part maintenance company ? What are you smoking ? I've heard some spin but this takes the cake.


You don't seem to understand that if a human was driving, a human was driving


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> You don't seem to understand that if a human was driving, a human was driving


You don't seem to understand that humans don't drive sdc's.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> You don't seem to understand that humans don't drive sdc's.


 Yeah, go with that.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Oh, goodie, another 2 minute promotional vid. Let's see what we got.

lol about 10 seconds of actual sdc driving..... in fact, the first minute of the video is with the driver driving himself lmao 

keep trying to find a video where a sdc drives itself throughout the entire video or for atleast more than 5 minutes of driving

hell, I'll even take more than 2 minutes of actual driving, and showing the car working through real roads with crosswalks, stop lights, construction zones

anything that makes it look believable will do lmao 

the way that guy was clinging to the steering wheel showed that driver was scared as hell to be in that deathtrap lmao


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Oh, goodie, another 2 minute promotional vid. Let's see what we got.
> 
> lol about 10 seconds of actual sdc driving..... in fact, the first minute of the video is with the driver driving himself lmao
> 
> keep trying to find a video where a sdc drives itself throughout the entire video or for atleast more than 5 minutes of driving
> 
> hell, I'll even take more than 2 minutes of actual driving, and showing the car working through real roads with crosswalks, stop lights, construction zones
> 
> anything that makes it look believable will do lmao
> 
> the way that guy was clinging to the steering wheel showed that driver was scared as hell to be in that deathtrap lmao


So which is it? Current self driving cars can be driven in both manual and autonomous mode or can they only be driven in fully autonomous mode, all the time?


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> That's why serious people need more information before saying it's the self driving software's fault. Was it in autonomous mode or not? Was it being driven back to Waymo in manual mode by a third party maintenance company? You don't care, all you care about is there's a video showing it running a red light. Guilty until proven guilty.
> 
> Whatever Google releases you clowns will make up excuses why it doesn't count.
> 
> I doubt SDC companies but that much stock into whether or not the vaunted UP community trusts them or not.
> 
> For those of you at home wondering why Jockey only responds to other vaunted UP community posts instead of responding directly? He got tired of getting slapped around so now I'm a troll and you don't respond to trolls. Now Jockey has to wait for someone else to respond first so he can respond to that response and therefore he's not technically responding to a troll. He didn't quite think that one through. hehehehehehehehe
> 
> View attachment 222973


We ALREADY DONT TRUST
GOOGLE / D.A.R.P.A

WHY SOULD WE TRUST THEIR CARS ?

Next empty cars will follow you around to aid in invasive spying ?

Before you know it

All of the cars become" Weaponized".

Time to put the brakes on all of this.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> So which is it? Current self driving cars can be driven in both manual and autonomous mode or can they only be driven in fully autonomous mode, all the time?


If the human has to touch the wheel at any time then that means the 4 million miles of driving is tainted with human driving which means it's not a realistic amount of miles driven.

Until sdc's can be driven with no intervention from the driver, the counter is always reset to 0. There is no "4 million miles driven by sdcs" until that point since the counter hasn't started yet.

"4 million miles driven by sdc's " means nothing


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> Yeah, go with that.


Hype.
We watch it come
And Go.

You Undervalue Human Interaction.

Human bodies communicate to each other in ways Robots and Geeks will never Comprehend.

Scent, Aura, Body Language, eye contact . . .. So many ways beyond speech.

Robots will never be fluent.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I doubt SDC companies but that much stock into whether or not the vaunted UP community trusts them or not.


Well that's unfortunate because we are professionals in the field of transportation. We got this way through months and years of day in day out grinding experience learned on the job.

For you to dismiss us like that is like going back to the medical convention analogy. Would you walk into a room full of doctors and start telling them you know more about medicine than they do?

Actually you might. You're... "special" like that.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> If the human has to touch the wheel at any time then that means the 4 million miles of driving is tainted with human driving which means it's not a realistic amount of miles driven.
> 
> Until sdc's can be driven with no intervention from the driver, the counter is always reset to 0. There is no "4 million miles driven by sdcs" until that point since the counter hasn't started yet.
> 
> "4 million miles driven by sdc's " means nothing


All miles driven in California require the company to report miles between disengagements. Waymo was confident enough to pull the safety driver in Phoenix beginning in Nov. There is no safety driver to touch anything. Waymo has put on over 1 million miles in this mode since Nov.

Zero fender benders.












iheartuber said:


> Well that's unfortunate because we are professionals in the field of transportation. We got this way through months and years of day in day out grinding experience learned on the job.
> 
> For you to dismiss us like that is like going back to the medical convention analogy. Would you walk into a room full of doctors and start telling them you know more about medicine than they do?
> 
> Actually you might. You're... "special" like that.


You truly are delusional. You've learned how to accept a ping and follow gps to pick up the pax. To equate that with a decade of r&d and billions of dollars to get to this point is, well, truly delusional.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You truly are delusional. You've learned how to accept a ping and follow gps to pick up the pax. To equate that with a decade of r&d and billions of dollars to get to this point is, well, truly delusional.


your "decade of R&D and billions of dollars" went into creating the tech of a SDC.

I never said I had a problem with the tech developers or the work they did there.

The problem I said I had was with the practical application of using SD tech to successfully run a taxi/transportation business.

Waymo may know tech, and I'll give them that, but they apparently have no idea how to run a taxi business.

It's much more than accepting a ping, BTW.

If you think running a fleet of taxis is as easy as "accepting pings" then YOU are the delusional one.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Well that's unfortunate because we are professionals in the field of transportation. We got this way through months and years of day in day out grinding experience learned on the job.
> 
> For you to dismiss us like that is like going back to the medical convention analogy. Would you walk into a room full of doctors and start telling them you know more about medicine than they do?
> 
> Actually you might. You're... "special" like that.


You act as if you're indispensable. If you quit tomorrow is Dara going to hop on the first plane, beg you to stay and offer you twice the money and a new car? Uber won't even know you quit. They know drivers are a dime a dozen and are treated as such.



iheartuber said:


> your "decade of R&D and billions of dollars" went into creating the tech of a SDC.
> 
> I never said I had a problem with the tech developers or the work they did there.
> 
> The problem I said I had was with the practical application of using SD tech to successfully run a taxi/transportation business.
> 
> Waymo may know tech, and I'll give them that, but they apparently have no idea how to run a taxi business.
> 
> It's much more than accepting a ping, BTW.
> 
> If you think running a fleet of taxis is as easy as "accepting pings" then YOU are the delusional one.


The delusion is that you think you're operating a transportation company. You're not building a client base. Pax have no way to request you. You accept pings. After years of "running your transportation business" what's the value of your business? Zero.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You act as if you're indispensable. If you quit tomorrow is Dara going to hop on the first plane, beg you to stay?


As usual you are confusing two different ideas to try to make a point but it's important to clarify:

1. I'm not saying I'm "indispensable". It's well documented that Uber is set up to have a "disposable driver" policy. Many people have argued that that is counterproductive but I'm not here to change uber's Policy. That's a different debate for a different day. It is what it is and I work with what I got. The way the system is set up you could be the greatest driver ever and you are still disposable. So no, I'm not saying I'm indisposable I'm saying I have experience running a transportation business... and you don't. (Also Waymo doesn't as well).

2. Dara would be wise to do SOMETHING to keep, reward, or incentivize the best drivers but he doesn't and let's be honest- he probably won't. Again, that's probably bad for uber in the long run but that's a different debate for a different day.



tomatopaste said:


> The delusion is that you think you're operating a transportation company. You're not building a client base. Pax have no way to request you. You accept pings. After years of "running your transportation business" what's the value of your business? Zero.


Again, this is an issue with the way uber is set up but no one can take away the things I have learned that go into the day to day of successfully transporting pax.

Things that Waymo does not seem to have learned and apparently they think they are insignificant.

Ha! If that's their attitude then good luck buddy!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> All miles driven in California require the company to report miles between disengagements. Waymo was confident enough to pull the safety driver in Phoenix beginning in Nov. There is no safety driver to touch anything. Waymo has put on over 1 million miles in this mode since Nov.
> 
> Zero fender benders.
> 
> View attachment 223038
> 
> 
> You truly are delusional. You've learned how to accept a ping and follow gps to pick up the pax. To equate that with a decade of r&d and billions of dollars to get to this point is, well, truly delusional.


So you trust all the reports Waymo has been putting out but I just showed you a blatant red light violation one month ago in the very exact location(Arizona) that you just said they are driver free and you just said that the driver was at fault. lol

You keep wanting to change your story when it fits your scenario.

Show me the report Waymo released that shows the self reporting of the same red light violation that Waymo's self driving car had. If Waymo is 100% transparent and truthful then surely they voluntarily reported the violation so we can trust their reports.

I'll wait for you to show me the report.


----------



## iheartuber

uberdriverfornow said:


> So you trust all the reports Waymo has been putting out but I just showed you a blatant red light violation one month ago in the very exact location(Arizona) that you just said they are driver free and you just said that the driver was at fault. lol
> 
> You keep wanting to change your story when it fits your scenario.
> 
> Show me the report Waymo released that shows the self reporting of the same red light violation that Waymo's self driving car had. If Waymo is 100% transparent and truthful then surely they voluntarily reported the violation so we can trust their reports.
> 
> I'll wait for you to show me the report.


Don't bother bro.

The Tomato is not about truth, reality, or common sense. He's about pushing propaganda... that's it.

But he has given us a gift. Usually people who push propaganda speak in completely vague concepts but he let slip some key specifics that we can now pin to him:

Apparently, he now claims that sometime in the calendar year 2018 Waymo will launch in Phoenix and the customer demand will be so great that Uber Phoenix will be effected, all by end of the year 2018.

So when Jan 1, 2019 rolls around and that doesn't happen the Tomato is toast.

And the likelihood that that will happen is very low.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> So you trust all the reports Waymo has been putting out but I just showed you a blatant red light violation one month ago in the very exact location(Arizona) that you just said they are driver free and you just said that the driver was at fault. lol
> 
> You keep wanting to change your story when it fits your scenario.
> 
> Show me the report Waymo released that shows the self reporting of the same red light violation that Waymo's self driving car had. If Waymo is 100% transparent and truthful then surely they voluntarily reported the violation so we can trust their reports.
> 
> I'll wait for you to show me the report.


You don't know where or when it took place just because someone posted a video. Nor do you care, if it doesn't if it doesn't advance your narrative.



iheartuber said:


> As usual you are confusing two different ideas to try to make a point but it's important to clarify:
> 
> 1. I'm not saying I'm "indispensable". It's well documented that Uber is set up to have a "disposable driver" policy. Many people have argued that that is counterproductive but I'm not here to change uber's Policy. That's a different debate for a different day. It is what it is and I work with what I got. The way the system is set up you could be the greatest driver ever and you are still disposable. So no, I'm not saying I'm indisposable I'm saying I have experience running a transportation business... and you don't. (Also Waymo doesn't as well).
> 
> 2. Dara would be wise to do SOMETHING to keep, reward, or incentivize the best drivers but he doesn't and let's be honest- he probably won't. Again, that's probably bad for uber in the long run but that's a different debate for a different day.
> 
> Again, this is an issue with the way uber is set up but no one can take away the things I have learned that go into the day to day of successfully transporting pax.
> 
> Things that Waymo does not seem to have learned and apparently they think they are insignificant.
> 
> Ha! If that's their attitude then good luck buddy!


