Comment

Comment on A crowd destroyed a driverless Waymo car in San Francisco

barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I do, frequently, but we’re in a thread discussing the merits of autonomous vehicles vs normal car, not the merits of public transit.

And the merits are “people don’t like it”. As evidenced by the very title. You asked me why anyone would destroy an automated car, I gave you an answer, you didn’t accept it without providing an alternative. Maybe ponder about it a bit more.

Because that’s what this fucking thread is about.

No, this thread is not about how cool autonomous driving it, but about a crowd destroying an autonomous car. Why did they do that?

Overall, nice try at diversion, as if any discussion on the internet had ever been limited to the original topic, wait, let me prove it: Hitler! Godwin!. Really you should try to employ less rhetorical tricks. They may work on you, they rarely if ever work on me.

You clearly have not been to the US if you think the Mormons are the most stubborn and backwards part of it.

Point taken, but if the Mormons can do it, why can’t California? They at least were smart enough to abolish single family home zoning and didn’t blink when Musk tried to torpedo California HSR (which is what his hyperloop nonsense is about), but that was the state forcing the municipalities to enact a bare minimum of zoning sanity that they themselves were unwilling to do. I think Portland leads the pack in that regard, at least among the more prominent locations.

Maybe that’s exactly the issue: Things like streetcar suburb aren’t new. They are what existed until they got outlawed by a failed innovation. Mormons might be conservative enough to look back and say “yep that was better”, while California liberals are, just as you, saying “muuuuuuh but we need something shiny and new, old solutions can’t fix anything”.

They have the potential to be an exact drop in replacement for existing cars and can work absolutely everywhere they do, including all edge cases.

And I have the potential to be an exact drop in replacement for Jesus Christ. Why do you insist the fix to the issues be a drop-in replacement? Conservative, afraid of change, much?

I’ve already told you I’m not American and that I do that. esus fucking christ your brain is incapable of not just thinking “haha I’m arguing with generic tech bro dufus, let me clown on how tech bro dufus he is ha ha ha”

Apparently doesn’t stop you to be car-brained like an American. As to techbro: Don’t act and argue and talk like one and I’ll stop calling you that.

source

Sort:hotnew top

masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

And I have the potential to be an exact drop in replacement for Jesus Christ. Why do you insist the fix to the issues be a drop-in replacement? Conservative, afraid of change, much?

Learn how to read.

source
- barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Lmfao, so your answer at the end of all this, is “automated cars won’t happen because people don’t like them”??
  
  No. My answer is “automated cars will continue to be opposed by the collective unconscious until urban planning things that are of importance to it are addressed (such as housing, equity, but also plain liability see asphalt deserts), and at that point autonomous cars will not be needed any more”. But that’s a mouthful, I thought you intelligent enough to understand it without being spoon-fed given that you claim to be such an advocate for public transit and modern urban planning, know all of its its advantages.
  
  Autonomous cars will not, just to open another can of worms, re-establish third places in the urban fabric. Do you know what third places are, their function, their importance, and how car-centric design destroyed them?
  
  source
  - masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    My answer is “automated cars will continue to be opposed by the collective unconscious until urban planning related things that are of importance to it are addressed (such as housing, equity, but also plain liability see asphalt deserts), and at that point autonomous cars will not be needed any more”
    
    Lmfao, ok bud, please point me to the jurisdiction where drivers aren’t killing thousands of people a year.
    
    Yeah, shut up dumbass.
    
    source
    barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    You seem to have forgotten the parts of the discussion where you failed to account for even a modicum of edge cases on an even 20 year timeline.
    
    I never said that all cars must be abolished. Go, go back in the discussion and check.
    
    Everyone getting around by streetcar suburbs made sense 20 years ago too, but I’m glad we didn’t stop all road safety engineering on the assumption we’d do it just because it the logical collective thing to do.
    
    If you’re talking about the US: No, the US didn’t suddenly start to safety engineer, they’re still hostile to pedestrians over there. On the contrary, 20 years ago SUVs which make children invisible didn’t really exist yet. If you’re talking about Europe: We never abolished public transit. We made mistakes weakening it, but we didn’t abolish it, and engineering for pedestrian safety goes back to at least the 60s, and by the 70s at least the Netherlands had found their bearings.
    
    We can probably both agree though, that the actual thrashing of the car was an inevitable result of ever growing wealth inequality.
    
    Of course. I mean if you want to rush hour everyone in an individual autonomous taxi during rush hour everyone will need one of those, leased or owned, either way it’s going to be expensive so people understand on an instinctive level that those cars aren’t a solution while wealth inequality persists. As said: Public transport side-steps that issue. We haven’t been able to fix wealth inequality in the last two centuries you won’t do it in the next two decades, or at least we shouldn’t bet urbanism on that happening.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