Waymo has access to the best consultants money can buy. Plus they partner with companies like; Avis, Jaguar, Chrysler, Honda, Autonation. You have nothing to offer.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You don't know where or when it took place just because someone posted a video. Nor do you care, if it doesn't if it doesn't advance your narrative.


The person who uploaded the video uploaded it in Feb, 2018.

They write in the description that "we just watched this happen..."

Is it possible they shot the video, sat on it, then uploaded it later? Yes, but if that had been the case they would have written "this happened a few weeks ago" not that it "just happened" when they uploaded it.

Evidence:











tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has access to the best consultants money can buy.


You sir are far from the best consultant money can buy ...that I can tell you.

You are the worst PR man because you do not persuade people, you berate them.

If waymo's association with you, even indirectly, is any indication then they are certainly NOT partnering with the "best and the brightest".


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The person who uploaded the video uploaded it in Feb, 2018.
> 
> They write in the description that "we just watched this happen..."
> 
> Is it possible they shot the video, sat on it, then uploaded it later? Yes, but if that had been the case they would have written "this happened a few weeks ago" not that it "just happened" when they uploaded it.
> 
> Evidence:
> View attachment 223077
> 
> 
> You sir are far from the best consultant money can buy ...that I can tell you.
> 
> You are the worst PR man because you do not persuade people, you berate them.
> 
> If waymo's association with you, even indirectly, is any indication then they are certainly NOT partnering with the "best and the brightest".


Now we're back to this again. Get help.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Now we're back to this again. Get help.


You need help, too.

Help learning how to successfully do PR

They have cheap online classes you know...


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The person who uploaded the video uploaded it in Feb, 2018.
> 
> They write in the description that "we just watched this happen..."
> 
> Is it possible they shot the video, sat on it, then uploaded it later? Yes, but if that had been the case they would have written "this happened a few weeks ago" not that it "just happened" when they uploaded it.
> 
> Evidence:
> View attachment 223077
> 
> 
> You sir are far from the best consultant money can buy ...that I can tell you.
> 
> You are the worst PR man because you do not persuade people, you berate them.
> 
> If waymo's association with you, even indirectly, is any indication then they are certainly NOT partnering with the "best and the brightest".


Oh lordy, the entire vaunted UP community is wetting themselves.
Does Waymo get the chance to respond?
NO!
Why not?
Cause it might not advance the narrative. BURN HER! BURN HER!


----------



## heynow321

uberdriverfornow said:


> no, i'm saying they are never ready for launch and it has been proven by the fact that there is no video ever released showing that they work but plenty of video showing they will never work
> 
> If he was smart, he quit first. Nobody would want to be caught in that situation a second time, basically a sitting duck for another Waymo car on the road to run a red light and hit.


We're still waiting on unemployable greg and fat man jason to post a video of a waymo car (or any sdc company) entering a freeway, merging onto another freeway, then exiting a freeway. Should be extremely simple for this advanced tech! Yet no videos


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Oh lordy, the entire vaunted UP community is wetting themselves.
> Does Waymo get the chance to respond?
> NO!
> Why not?
> Cause it might not advance the narrative. BURN HER! BURN HER!


Yawn... whatever.

Look man, you have posted here thousands of times over a period of about 6-7 months and it all boils down to:

You're aggressive
You're a bully
And you talk a big game but everything you say has no tangible proof to it. Everything you say is one big prediction that you act as if is as obvious as gravity.

You employ a combination of tactics meant to trick people into thinking you have credibility. It's actually pretty clever and I gotta give it up to you. For example, you take one bit of info that IS true --like Waymo is on the road in Phoenix right now with their Early Rider Program (which is really just a glorified name for a test program) and then you draw your own conclusion. Your line of logic goes like this- Because Waymo's Early Rider Program is live right now, and because they have plans to launch in 2018 that means when it does launch it will be bigger than Uber. Uh... holdup. Nice try Mr Fast Hands, but no, that doesn't prove that conclusion at all. IF the public flocks to the robotaxi service then THAT will prove that it will become bigger than Uber. For that we will have to wait and see.

So now you've painted yourself into a corner. You made one last prediction and you put a timestamp on it. If by Jan 1, 2019 what you have predicted has not come true then there will be indisputable proof that you have no credibility.

So, i'll just wait and talk to you then.

I'll continue to slap you around in the meantime as I do.



heynow321 said:


> We're still waiting on unemployable greg and fat man jason to post a video of a waymo car (or any sdc company) entering a freeway, merging onto another freeway, then exiting a freeway. Should be extremely simple for this advanced tech! Yet no videos


Let's be honest- there is no video of such a thing because no SDC can do such a thing at this time.

But no one in the SDC community will ever admit that.

They will only change the subject when asked.


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> You need help, too.
> 
> Help learning how to successfully do PR
> 
> They have cheap online classes you know...


That's the funny thing about greg, he's terrible at his job! You would think monica would have fired him a long time ago



iheartuber said:


> Yawn... whatever.
> 
> Look man, you have posted here thousands of times over a period of about 6-7 months and it all boils down to:
> 
> You're aggressive
> You're a bully
> And you talk a big game but everything you say has no tangible proof to it. Everything you say is one big prediction that you act as if is as obvious as gravity.
> 
> So now you've painted yourself into a corner. You made one last prediction and you put a timestamp on it. If by Jan 1, 2019 what you have predicted has not come true then there will be indisputable proof that you have no credibility.
> 
> So, i'll just wait and talk to you then.
> 
> I'll continue to slap you around in the meantime as I do.
> 
> Let's be honest- there is no video of such a thing because no SDC can do such a thing at this time.
> 
> But no one in the SDC community will ever admit that.
> 
> They will only change the subject when asked.


Of course they can't. The garbage tech can't handle unprotected left turns or rain


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> That's the funny thing about greg, he's terrible at his job! You would think monica would have fired him a long time ago


I like Monica, but let's be honest-- She's got a drinking problem.

She's probably so loaded half the time she doesn't have any idea how bad the Tomato is at his job.

I'm of course exaggerating, but... I'm sure there's a kernel of truth there. Monica- you need Jesus in your life!!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Yawn... whatever.
> 
> Look man, you have posted here thousands of times over a period of about 6-7 months and it all boils down to:
> 
> You're aggressive
> You're a bully
> And you talk a big game but everything you say has no tangible proof to it. Everything you say is one big prediction that you act as if is as obvious as gravity.
> 
> You employ a combination of tactics meant to trick people into thinking you have credibility. It's actually pretty clever and I gotta give it up to you. For example, you take one bit of info that IS true --like Waymo is on the road in Phoenix right now with their Early Rider Program (which is really just a glorified name for a test program) and then you draw your own conclusion. Your line of logic goes like this- Because Waymo's Early Rider Program is live right now, and because they have plans to launch in 2018 that means when it does launch it will be bigger than Uber. Uh... holdup. Nice try Mr Fast Hands, but no, that doesn't prove that conclusion at all. IF the public flocks to the robotaxi service then THAT will prove that it will become bigger than Uber. For that we will have to wait and see.
> 
> So now you've painted yourself into a corner. You made one last prediction and you put a timestamp on it. If by Jan 1, 2019 what you have predicted has not come true then there will be indisputable proof that you have no credibility.
> 
> So, i'll just wait and talk to you then.
> 
> I'll continue to slap you around in the meantime as I do.
> 
> Let's be honest- there is no video of such a thing because no SDC can do such a thing at this time.
> 
> But no one in the SDC community will ever admit that.
> 
> They will only change the subject when asked.


I simply don't put up with the vaunted UP community's dog piling tactics. The other side, the the truth, should have a voice on the forum as well. "The community" simply can't abide.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I simply don't put up with the vaunted UP community's dog piling tactics. The other side, the the truth, should have a voice on the forum as well. "The community" simply can't abide.


What you call the "truth" has not been proven and has no basis other than you just saying it. That's like me saying "hey did you know I can fly?"


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The person who uploaded the video uploaded it in Feb, 2018.
> 
> They write in the description that "we just watched this happen..."
> 
> Is it possible they shot the video, sat on it, then uploaded it later? Yes, but if that had been the case they would have written "this happened a few weeks ago" not that it "just happened" when they uploaded it.
> 
> Evidence:
> View attachment 223077
> 
> 
> You sir are far from the best consultant money can buy ...that I can tell you.
> 
> You are the worst PR man because you do not persuade people, you berate them.
> 
> If waymo's association with you, even indirectly, is any indication then they are certainly NOT partnering with the "best and the brightest".




__
https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/7z9ncy

Aaaaaaaand begin!

BULLSHIT! THAT'S A BOGUS POST!

WAYMO PAID THEM OFF!

BURN HER! BURN HER!


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/7z9ncy
> 
> Aaaaaaaand begin!
> 
> BULLSHIT! THAT'S A BOGUS POST!
> 
> WAYMO PAID THEM OFF!
> 
> BURN HER! BURN HER!


but Tomato-- you said Waymo was "confident enough to pull the safety driver in Phoenix beginning in November."

But now Waymo is saying that at the time of the incident (Feb 2018) the car was being manually driven.

So which is which?

UPDATE: I did some digging online and there are conflicting reports. Some say Waymo still has safety drivers, some say no. So... nobody knows! Which tells me Waymo Phoenix is not really ready for prime time. But oh wait... the Tomato says they will not only launch in 2018 but will crush Uber by year's end.

Um.... yeah right. Haha.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> but Tomato-- you said Waymo was "confident enough to pull the safety driver in Phoenix beginning in November."
> 
> But now Waymo is saying that at the time of the incident (Feb 2018) the car was being manually driven.
> 
> So which is which?
> 
> UPDATE: I did some digging online and there are conflicting reports. Some say Waymo still has safety drivers, some say no. So... nobody knows! Which tells me Waymo Phoenix is not really ready for prime time. But oh wait... the Tomato says they will not only launch in 2018 but will crush Uber by year's end.
> 
> Um.... yeah right. Haha.


Was there any effort made on anyone's part to ascertain the truth regarding the red light video before the entire "community" went apoplectic? No. Did anyone contact Waymo to get their response? No. Did anyone bother to do a simple Google search? No. Why not? Because the community had its narrative and no good was going to come from asking any further questions.

Now the narrative is, see see, they never really pulled the backup drivers. What's the obvious explanation? Whenever they do a new release of the software they download it to a few cars with backup drivers to make sure there are no bugs before downloading it to the entire fleet. Bullshit Tomato! You're just covering for Waymo.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has been operating their early rider fully autonomous taxi service in Phoenix for almost six months. Level 4 has been solved for years. The only difference in what they've been doing for six months and the soon to be launched commercial service is running people's credit cards.[/MEDIA]


Um, how TF did I not know this? I have obviously spent too long on Tesla forums arguing about EAP.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> but Tomato-- you said Waymo was "confident enough to pull the safety driver in Phoenix beginning in November."
> 
> But now Waymo is saying that at the time of the incident (Feb 2018) the car was being manually driven.
> 
> So which is which?
> 
> UPDATE: I did some digging online and there are conflicting reports. Some say Waymo still has safety drivers, some say no. So... nobody knows! Which tells me Waymo Phoenix is not really ready for prime time. But oh wait... the Tomato says they will not only launch in 2018 but will crush Uber by year's end.
> 
> Um.... yeah right. Haha.


The video shows the Waymo car getting thru a red light - fact.

The safety monitors are not hired to get thru the red lights, even if Waymo would say it was safety monitor's fault, the same way Tempe police first statement was that Uber system appeared not to be at fault when their car killed Elaine Herzberg.

The safety monitors are in the cars to avoid accidents (here was not the case) or take control of the vehicle and drive it following all the traffic laws (which also was not the case here).

The only proof that can incriminate a safety monitor (which is still a Waymo employee) is the inside dashcam footage or disengagement report corroborated with the time stamp on the gps cars location.

Waymo's emails mean nothing, proving how corporations continue to misinform the general public with corporate BS.

Any official statement without specific data about any incidents regarding self driving cars on public roads is simply corporate masturbation.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> The video shows the Waymo car getting thru a red light - fact.
> 
> The safety monitors are not hired to get thru the red lights, even if Waymo would say it was safety monitor's fault, the same way Tempe police first statement was that Uber system appeared not to be at fault when their car killed Elaine Herzberg.
> 
> The safety monitors are in the cars to avoid accidents (here was not the case) or take control of the vehicle and drive it following all the traffic laws (which also was not the case here).
> 
> The only proof that can incriminate a safety monitor (which is still a Waymo employee) is the inside dashcam footage or disengagement report corroborated with the time stamp on the gps cars location.
> 
> Waymo's emails means nothing, proving how corporations continue to misinform the general public with corporate BS.
> 
> Any official statement without specific data about any incidents regarding self driving cars on public roads is simply corporate masturbation.


You want to know why Waymo doesn't release more videos of their self driving cars? This red light video is why. There are 10 million weenies in their mom's basement with nothing better to do than to go frame by frame: see see see see!


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You want to know why Waymo doesn't release more videos of their self driving cars? This red light video is why. There are 10 million weenies in their mom's basement with nothing better to do than to go frame by frame: see see see see!


You set yourself up for this man

You're the one shooting his mouth off about how robots are so much "safer" than humans.

Now any mistake robocars make is up for hypercritical scrutiny.

You asked for it


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> You set yourself up for this man
> 
> You're the one shooting his mouth off about how robots are so much "safer" than humans.
> 
> Now any mistake robocars make is up for hypercritical scrutiny.
> 
> You asked for it


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

Well regardless of where these actually are today, the reality is that at some future point robot cars will be superior to human drivers, undoubtedly. They have instant reaction time, they do not tire, and their sensor array can be developed so that it is superior as well (e.g. infrared detection of animals that people cannot see). Real-time calculations of other object vectors also means that eventually a robotic car, when presented with an unusual situation like several cars colliding at various different angles, could be plotted by the robot car, it would know where it will be, where the other objects will be, and steer/brake to avoid in a way a human could never do. Alternatively it could see an object and instantly determine, mathematically, if it should brake or it could steer around the object and have enough space and time to avoid a head-on collision by getting back in its lane in time.

Edge cases can cause accidents, but the rules for driving are fairly robust and well defined. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention during normal events. In other words, texting and rear-ending someone, not a car veering across lanes.

There can be no doubt by anybody here that sensors get better, processors get faster, and code matures. Computers have not yet hit a wall in anything they have ever been put to; they always get better. Plotting that out over time with human abilities flat (we aren't getting better) and autonomous abilities going up, they will intersect and the machines will continue to improve, leaving a greater gap between their ability and that of humans.


----------



## iheartuber

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Well regardless of where these actually are today, the reality is that at some future point robot cars will be superior to human drivers, undoubtedly. They have instant reaction time, they do not tire, and their sensor array can be developed so that it is superior as well (e.g. infrared detection of animals that people cannot see). Real-time calculations of other object vectors also means that eventually a robotic car, when presented with an unusual situation like several cars colliding at various different angles, could be plotted by the robot car, it would know where it will be, where the other objects will be, and steer/brake to avoid in a way a human could never do. Alternatively it could see an object and instantly determine, mathematically, if it should brake or it could steer around the object and have enough space and time to avoid a head-on collision by getting back in its lane in time.
> 
> Edge cases can cause accidents, but the rules for driving are fairly robust and well defined. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention during normal events. In other words, texting and rear-ending someone, not a car veering across lanes.
> 
> There can be no doubt by anybody here that sensors get better, processors get faster, and code matures. Computers have not yet hit a wall in anything they have ever been put to; they always get better. Plotting that out over time with human abilities flat (we aren't getting better) and autonomous abilities going up, they will intersect and the machines will continue to improve, leaving a greater gap between their ability and that of humans.


I don't think anyone is denying this

Not even the UP Community that the Tomato likes to put down.

The line from the Tomato goes like this: the UP Community are a bunch of boobs who are afraid of losing their jobs to robots so they have their heads in the sand and they don't see what's coming.

Uh, no that's not exactly it. Tomato says robot cars will happen in the future, the UP Community also says robot cars will happen in the future. The difference is Tomato thinks the future is next year and the UP Community says decades. So Tomato then says "because you don't think it's hapoening super fast, you're an idiot"

Sounds kinda crazy when you say it out loud like that huh?

Then there's the distinction that needs to be made between robot cars just existing at all (as in you can buy one at the dealer) and using a fleet of robot cars as a taxi service. There's a slew of logistical issues that make the second one more challenging than the first,

Finally, there are some in the UP Community who say robot taxis may never happen. This is due to the aforementioned logistical issues. To put it simply, it may be too complicated to implement use of robot cars for use as a taxi service. But as for robot cars you can buy at the dealer where the SD function is just another option like tinted windows? No doubt about that, from anyone. Even the most die hard in the UP Community.

So what does the reason for the differences between the Tomato and the UP Community boil down to?

The Tomato wants and says he's going to get an entire laundry list of demands in regards to SDCs being used as taxis in an insanely short period of time and he maintains that if you don't agree with that you're a moron.

But he's a con man and he uses much hype, lies, half-truths, twists, deception, and trickery to get his point across so you might not see his real motivation. Bottom line- it's simple greed. No more no less. The tomato and the group of investors that he is the PR guy for are all heavily banking on robot taxis becoming a reality in as stupidly short a time as possible.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what's going on here on this autonomous forum.


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Well regardless of where these actually are today, the reality is that at some future point robot cars will be superior to human drivers, undoubtedly. They have instant reaction time, they do not tire, and their sensor array can be developed so that it is superior as well (e.g. infrared detection of animals that people cannot see). Real-time calculations of other object vectors also means that eventually a robotic car, when presented with an unusual situation like several cars colliding at various different angles, could be plotted by the robot car, it would know where it will be, where the other objects will be, and steer/brake to avoid in a way a human could never do. Alternatively it could see an object and instantly determine, mathematically, if it should brake or it could steer around the object and have enough space and time to avoid a head-on collision by getting back in its lane in time.
> 
> Edge cases can cause accidents, but the rules for driving are fairly robust and well defined. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention during normal events. In other words, texting and rear-ending someone, not a car veering across lanes.
> 
> There can be no doubt by anybody here that sensors get better, processors get faster, and code matures. Computers have not yet hit a wall in anything they have ever been put to; they always get better. Plotting that out over time with human abilities flat (we aren't getting better) and autonomous abilities going up, they will intersect and the machines will continue to improve, leaving a greater gap between their ability and that of humans.


AI is an overinflated misleading term, because no matter how much or how fast computational power you get, computer are NOT able to understand context, so fundamentally they CANNOT replace humans.

Computers are good at helping humans get the jobs done, as a system where humans and computers work in synergy.

Intelligence leads to independence (autonomy) which requires to acknowledge context. Computers are only tools. They can execute tasks based on a well defined software (code) but no more than that.


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> The only proof that can incriminate a safety monitor (which is still a Waymo employee) is the inside dashcam footage or disengagement report corroborated with the time stamp on the gps cars location.
> 
> Waymo's emails mean nothing, proving how corporations continue to misinform the general public with corporate BS.
> 
> Any official statement without specific data about any incidents regarding self driving cars on public roads is simply corporate masturbation.


remember when boobers car ran a couple lights in SF and it was the "safety drivers" fault? then, oh wait, it turned out it was actually in "autonomous" mode after all.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> remember when boobers car ran a couple lights in SF and it was the "safety drivers" fault? then, oh wait, it turned out it was actually in "autonomous" mode after all.


Yup, Dec 2016.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Well regardless of where these actually are today, the reality is that at some future point robot cars will be superior to human drivers, undoubtedly. They have instant reaction time, they do not tire, and their sensor array can be developed so that it is superior as well (e.g. infrared detection of animals that people cannot see). Real-time calculations of other object vectors also means that eventually a robotic car, when presented with an unusual situation like several cars colliding at various different angles, could be plotted by the robot car, it would know where it will be, where the other objects will be, and steer/brake to avoid in a way a human could never do. Alternatively it could see an object and instantly determine, mathematically, if it should brake or it could steer around the object and have enough space and time to avoid a head-on collision by getting back in its lane in time.
> 
> Edge cases can cause accidents, but the rules for driving are fairly robust and well defined. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention during normal events. In other words, texting and rear-ending someone, not a car veering across lanes.
> 
> There can be no doubt by anybody here that sensors get better, processors get faster, and code matures. Computers have not yet hit a wall in anything they have ever been put to; they always get better. Plotting that out over time with human abilities flat (we aren't getting better) and autonomous abilities going up, they will intersect and the machines will continue to improve, leaving a greater gap between their ability and that of humans.


The only way a robot can ever be better than a human is if it became alive just like a human and no amount of sci-fi movies you watch is going to make that happen.

I thought this was common sense to everyone but I guess not.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only way a robot can ever be better than a human is if it became alive just like a human and no amount of sci-fi movies you watch is going to make that happen.
> 
> I thought this was common sense to everyone but I guess not.


Nonsense. Humans simply can't compete with robot cars, because we're human.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/humans-cannot-compete-with-robot-cars-hey-we-had-a-good-run.245711/


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only way a robot can ever be better than a human is if it became alive just like a human and no amount of sci-fi movies you watch is going to make that happen.
> 
> I thought this was common sense to everyone but I guess not.


I only see use of robots as firefighters, to jump in the fire and (while guided by humans) save lives, property or extinguish the flames, or on the road, with their slow motion and strong warning lights for the rest of the traffic, scan the pavement, detect pot holes and cover them on the spot with asphalt from a built in container. That robot doesn't need seats, or windows or anything. Should be a 15 to 20 miles per hour moving truck well marked with warning lights, fixing the roads in real time.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Nonsense. Humans simply can't compete with robot cars, because we're human.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/humans-cannot-compete-with-robot-cars-hey-we-had-a-good-run.245711/


I would like to know where exactly you have seen these things with your very own eyes driving on the road ?

I myself watch these things each and every day in Mountain View. Where are you seeing them ?


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> I would like to know where exactly you have seen these things with your very own eyes driving on the road ?
> 
> I myself watch these things each and every day in Mountain View. Where are you seeing them ?


If you want a lolli, just say: please, can I have a lolli.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only way a robot can ever be better than a human is if it became alive just like a human and no amount of sci-fi movies you watch is going to make that happen.
> 
> I thought this was common sense to everyone but I guess not.


All your post illustrates is how little you understand technology. It's also a silly statement on its face. Robots today are superior to humans in a multitude of tasks. They can calculate quicker, identify objects faster, answer questions quicker, aggregate data faster, build things faster & better.


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> All your post illustrates is how little you understand technology. It's also a silly statement on its face. Robots today are superior to humans in a multitude of tasks. They can calculate quicker, identify objects faster, answer questions quicker, aggregate data faster, build things faster & better.


No matter how faster robots will be, they cannot see or understand the bigger picture.

It's called "context".

That makes them perfect tools, but nothing more.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> No matter how faster robots will be, they cannot see or understand the bigger picture.
> 
> It's called "context".
> 
> That makes them perfect tools, but nothing more.


What more do you want, or need?


----------



## jocker12

From Driver-Activity Recognition in the Context of Conditionally Autonomous Driving

"Thus, the driver hands over the full responsibility to the vehicle and its autonomous driving function and is then able to deal with secondary tasks or to relax in the vehicle. However, situations will occur in which the system for autonomous driving will reach *its limits*. Hence, it will not be possible to control the vehicle safely anymore. Typical examples would be the loss of the lane markings or reaching the end of the proper road."

Essentially, a computer/robot is able to detect rain drops or snowflakes in the air (through it's sensors) but cannot understand terms like "*wet*" or "*slippery*" because its sensors cannot differentiate between "dry" and anything else (when it comes to tire contact patch and - to a certain degree - different condition of the asphalt surface).

In rain or snow, human drivers will react based on that specific "context" while any computer/robot will rely on its sensors and software to control a 2 or 3 ton vehicle. Because there is no Artificial Intelligence involved (Intelligence = decisions = independence = understanding context) that software will crash due to highly increased activity/calculations in order to keep the vehicle under the driving parameters while conditions change (increased rain, maybe torrential, or more inches of snow on the road).

The best article to describe "automation" (which SDC's are capable of doing in reality) and "autonomy" (which SDC's developers are lying the general public their product will be capable of doing), could be found at https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-...ystem-will-eliminate-deadly-crashes-i.254763/

While the computer/robot could be only a tool, no matter how advanced, a human driver will be always a lot more than that.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> From Driver-Activity Recognition in the Context of Conditionally Autonomous Driving
> 
> "Thus, the driver hands over the full responsibility to the vehicle and its autonomous driving function and is then able to deal with secondary tasks or to relax in the vehicle. However, situations will occur in which the system for autonomous driving will reach *its limits*. Hence, it will not be possible to control the vehicle safely anymore. Typical examples would be the loss of the lane markings or reaching the end of the proper road."
> 
> Essentially, a computer/robot is able to detect rain drops or snowflakes in the air (through it's sensors) but cannot understand terms like "*wet*" or "*slippery*" because its sensors cannot differentiate between "dry" and anything else (when it comes to tire contact patch and - to a certain degree - different condition of the asphalt surface).
> 
> In rain or snow, human drivers will react based on that specific "context" while any computer/robot will rely on its sensors and software to control a 2 or 3 ton vehicle. Because there is no Artificial Intelligence involved (Intelligence = decisions = independence = understanding context) that software will crash due to highly increased activity/calculations in order to keep the vehicle under the driving parameters while conditions change (increased rain, maybe torrential, or more inches of snow on the road).
> 
> The best article to describe "automation" (which SDC's are capable of doing in reality) and "autonomy" (which SDC's developers are lying the general public their product will be capable of doing), could be found at https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-...ystem-will-eliminate-deadly-crashes-i.254763/
> 
> While the computer/robot could be only a tool, no matter how advanced, a human driver will be always a lot more than that.


Once again Jockey's modified gaydar allows him to find the dumbest articles on the net.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

jocker12 said:


> No matter how faster robots will be, they cannot see or understand the bigger picture.
> 
> It's called "context".
> 
> That makes them perfect tools, but nothing more.


I don't know what the bigger picture is or means.

There is no proof nor indication at all in any way that consciousness is needed to drive a vehicle.

You may not realize that a degree of robotic autonomy and human-override has been in every new vehicle for years, and with each year there is more of it. Stability control and brake assist to name a couple of the pervasive ones.



jocker12 said:


> Essentially, a computer/robot is able to detect rain drops or snowflakes in the air (through it's sensors) but cannot understand terms like "*wet*" or "*slippery*" because its sensors cannot differentiate between "dry" and anything else (when it comes to tire contact patch and - to a certain degree - different condition of the asphalt surface).


Let's be specific. Please tell me exactly what slippery means, how you know conditions are slippery, and why a sensor suite + accompanying software cannot discern the same thing.

You can't, because it can. It can also do it a hell of a lot quicker than you. In fact, here's an example: Traction control. Been in cars for many years, it knows the tires are slipping before you do.


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Traction control.


Apparently you don't understand what traction control does.

"If you are stuck in the snow, wheelspin *can sometimes help you get unstuck*. Traction control will prevent wheelspin, so if you turn it off, motion might return to your car. Just be sure your car is actually moving. If you are stuck in truly deep snow and the car isn't moving at all, spinning the tires is going to make the problem worse."

A computer/robot cannot understand context described by my example.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome

jocker12 said:


> Apparently you don't understand what traction control does.
> 
> "If you are stuck in the snow, wheelspin *can sometimes help you get unstuck*. Traction control will prevent wheelspin, so if you turn it off, motion might return to your car. Just be sure your car is actually moving. If you are stuck in truly deep snow and the car isn't moving at all, spinning the tires is going to make the problem worse."
> 
> A computer/robot cannot understand context described by my example.


And apparently you don't understand how traction control works.

Pray tell how do you think the car knows the wheels are slipping? And how do you think a car could use that same concept to determine if conditions are "slippery"?

Here's a video of an autonomous car going around a race track:





Here's a video of a car in quassi autonomy avoiding accidents. Btw the very first clip I specially for you because it shows how badly the human does compared to the computer. Despite the human driver aware of the "bigger picture", he only sees the deer at the last second, well after the tesla does.





I'm pretty sure you don't work in tech. I'm not aware of anybody who does who doesn't think cars will eventually drive themselves. The debate is not the if, but the when.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

ShinyAndChrome said:


> All your post illustrates is how little you understand technology. It's also a silly statement on its face. Robots today are superior to humans in a multitude of tasks. They can calculate quicker, identify objects faster, answer questions quicker, aggregate data faster, build things faster & better.





tomatopaste said:


> What more do you want, or need?


Common sense. Robots will never have common sense and have no business in the real world on the road with the ability to cause major fatalities trying to self drive 2000 pound vehicles on the road.



tomatopaste said:


> If you want a lolli, just say: please, can I have a lolli.
> 
> View attachment 224361


Yeah, I didn't think do.

Unlike you, I see many of these things on the road every and the drivers are driving them all the time. I can't even remember a time seeing the driver without his hands on the wheel.


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> Common sense. Robots will never have common sense and have no business in the real world on the road with the ability to cause major fatalities trying to self drive 2000 pound vehicles on the road.


They're already doing it and much better than humans could ever hope to do.


----------



## jocker12

ShinyAndChrome said:


> And apparently you don't understand how traction control works.
> 
> Pray tell how do you think the car knows the wheels are slipping? And how do you think a car could use that same concept to determine if conditions are "slippery"?
> 
> Here's a video of an autonomous car going around a race track:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a video of a car in quassi autonomy avoiding accidents. Btw the very first clip I specially for you because it shows how badly the human does compared to the computer. Despite the human driver aware of the "bigger picture", he only sees the deer at the last second, well after the tesla does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't work in tech. I'm not aware of anybody who does who doesn't think cars will eventually drive themselves. The debate is not the if, but the when.


I see you take this personally which is not a very good idea. Working in tech or not has no relevance. People thinking cars will drive themselves are well disconnected from reality.

You should read this - The Seven Deadly Myths of "Autonomous Systems" - http://www.jeffreymbradshaw.net/publications/IS-28-03-HCC_1.pdf
paper written by *Jeffrey M. Bradshaw* (a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition),* Robert R. Hoffman *(a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition), *David D. Woods *(a professor at The Ohio State University in the Institute for Ergonomics) and *Matthew Johnson (*a research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition).

"The immediate catalyst for this article is a recent (2012) US Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Report on "The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems."(115 pages) - https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf

As the DoD report correctly specifies:
"Autonomy is, by itself, not a solution to any problem. The utility of an autonomous capability is a function of the ecology of the specific mission needs, the operating environment, the users and the vehicle-there is no value without context. The expectation that autonomy can be added to fix unmanned vehicle design deficits without considering the larger system is flawed. A negative consequence of the commitment to levels of autonomy is that it deflects focus from *the fact that all autonomous systems are joint human-machine cognitive systems. T*reating autonomy as a widget or "black box" supports an "us versus the computer" attitude among commanders rather than the more appropriate understanding that *there are no fully autonomous systems just as there are no fully autonomous soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines*. Perhaps the most important message for commanders is that *all systems are supervised by humans to some degree, and the best capabilities result from the coordination and collaboration of humans and machines.*"

and also on page 59:
"In exploring the use of increased autonomy for reducing manpower, the Task Force urges caution *against falling into the "Substitution Myth"* by trying to *replace humans with autonomous systems without considering how machines change work patterns*, *responsibilities and training*. As discussed in Chapter 3, this is one of the common misperceptions associated with autonomy and the proper way to think about the design of autonomous systems is to use the reference framework to address the allocation of cognitive functions between the human and the computer. In this context, *autonomy complements the human and allows the human to perceive and act in remote environments*. By leveraging the framework, it is also likely that autonomy upgrades will provide entirely new functions, extending the life and increasing the flexibility of existing platforms."

The so called "learning capabilities" cannot take the computer to the level of comprehending context, which shows fundamental conflict with the term "Intelligence".

If you are also interested, I can recommend *The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation*. "This report surveys the landscape of potential security threats from malicious uses of AI, and proposes ways to better forecast, prevent, and mitigate these threats. After analyzing the ways in which AI may influence the threat landscape in the digital, physical, and political domains, we make four high-level recommendations for AI researchers and other stakeholders. We also suggest several promising areas for further research that could expand the portfolio of defenses, or make attacks less effective or harder to execute. Finally, we discuss, but do not conclusively resolve, the long-term equilibrium of attackers and defenders." - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.07228.pdf

The first video gives no info about what that system does based on the data it uses. Basically you don't know what it's being processed versus what is already written (track data or 3D mapping) on that hard drive. Take that car outside of that GP Hockenheimring track configuration, and that story will be much much different. Having a self driving car going down the road doesn't mean it can do the same on every road, at any time, in any conditions. Essentially you are watching David Copperfield and think you can do the same in reality because that is not magic (cut people with a saw in 2 distinct pieces while they move their legs and head but you cannot see the rest of their bodies hidden inside the box - and then put them back together).

The second video doesn't even matter as long as Joshua Brown and Wei Huang are dead, killed while using Autopilot feature in their Tesla vehicles.

You are welcome!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> I see you take this personally which is not a very good idea. Working in tech or not has no relevance. People thinking cars will drive themselves are well disconnected from reality.
> 
> You should read this - The Seven Deadly Myths of "Autonomous Systems" - http://www.jeffreymbradshaw.net/publications/IS-28-03-HCC_1.pdf
> paper written by *Jeffrey M. Bradshaw* (a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition),* Robert R. Hoffman *(a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition), *David D. Woods *(a professor at The Ohio State University in the Institute for Ergonomics) and *Matthew Johnson (*a research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition).
> 
> "The immediate catalyst for this article is a recent (2012) US Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Report on "The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems."(115 pages) - https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf
> 
> As the DoD report correctly specifies:
> "Autonomy is, by itself, not a solution to any problem. The utility of an autonomous capability is a function of the ecology of the specific mission needs, the operating environment, the users and the vehicle-there is no value without context. The expectation that autonomy can be added to fix unmanned vehicle design deficits without considering the larger system is flawed. A negative consequence of the commitment to levels of autonomy is that it deflects focus from *the fact that all autonomous systems are joint human-machine cognitive systems. T*reating autonomy as a widget or "black box" supports an "us versus the computer" attitude among commanders rather than the more appropriate understanding that *there are no fully autonomous systems just as there are no fully autonomous soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines*. Perhaps the most important message for commanders is that *all systems are supervised by humans to some degree, and the best capabilities result from the coordination and collaboration of humans and machines.*"
> 
> and also on page 59:
> "In exploring the use of increased autonomy for reducing manpower, the Task Force urges caution *against falling into the "Substitution Myth"* by trying to *replace humans with autonomous systems without considering how machines change work patterns*, *responsibilities and training*. As discussed in Chapter 3, this is one of the common misperceptions associated with autonomy and the proper way to think about the design of autonomous systems is to use the reference framework to address the allocation of cognitive functions between the human and the computer. In this context, *autonomy complements the human and allows the human to perceive and act in remote environments*. By leveraging the framework, it is also likely that autonomy upgrades will provide entirely new functions, extending the life and increasing the flexibility of existing platforms."
> 
> The so called "learning capabilities" cannot take the computer to the level of comprehending context, which shows fundamental conflict with the term "Intelligence".
> 
> If you are also interested, I can recommend *The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation*. "This report surveys the landscape of potential security threats from malicious uses of AI, and proposes ways to better forecast, prevent, and mitigate these threats. After analyzing the ways in which AI may influence the threat landscape in the digital, physical, and political domains, we make four high-level recommendations for AI researchers and other stakeholders. We also suggest several promising areas for further research that could expand the portfolio of defenses, or make attacks less effective or harder to execute. Finally, we discuss, but do not conclusively resolve, the long-term equilibrium of attackers and defenders." - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.07228.pdf
> 
> The first video gives no info about what that system does based on the data it uses. Basically you don't know what it's being processed versus what is already written (track data or 3D mapping) on that hard drive. Take that car outside of that GP Hockenheimring track configuration, and that story will be much much different. Having a self driving car going down the road doesn't mean it can do the same on every road, at any time, in any conditions. Essentially you are watching David Copperfield and think you can do the same in reality because that is not magic (cut people with a saw in 2 distinct pieces while they move their legs and head but you cannot see the rest of their bodies hidden inside the box - and then put them back together).
> 
> The second video doesn't even matter as long as Joshua Brown and Wei Huang are dead, killed while using Autopilot feature in their Tesla vehicles.
> 
> You are welcome!


Bro, let the blind lead the blind. You are spending way too much time using logic on these shills that must be paid by Waymo to shill here. Nobody else would sit here all day and lie and spout about sdc's as if they are human than people paid to do so.


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> Bro, let the blind lead the blind. You are spending way too much time using logic on these shills that must be paid by Waymo to shill here. Nobody else would sit here all day and lie and spout about sdc's as if they are human than people paid to do so.


Most of them really believe God (Artificial Intelligence) and Jesus (self driving cars) are real.

Their collective religious like mentality is to try to convince how this world's reality stands upside down.

Fundamentally, they know what they say is completely irrational from the actual reality point of view, but because they surrender to believe in fantasy, they continue to present the ghost as a real person.

They are unable to do good, but because the promise of Jesus (self driving cars) is to "save lives" as long as that is what his disciples (developers) said, they want to euphemistically attach themselves to the greater good (even if they do not do actually anything good per se), in order to contemplate themselves as "better" people inside this imagined "better" and "brighter" future.

In reality, Artificial Intelligence (God) and self driving cars (Jesus) are part of a story, the biggest lie in known history if you want, meant to confuse and mislead people into following the false prophets of the new cacophony of progress - the disruption.

In modern times, we can find a similar approach in Scientology and inside all the religious cults, groups claiming how humanity can have a brighter future and find its salvation by following their pathetic leaders, idols and values.

And I keep coming back here and tell them to stop smoking what they are smoking!

The funniest thing of all is that the same people cheering for the self driving robots delusion will be the first ones to reject the stupidity when the general public will understand the limitations and the inconveniences of this BS. It happened before with the Segways, but some people simply refuse to learn how to live outside their crude denial - A Lesson in Innovation - Why did the Segway Fail?.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> Most of them really believe God (Artificial Intelligence) and Jesus (self driving cars) are real.
> 
> Their collective religious like mentality is to try to convince how this world's reality stands upside down.
> 
> Fundamentally, they know what they say is completely irrational from the actual reality point of view, but because they surrender to believe in fantasy, they continue to present the ghost as a real person.
> 
> They are unable to do good, but because the promise of Jesus (self driving cars) is to "save lives" as long as that is what his disciples (developers) said, they want to euphemistically attach themselves to the greater good (even if they do not do actually anything good per se), in order to contemplate themselves as "better" people inside this imagined "better" and "brighter" future.
> 
> In reality, Artificial Intelligence (God) and self driving cars (Jesus) are part of a story, the biggest lie in known history if you want, meant to confuse and mislead people into following the false prophets of the new cacophony of progress - the disruption.
> 
> In modern times, we can find a similar approach in Scientology and inside all the religious cults, groups claiming how humanity can have a brighter future and find its salvation by following their pathetic leaders, idols and values.
> 
> And I keep coming back here and tell them to stop smoking what they are smoking!
> 
> The funniest thing of all is that the same people cheering for the self driving robots delusion will be the first ones to reject the stupidity when the general public will understand the limitations and the inconveniences of this BS. It happened before with the Segways, but some people simply refuse to learn how to live outside their crude denial - A Lesson in Innovation - Why did the Segway Fail?.


lol are you really comparing them to Christians? Christians don't lie, atleast they're not supposed to.

And if God proved he was real, what would be the value in believing in God ? There wouldn't be. So believe what you want, but certainly don't compare these clowns to Christians. lol


----------



## tomatopaste

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol are you really comparing them to Christians? Christians don't lie, atleast they're not supposed to.
> 
> And if God proved he was real, what would be the value in believing in God ? There wouldn't be. So believe what you want, but certainly don't compare these clowns to Christians. lol


Compare us to angels sent from God.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

more like demons, atleast that's what the figure depicts


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol are you really comparing them to Christians? Christians don't lie, atleast they're not supposed to.
> 
> And if God proved he was real, what would be the value in believing in God ? There wouldn't be. So believe what you want, but certainly don't compare these clowns to Christians. lol


Let me put it this way - "There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and morally without depending on the general standards of religion, but the millions of others cannot do so and need daily guidance. The way people live ordinary life, by following religious principles, can be compared to the way governments follow principles of the state and Churches follow their own dogma. The purely intellectual idea of how one should conduct oneself can change and may be reinterpreted endlessly. It is the religious doctrine alone which binds the idea and puts it into a form that makes it a faith. Otherwise, the moral idea would never grow beyond the status of an abstract concept or a philosophic opinion."

Religion in general offered a moral code to the masses, reason to survive for centuries, but "Down through the ages, men lacking conscience have not hesitated to *make religion a tool* in their political business. When they turn it into a tool, it is almost always the sole aim of such characters to use it as nothing more than a tool and they have no true beliefs. It would be wrong to hold a religion or a Church responsible for the scoundrels who abuse it. That type of person would use anything that served his purpose."

Now going back to our topic.

Most of the people here and elsewhere (not all of them) are genuinely convinced self driving technology is coming or is already here. When they repeat corporate propaganda they are fed up with, they are not intentionally lying, but fighting for their strong fantasies.

Very few are trolls, and we can find some right here on this forum, but is not all of them.

In addition to this - "A 2011 BBC documentary on "Superbrands" found that an MRI scan of an Apple fanatic suggested that Apple was actually stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith (starting at 10 minute mark). Kirsten Bell, an anthropologist at the University of British Columbia moved from studying religions in South Korea to the culture of biomedical research, but while reporting on an Apple product launch for TechNewsDaily, she noted the direct comparisons such as sacred symbols (the Apple logo), a keynote address from a revered leader, and a crowd of willing acolytes (the press). This reinforces earlier research by Pui-Yan Lam at Washington State University who found that Mac devotees' relationship with their technology bordered on the spiritual." - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118422147/?tag=ubne0c-20 (page 114)


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Let me put it this way - "There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and morally without depending on the general standards of religion, but the millions of others cannot do so and need daily guidance. The way people live ordinary life, by following religious principles, can be compared to the way governments follow principles of the state and Churches follow their own dogma. The purely intellectual idea of how one should conduct oneself can change and may be reinterpreted endlessly. It is the religious doctrine alone which binds the idea and puts it into a form that makes it a faith. Otherwise, the moral idea would never grow beyond the status of an abstract concept or a philosophic opinion."
> 
> Religion in general offered a moral code to the masses, reason to survive for centuries, but "Down through the ages, men lacking conscience have not hesitated to *make religion a tool* in their political business. When they turn it into a tool, it is almost always the sole aim of such characters to use it as nothing more than a tool and they have no true beliefs. It would be wrong to hold a religion or a Church responsible for the scoundrels who abuse it. That type of person would use anything that served his purpose."
> 
> Now going back to our topic.
> 
> Most of the people here and elsewhere (not all of them) are genuinely convinced self driving technology is coming or is already here. When they repeat corporate propaganda they are fed up with, they are not intentionally lying, but fighting for their strong fantasies.
> 
> Very few are trolls, and we can find some right here on this forum, but is not all of them.
> 
> In addition to this - "A 2011 BBC documentary on "Superbrands" found that an MRI scan of an Apple fanatic suggested that Apple was actually stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith. Kirsten Bell, an anthropologist at the University of British Columbia moved from studying religions in South Korea to the culture of biomedical research, but while reporting on an Apple product launch for TechNewsDaily, she noted the direct comparisons such as sacred symbols (the Apple logo), a keynote address from a revered leader, and a crowd of willing acolytes (the press). This reinforces earlier research by Pui-Yan Lam at Washington State University who found that Mac devotees' relationship with their technology bordered on the spiritual." - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118422147/?tag=ubne0c-20 (page 114)


The people with serious issues here are the Jockey's of the world. You have actual video of Waymo driving in Phoenix with no one in the driver's seat. CEO of Waymo has said they're going to launch their commercial service sometime in 2018. I mean you have to be certifiable to continue your religious belief that self driving cars are not already here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=str...AhUN0GMKHfQOCVIQ9QEILzAC#imgrc=bPOWhNTQ4CvPjM:


----------



## jocker12

And the logic of showing a video with a product meaning that product is here or the technology it uses is the future is simply idiotic and only imbeciles would fell for it.

Why? Let's watch the Segway's




Why Did Segway Fail? Or Did It?

Or Google satelites VIDEO - and the present - Why is Google selling off its satellite fleet?

Or silly 3D television - 3D TV might finally be dead


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> And the logic of showing a video with a product meaning that product is here or the technology it uses is the future is simply idiotic and only imbeciles would fell for it.
> 
> Why? Let's watch the Segway's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Segway Fail? Or Did It?
> 
> Or Google satelites VIDEO - and the present - Why is Google selling off its satellite fleet?
> 
> Or silly 3D television - 3D TV might finally be dead


The logic of always bringing up Segway, which always was a niche market, and saying self driving will be like Segway because I want them to be like Segway is pretty r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> The people with serious issues here are the Jockey's of the world. You have actual video of Waymo driving in Phoenix with no one in the driver's seat. CEO of Waymo has said they're going to launch their commercial service sometime in 2018. I mean you have to be certifiable to continue your religious belief that self driving cars are not already here.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=straight+jacket+gif&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS648US648&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=bPOWhNTQ4CvPjM%3A%2C4Ho60WLxASy4dM%2C_&usg=__czLviVP0e4LbPnXEZ8ENNrmXfbY=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ1vbqu87aAhUN0GMKHfQOCVIQ9QEILzAC#imgrc=bPOWhNTQ4CvPjM:


Tomato, I'll say this one more time because you are slow.

The Segway is here. If I wanted to I could go out and buy one right now.

To be 100% clear I won't say "no one buys them" but let's just say that the Segway market is so tiny it's almost nonexistent.

This is how SDCs as a taxi service are now and how they will he for the foreseeable future. Available? Sure. Will people spend money on them? No.

Why? A ton of reasons I've already stated to death.

When (if) the time ever comes that Waymo officially "runs people's credit cards to use the service" as you put it, you will find more buyers in the Segway store.

No one connected to the biz admits this because, well, think about it- of course they can't. They're married to this and they have to go down swinging.

But sooner or later reality will slap them, and you, all around.

You think a few very perfectly crafted thoughts penned by yours truly on a transportation message board causes you annoyance? Just wait til you have literally ZERO customers for your mighty robo taxis.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Tomato, I'll say this one more time because you are slow.
> 
> The Segway is here. If I wanted to I could go out and buy one right now.
> 
> To be 100% clear I won't say "no one buys them" but let's just say that the Segway market is so tiny it's almost nonexistent.
> 
> This is how SDCs as a taxi service are now and how they will he for the foreseeable future. Available? Sure. Will people spend money on them? No.
> 
> Why? A ton of reasons I've already stated to death.
> 
> When (if) the time ever comes that Waymo officially "runs people's credit cards to use the service" as you put it, you will find more buyers in the Segway store.
> 
> No one connected to the biz admits this because, well, think about it- of course they can't. They're married to this and they have to go down swinging.
> 
> But sooner or later reality will slap them, and you, all around.
> 
> You think a few very perfectly crafted thoughts penned by yours truly on a transportation message board causes you annoyance? Just wait til you have literally ZERO customers for your mighty robo taxis.


You give space cadets a bad name. Your original stance (10, 20, 30 yrs, if ever) was quite stupid, but at least defendable. Your post goal post moving position (yeah, but no one will want them) is simply r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You give space cadets a bad name. Your original stance (10, 20, 30 yrs, if ever) was quite stupid, but at least defendable. Your post goal post moving position (yeah, but no one will want them) is simply r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d.


The r-word is offensive

But that's neither here nor there

The simple fact is I've stated many times that there are MANY reasons why robo taxis will fail if they are forced to market in the timetable you describe.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just going over each reason one by one. I really don't know exactly which reason will be the downfall of robo taxis. It can be any or a combination of all

But since you're so dense I'll just bottom line it for you:

If Jan 1, 2019 comes and your "predictions" do not come true in Phoenix or at the very least look like they're going in that direction, then that's it. You're done.

Case closed


----------



## heynow321

Has greg or the fat man posted a video of a self driving car entering a freeway, merging onto another freeway, then exiting a freeway yet?


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> Has greg or the fat man posted a video of a self driving car entering a freeway, merging onto another freeway, then exiting a freeway yet?


No.

Tomato swears the robots have mastered the freeways and just because there's no video that doesn't prove anything.

But of course he would say that.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Has greg or the fat man posted a video of a self driving car entering a freeway, merging onto another freeway, then exiting a freeway yet?


It's almost as if Waymo doesn't care what 20 million internet dweebs think. That's gotta sting.


----------



## heynow321

It’s almost as if their product can’t do what I’m describing lol. What a joke this industry is


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> It's almost as if Waymo doesn't care what 20 million internet dweebs think. That's gotta sting.


Tomato, if I were you I'd worry less about making fun of people on UP and focus on trying to convince regular people in Phoenix to ride with the bots.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> It's almost as if their product can't do what I'm describing lol. What a joke this industry is


Honestly, even if propaganda trumpets claim Waymo has the more advanced systems of all (while there is no comparison or standard to analyse what each self driving cars software can or cannot do) , I think that is not true.

The simple need of a 3D mapped environment, where the robot already knows 90 to 98 percent of the surrounding environment, shows how rudimentary the entire concept is. On top of that, not being able to handle certain left turns, distinguish between bicycle riders, rolling hay and pedestrians on the road, makes Waymo self driving cars a monumental joke, I agree.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> Honestly, even if propaganda trumpets claim Waymo has the more advanced systems of all (while there is no comparison or standard to analyse what each self driving cars software can or cannot do) , I think that is not true.
> 
> The simple need of a 3D mapped environment, where the robot already knows 90 to 98 percent of the surrounding environment, shows how rudimentary the entire concept is. On top of that, not being able to handle certain left turns, distinguish between bicycle riders, rolling hay and pedestrians on the road, makes Waymo self driving cars a monumental joke, I agree.


It sure looks to me like the Waymo cars have serious challenges to working properly but that's not what's happening. I'm stupid and you can't rely on me. Yeah that's what's really going on (sarcasm)


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Honestly, even if propaganda trumpets claim Waymo has the more advanced systems of all (while there is no comparison or standard to analyse what each self driving cars software can or cannot do) , I think that is not true.
> 
> The simple need of a 3D mapped environment, where the robot already knows 90 to 98 percent of the surrounding environment, shows how rudimentary the entire concept is. On top of that, not being able to handle certain left turns, distinguish between bicycle riders, rolling hay and pedestrians on the road, makes Waymo self driving cars a monumental joke, I agree.


Creating an entire Rube Goldberg explanation why Waymo cars can't see 360 degrees and then having it destroyed in one simple image makes Joceky a monumental joke.












iheartuber said:


> Tomato, if I were you I'd worry less about making fun of people on UP and focus on trying to convince regular people in Phoenix to ride with the bots.


Then again where would you find the time between trying to make water wet and pumping it downhill?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Creating an entire Rube Goldberg explanation why Waymo cars can't see 360 degrees and then having it destroyed in one simple image makes Joceky a monumental joke.
> 
> View attachment 224945
> 
> 
> Then again where would you find the time between trying to make water wet and pumping it downhill?


Wow, they made a shiny JPEG showing how robo cars work. That's all it takes for these cars to work perfectly. Just make a jpeg.



tomatopaste said:


> Creating an entire Rube Goldberg explanation why Waymo cars can't see 360 degrees and then having it destroyed in one simple image makes Joceky a monumental joke.
> 
> View attachment 224945
> 
> 
> Then again where would you find the time between trying to make water wet and pumping it downhill?


You're wasting your time over here at UP, Tomato.

Try to sell the robot revolution to someone else


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> I'm stupid and you can't rely on me.


Well said. Sometimes I wonder if I'm even needed here.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Well said. Sometimes I wonder if I'm even needed here.


I said it was SARCASM.

God you really are slow


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> You're wasting your time over here at UP, Tomato.


You might be right.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You might be right.


If we're all so stupid why are you even here?

No sarcasm that's actually a legit question

Actually never mind. I answered my own question.

If you were to be honest with me you would say:
"Well I have to come here for my job but a couple things happened that I didn't expect: no one is really buying these robo cars and the drivers are actually challenging our entire business model. Plus I have insane bosses asking the impossible. It's too much pressure. So I'm backed into a corner and all I can do is just call you all stupid. It's the only move I have. Believe me I'd love to stop posting but I have to for my job."

But you'll never admit that.


----------



## heynow321

Will you stop engaging greg? Let him masturbate to pictures of lidar while the rest of us adults talk


----------



## uberdriverfornow

heynow321 said:


> Will you stop engaging greg? Let him masturbate to pictures of lidar while the rest of us adults talk


I'm starting to think it's the same person running both accounts, talkin to himself.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Wow, they made a shiny JPEG showing how robo cars work. That's all it takes for these cars to work perfectly. Just make a jpeg.


"You can't believe a shiny jpeg"
"You can't believe the CEO of Waymo"
"We the vaunted UP community have circled up and voted on our accepted truth. Everything else is doo doo."


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> "You can't believe a shiny jpeg"
> "You can't believe the CEO of Waymo"
> "We the vaunted UP community have circled up and voted on our accepted truth. Everything else is doo doo."


If by truth you mean we know the inner workings on how a transportation business runs because we do it everyday then yeah that's our accepted truth.

You may as well go back to telling doctors you know how to do surgery better than they do.


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> Will you stop engaging greg? Let him masturbate to pictures of lidar while the rest of us adults talk


A Waymo Chrysler Pacifica picture doesn't prove that robot has 360 degrees cameras to see around the car. The California dmv report on the other hand, shows Waymo cars have no cameras for 360 degrees vision.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> If by truth you mean we know the inner workings on how a transportation business runs because we do it everyday then yeah that's our accepted truth.
> 
> You may as well go back to telling doctors you know how to do surgery better than they do.


Did you spend billions creating a software and hardware system able to drive a car without a human? No.

Did you build a team of software engineers to map every inch of every of every city you'll operate in? No. Did your software engineers create an app for the pax? No.

Did your legal team work with regulators to comply with local laws? No. Did your legal team work with the House and Senate to change federal laws? No.

Did you put together a finance and accounting department to handle the financial and accounting aspects? No.

Did you enter into deals with car manufacturers to supply thousands of cars? No.

Did you enter into deals with companies to handle the maintenance of the fleet? No.

Did you enter into deals with insurance companies to handle insurance for the fleet and pax? No.

Have you been working on this for almost ten years? No. Do you have even the slightest idea what it takes to run a transportation company? No. You downloaded an app and learned how to accept pings. Run a transportation company? No. Delusion much? Yes.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Did you spend billions creating a software and hardware system able to drive a car without a human? No.
> 
> Did you build a team of software engineers to map every inch of every of every city you'll operate in? No. Did your software engineers create an app for the pax? No.
> 
> Did your legal team work with regulators to comply with local laws? No. Did your legal team work with the House and Senate to change federal laws? No.
> 
> Did you put together a finance and accounting department to handle the financial and accounting aspects? No.
> 
> Did you enter into deals with car manufacturers to supply thousands of cars? No.
> 
> Did you enter into deals with companies to handle the maintenance of the fleet? No.
> 
> Did you enter into deals with insurance companies to handle insurance for the fleet and pax? No.
> 
> Have you been working on this for almost ten years? No. Do you have even the slightest idea what it takes to run a transportation company? No. You downloaded an app and learned how to accept pings. Run a transportation company? No. Delusion much? Yes.


I'm not doubting the tech part of the equation. I'm sure it works- sort of

I'm questioning if they know how to run a taxi business.

The way you are handling it is laughable. You say, "oh come on that's so easy we don't even have to discuss it."

Would you say that to a heart surgeon?
A plumber?
Any person skilled in any job?

Exactly. Please move on. You are the weakest link.



iheartuber said:


> I'm not doubting the tech part of the equation. I'm sure it works- sort of
> 
> I'm questioning if they know how to run a taxi business.
> 
> The way you are handling it is laughable. You say, "oh come on that's so easy we don't even have to discuss it."
> 
> Would you say that to a heart surgeon?
> A plumber?
> Any person skilled in any job?
> 
> Exactly. Please move on. You are the weakest link.


There's one very important part of business you are overlooking. Pax (all consumers, really) are entitled. You think you can work this top down. Say to the pax: this is our service take it or leave it. You don't like it, there's the door. It may be a little hard to navigate but tough. Etc.

That attitude gets you nowhere in the consumer business. But you'll find out for yourself.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> I'm not doubting the tech part of the equation. I'm sure it works- sort of
> 
> I'm questioning if they know how to run a taxi business.
> 
> The way you are handling it is laughable. You say, "oh come on that's so easy we don't even have to discuss it."
> 
> Would you say that to a heart surgeon?
> A plumber?
> Any person skilled in any job?
> 
> Exactly. Please move on. You are the weakest link.
> 
> There's one very important part of business you are overlooking. Pax (all consumers, really) are entitled. You think you can work this top down. Say to the pax: this is our service take it or leave it. You don't like it, there's the door. It may be a little hard to navigate but tough. Etc.
> 
> That attitude gets you nowhere in the consumer business. But you'll find out for yourself.


Here is an accurate picture of a Waymo system










It is a cyclop, a monster with one eye. Drunk cyclop.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> Here is an accurate picture of a Waymo system
> 
> View attachment 225034
> 
> 
> It is a cyclop, o monster with one eye. Drunk cyclop.


If Waymo spent billions why didn't they just hire a proper PR guy? Instead they got the Tomato


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> If Waymo spent billions why didn't they just hire a proper PR guy? Instead they got the Tomato


Who thinks San Francisco's cheap riders are waiting for self driving primitive robots/toilets to be deployed is right.

San Francisco Is Fighting the Scooter Trend With Poop and Vandalism - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...he-scooter-trend-with-poop-and-vandalism-bird - "I regret to inform you that people are shitting on the scooters..."

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988587251293552640
Who would have thought....?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

The only real way those scooters can be profitable is to contract with places to leave them when you're done.......stores etc etc. You really have to wonder how the people running those companies couldn't have seen all of this happening and should already have contracted with stores to leave those scooters at. No more vandalism, no more crying about people leaving them on sidewalks.


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only real way those scooters can be profitable is to contract with places to leave them when you're done.......stores etc etc. You really have to wonder how the people running those companies couldn't have seen all of this happening and should already have contracted with stores to leave those scooters at. No more vandalism, no more crying about people leaving them on sidewalks.


 I've just had a rider that works for a company that's building self driving robots, small for food deliveries. He is from San Francisco. I've asked him about the scooters (that's how we started the discussion after he mentioned he is from SF). He confirmed the story.

Then told me, with self driving cars, "The technology is 20 years away from implementation anyway. I work for them and I know. The society is not ready for it." he said. And then he added vandalism is a big concern and they've seen it. On top of that they went to a city to test, and people were curious as well and they were blocking the robots.

We switched to self driving cars.

He told me the main concern out there is that is no room to park those cars in the city. No ride-share platform has experience with car fleets. Besides that, when they need to be repaired, some maintenance to be done, refuel or recharge, companies lose efficiency and subsequently revenue while those units are not in use. In other words, when you make o production projection you hit a logistics mess.

His question to me was "So, how can you do all this things?" and he works in the industry.....


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> I've just had a rider that works for a company that's building self driving robots, small for food deliveries. He is from San Francisco. I've asked him about the scooters (that's how we started the discussion after he mentioned he is from SF). He confirmed the story.
> 
> Then told me, with self driving cars, "The technology is 20 years away from implementation anyway. I work for them and I know. The society is not ready for it." he said. And then he added vandalism is a big concern and they've seen it. On top of that they went to a city to test, and people were curious as well and they were blocking the robots.
> 
> We switched to self driving cars.
> 
> He told me the main concern out there is that is no room to park those cars in the city. No ride-share platform has experience with car fleets. Besides that, when they need to be repaired, some maintenance to be done, refuel or recharge, companies lose efficiency and subsequently revenue while those units are not in use. In other words, when you make o production projection you hit a logistics mess.
> 
> His question to me was "So, how can you do all this things?" and he works in the industry.....


So, let's review:

Uber drivers on UP claim that SDCs for use as taxis are decades away because of "a bunch of reasons"

But the Tomato says "you guys are crazy and stupid"

But when a guy who works IN THE SDC INDUSTRY SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING... then what? Is he crazy and stupid too?

Busted.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> So, let's review:
> 
> Uber drivers on UP claim that SDCs for use as taxis are decades away because of "a bunch of reasons"
> 
> But the Tomato says "you guys are crazy and stupid"
> 
> But when a guy who works IN THE SDC INDUSTRY SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING... then what? Is he crazy and stupid too?
> 
> Busted.


I know... I have him on camera and I can make an audio, try to filter out the ambient noise from the engine. Initially, right after he got in the car, he asked me if I like the car I am driving. I've told him the car is very functional, a 2015 model, and he replied he knows the same car, 2018 model has some Autopilot on it. I advised him not to get anything that has something called Autopilot and he laughed about that.

Very cool guy overall.


----------



## heynow321

jocker12 said:


> I know... I have him on camera and I can make an audio, try to filter out the ambient noise from the engine. Initially, right after he got in the car, he asked me if I like the car I am driving. I've told him the car is very functional, a 2015 model, and he replied he knows the same car, 2018 model has some Autopilot on it. I advised him not to get anything that has something called Autopilot and he laughed about that.
> 
> Very cool guy overall.


i gave a ride to some otto execs last year and we talked SDC's for a bit. I brought up all the points about vandalism, pedestrians "bullying" cars, etc. and they didn't have any good answers.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I've just had a rider that works for a company that's building self driving robots, small for food deliveries. He is from San Francisco. I've asked him about the scooters (that's how we started the discussion after he mentioned he is from SF). He confirmed the story.
> 
> Then told me, with self driving cars, "The technology is 20 years away from implementation anyway. I work for them and I know. The society is not ready for it." he said. And then he added vandalism is a big concern and they've seen it. On top of that they went to a city to test, and people were curious as well and they were blocking the robots.
> 
> We switched to self driving cars.
> 
> He told me the main concern out there is that is no room to park those cars in the city. No ride-share platform has experience with car fleets. Besides that, when they need to be repaired, some maintenance to be done, refuel or recharge, companies lose efficiency and subsequently revenue while those units are not in use. In other words, when you make o production projection you hit a logistics mess.
> 
> His question to me was "So, how can you do all this things?" and he works in the industry.....


Let's recap, shall we?

*Waymo CEO*:
We're going to start with a transportation service that is similar to the ride hailing companies that you know well today.

*NY Times*:
Let's talk about that. So you've got a trial going in Phoenix right, and you've said you're going to release a service before the end of the year.

*Waymo CEO*:
That's right.

But Jockey gave a ride to a guy who knows a guy whose dog was married to the dog of a guy who worked on self driving robots. And self driving cars are def 20 yrs away.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Let's recap, shall we?
> 
> *Waymo CEO*:
> We're going to start with a transportation service that is similar to the ride hailing companies that you know well today.
> 
> *NY Times*:
> Let's talk about that. So you've got a trial going in Phoenix right, and you've said you're going to release a service before the end of the year.
> 
> *Waymo CEO*:
> That's right.
> 
> But Jockey gave a ride to a guy who knows a guy whose dog was married to the dog of a guy who worked on self driving robots. And self driving cars are def 20 yrs away.


Let's recap-
The CEO says they're starting a robo taxi service. I'm sure they probably will. But it's a really bad idea to push it this hard this fast and it's destined to be a train wreck.

The CEO never claimed it would be hugely successful only that it will happen. The Tomato is the one who says it will not only happen fast but be a big hit.

If anyone is the liar here it's the Tomato


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Let's recap-
> A CEO says stuff and we're just supposed to believe it without any evidence or corroboration? What world do you live in tomatopaste because I live in the real world
> 
> Actually, if you really wanna get technical... all the CEO says is that they're starting a robo taxi service. He didn't say anything about it being a success. So the real liar is the Tomato!


How are you able to dress yourself? If you are able to dress yourself.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> How are you able to dress yourself? If you are able to dress yourself.


Your mom dresses me

LOL - sorry, you set yourself up for that one


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Let's recap-
> The CEO says they're starting a robo taxi service. I'm sure they probably will. But it's a really bad idea to push it this hard this fast and it's destined to be a train wreck.
> 
> The CEO never claimed it would be hugely successful only that it will happen. The Tomato is the one who says it will not only happen fast but be a big hit.
> 
> If anyone is the liar here it's the Tomato


But "a guy who works in the industry" must be believed.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> But "a guy who works in the industry" must be believed.


I dunno. You work in the industry and I for sure don't believe you, so......



tomatopaste said:


> Let's recap, shall we?
> 
> *Waymo CEO*:
> We're going to start with a transportation service that is similar to the ride hailing companies that you know well today.
> 
> *NY Times*:
> Let's talk about that. So you've got a trial going in Phoenix right, and you've said you're going to release a service before the end of the year.
> 
> *Waymo CEO*:
> That's right.
> 
> But Jockey gave a ride to a guy who knows a guy whose dog was married to the dog of a guy who worked on self driving robots. And self driving cars are def 20 yrs away.


Let's be clear-

It's POSSIBLE that Waymo knows if they launch in 2018 the public demand will be pathetically low so to avoid embarrassment they could delay the launch

But what's a more likely scenario is that they will launch ASAP no matter what because they spent too much money already.

Either way it's gonna be a train wreck and I got my popcorn ready.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Let's recap-
> The CEO says they're starting a robo taxi service. I'm sure they probably will. But it's a really bad idea to push it this hard this fast and it's destined to be a train wreck.
> 
> The CEO never claimed it would be hugely successful only that it will happen. The Tomato is the one who says it will not only happen fast but be a big hit.
> 
> If anyone is the liar here it's the Tomato


Waymo is up for sale because is a black hole. It never made and it will never make profit.

They need to start a ridiculous robo service and if only one building cars idiot thinks if Waymo/Google decides to take that step then it means it works, they are good.

As I've already posted, Jaguars CEO, Waymos partner, says no manufacturer can go further and develop the technology better than it is today. What does that tells you? Jaguar is interested but first wants to see if people will embrace the concept....


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> Waymo is up for sale because is a black hole. It never made and it will never make profit.
> 
> They need to start a ridiculous robo service and if only one building cars idiot thinks if Waymo/Google decides to take that step then it means it works, they are good.
> 
> As I've already posted, Jaguars CEO, Waymos partner, says no manufacturer can go further and develop the technology better than it is today. What does that tells you? Jaguar is interested but first wants to see if people will embrace the concept....


What these guys don't seem to get is there's a huge difference between SDCs being sold as an option when you buy a new car at the dealer and setting up a robo taxi service.

The difference is control

In Scenerio A the consumer controls the machine and owns the car. In scenerio B the consumer gives up control, their rights, and possibly their lives to computers and greedy corporations.

If Waymo, Jaguar, etc wants to get into the robo car biz fine. So then just build the cars and sell them at the dealer. Why jerk around with this cockamamie robo taxi idea?


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> A Waymo Chrysler Pacifica picture doesn't prove that robot has 360 degrees cameras to see around the car. The California dmv report on the other hand, shows Waymo cars have no cameras for 360 degrees vision.


It shows no such thing. Like all humans he filled out as little in the form as possible. Also cause the police had everything they needed on video.



iheartuber said:


> What these guys don't seem to get is there's a huge difference between SDCs being sold as an option when you buy a new car at the dealer and setting up a robo taxi service.
> 
> The difference is control
> 
> In Scenerio A the consumer controls the machine and owns the car. In scenerio B the consumer gives up control, their rights, and possibly their lives to computers and greedy corporations.
> 
> If Waymo, Jaguar, etc wants to get into the robo car biz fine. So then just build the cars and sell them at the dealer. Why jerk around with this cockamamie robo taxi idea?


Why do Sprint, Tmobile, AT&T, Verison mess with subscriptions instead of building and selling phones?



iheartuber said:


> What these guys don't seem to get is there's a huge difference between SDCs being sold as an option when you buy a new car at the dealer and setting up a robo taxi service.
> 
> The difference is control
> 
> In Scenerio A the consumer controls the machine and owns the car. In scenerio B the consumer gives up control, their rights, and possibly their lives to computers and greedy corporations.
> 
> If Waymo, Jaguar, etc wants to get into the robo car biz fine. So then just build the cars and sell them at the dealer. Why jerk around with this cockamamie robo taxi idea?



















tomatopaste said:


> It shows no such thing. Like all humans he filled out as little in the form as possible. Also cause the police had everything they needed on video.
> 
> Why do Sprint, Tmobile, AT&T, Verison mess with subscriptions instead of building and selling phones?


As a business model what would you rather have: a ten thousand one time profit on the sale of a car or a residual 5k a year on the sale of transportation as a service? Take your time.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> What these guys don't seem to get is there's a huge difference between SDCs being sold as an option when you buy a new car at the dealer and setting up a robo taxi service.
> 
> The difference is control
> 
> In Scenerio A the consumer controls the machine and owns the car. In scenerio B the consumer gives up control, their rights, and possibly their lives to computers and greedy corporations.
> 
> If Waymo, Jaguar, etc wants to get into the robo car biz fine. So then just build the cars and sell them at the dealer. Why jerk around with this cockamamie robo taxi idea?


Scenario A gives consumer the choice between 2 different products.

B pushes for only one choice tying to persuade consumers with corporate propaganda BS and lies into giving up ownership for the dillusion they'll be part of the greater good, saving the planet and innocent lives with it.

That is Scientology 101.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Scenario A gives consumer the choice between 2 different products.
> 
> B pushes for only one choice tying to persuade consumers with corporate propaganda BS and lies into giving up ownership for the dillusion they'll be part of the greater good, saving the planet and innocent lives with it.
> 
> That is Scientology 101.


Two years from now you'll be able to purchase your own self driving car. So no one is taking anything away from anyone. Most people will run the numbers and decide it's not worth owning a car. If people want to spend 5 to 10k on car ownership vs purchasing transportation as a service, go for it. Most people will choose to use the money to go to Hawaii, Europe or a 2 week ski vacation in Aspen.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> It shows no such thing. Like all humans he filled out as little in the form as possible. Also cause the police had everything they needed on video.
> 
> Why do Sprint, Tmobile, AT&T, Verison mess with subscriptions instead of building and selling phones?
> 
> View attachment 225314
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a business model what would you rather have: a ten thousand one time profit on the sale of a car or a residual 5k a year on the sale of transportation as a service? Take your time.


i love that you're so hard-headed

It will make the fall extra sweet



tomatopaste said:


> Two years from now you'll be able to purchase your own self driving car. So no one is taking anything away from anyone. Most people will run the numbers and decide it's not worth owning a car. If people want to spend 5 to 10k on car ownership vs purchasing transportation as a service, go for it. Most people will choose to use the money to go to Hawaii, Europe or a 2 week ski vacation in Aspen.


I've got over 200,000 miles on my car and I spent about $90k on it the entire time I had it. That includes car note, gas, oil changes, tires, brakes, insurance, car washes: everything.

It breaks down to 45 cents a mile

You're not gonna make money charging people LESS than that to use your car

And they won't want to use it if it's gonna cost them MORE in the long run

If they take 200,000 miles worth of rides over a 15 year period and they spend $200k ($1/mile) vs $90k if they had just bought their own car then it's actually NOT cheaper to ride with the bots


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> i love that you're so hard-headed
> 
> It will make the fall extra sweet
> 
> I've got over 200,000 miles on my car and I spent about $90k on it the entire time I had it. That includes car note, gas, oil changes, tires, brakes, insurance, car washes: everything.
> 
> It breaks down to 45 cents a mile
> 
> You're not gonna make money charging people LESS than that to use your car
> 
> And they won't want to use it if it's gonna cost them MORE in the long run
> 
> If they take 200,000 miles worth of rides over a 15 year period and they spend $200k ($1/mile) vs $90k if they had just bought their own car then it's actually NOT cheaper to ride with the bots


Waymo will never make money and I suspect the decision to sale was taken last year before they supposedly started the "intensive testing" in Arizona.

At this point is very important for them to keep a clean record, because if something happens any potential buyer will dissapear, like it happened with Toyota (interested in Ubers self driving technology) right after Elaine Herzberg was killed.

If you look at how quickly Waymo wants to put its robots without a monitor inside, on the road, after they've spent years taking it slowly and being extra cautious, is clear they want to sell Waymo bye, bye.

In my opinion, whoever thinks a "revolution" it"s coming, is a dumbass.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> i love that you're so hard-headed
> 
> It will make the fall extra sweet
> 
> I've got over 200,000 miles on my car and I spent about $90k on it the entire time I had it. That includes car note, gas, oil changes, tires, brakes, insurance, car washes: everything.
> 
> It breaks down to 45 cents a mile
> 
> You're not gonna make money charging people LESS than that to use your car
> 
> And they won't want to use it if it's gonna cost them MORE in the long run
> 
> If they take 200,000 miles worth of rides over a 15 year period and they spend $200k ($1/mile) vs $90k if they had just bought their own car then it's actually NOT cheaper to ride with the bots


Car manufacturers see the writing on the wall and are adjusting their business models to account for it.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Car manufacturers see the writing on the wall and are adjusting their business models to account for it.
> 
> View attachment 225349


60 cents a mile and the Tomato wants to charge pax 35 cents a mile

Tomato is TK, jr

Sure Waymo can lose billions a year just like Uber!


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Waymo will never make money and I suspect the decision to sale was taken last year before they supposedly started the "intensive testing" in Arizona.
> 
> At this point is very important for them to keep a clean record, because if something happens any potential buyer will dissapear, like it happened with Toyota (interested in Ubers self driving technology) right after Elaine Herzberg was killed.
> 
> If you look at how quickly Waymo wants to put its robots without a monitor inside, on the road, after they've spent years taking it slowly and being extra cautious, is clear they want to sell Waymo bye, bye.
> 
> In my opinion, whoever thinks a "revolution" it"s coming, is a dumbass.


Waymo is the goose that laid the golden egg. Only in Jockey's magical community of internet dweebs is Waymo up for sale.



iheartuber said:


> i love that you're so hard-headed
> 
> It will make the fall extra sweet


I love that you can't see two feet in front of your face. It's fun watching you move the goal posts. "I've said all along self driving cars would work"



iheartuber said:


> 60 cents a mile and the Tomato wants to charge pax 35 cents a mile
> 
> Tomato is TK, jr
> 
> Sure Waymo can lose billions a year just like Uber!


60 cents a mile will be the high end. Cost conscience consumers will be willing to make one or two transfers at transfer stations just like a nonstop flight is more expensive than a direct flight.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo is the goose that laid the golden egg. Only in Jockey's magical community of internet dweebs is Waymo up for sale.
> 
> I love that you can't see two feet in front of your face. It's fun watching you move the goal posts. "I've said all along self driving cars would work"
> 
> 60 cents a mile will be the high end. Cost conscience consumers will be willing to make one or two transfers at transfer stations just like a nonstop flight is more expensive than a direct flight.


Bottom line: when Jan 1,2019 comes and Waymo is proven to be Lame-o there will be no way you can continue to make your bragidocio claims anymore

And then my eyes can finally get some rest from reading your bile


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Bottom line: when Jan 1,2019 comes and Waymo is proven to be Lame-o there will be no way you can continue to make your bragidocio claims anymore
> 
> And then my eyes can finally get some rest from reading your bile


You'll be spending all your time saying shit like: well, they haven't launched in Poughkeepsie yet, so it doesn't count.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You'll be spending all your time saying shit like: well, they haven't launched in Poughkeepsie yet, so it doesn't count.


I'm only talking about what's gonna happen in Phoenix.

But news flash- I don't see it being anything but a train wreck in Phoenix.

But hey- keep up your hype. Go down with the ship. It will make it more exciting.


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> Waymo is up for sale because is a black hole. It never made and it will never make profit.
> 
> They need to start a ridiculous robo service and if only one building cars idiot thinks if Waymo/Google decides to take that step then it means it works, they are good.
> 
> As I've already posted, Jaguars CEO, Waymos partner, says no manufacturer can go further and develop the technology better than it is today. What does that tells you? Jaguar is interested but first wants to see if people will embrace the concept....


Waymo is for sale??!! How did I miss that?


----------



## jocker12

goneubering said:


> Waymo is for sale??!! How did I miss that?


Google/Waymo is not a transportation company and the only product they have is their software. Shortly after they'll put their cars on the roads WITHOUT any monitors, people will understand how underdeveloped their product is and how expensive its implementation (have additional 3D maps that need regular updates, as main condition for the robot to drive) is as well.

According to some propaganda reports, Waymo value is actually $175 billion, and not only $75 billion, but when people will understand the scam, Waymo will be begging the homeless to get their software for free. At this point, they are using highly inflated valuation reports to signal their availability for potential discussions and negotiations regarding their product or their entire self driving cars division. If you don't want to sell there is no reason to estimate your unit valuation. And without any profits, the word POTENTIAL is only smoke and mirrors.

Like Uber investors, Google cannot burn billions forever on a beautiful dream that changed into a nightmare.

This paragraph - "Under CEO John Krafcik the former Google Self-Driving Car project has evolved from lavishly funded science project to a company with four specific targets to deploy its technology. Those include ride services; deliveries and trucking; working with transit agencies to provide last-mile transportation services; and licensing its tech to automakers for use in personal vehicles." shows the scam, because all of those targets are far away or not even achievable - deliveries are a joke (taking people in and out a Walmart store for their online grocery orders, if any), trucking is only at a testing level, last mile transportation is about taking old people to a bus station and licensing is still a discussion rather than a done deal.

For Google, I really think all these shenanigans are comically pathetic.


----------

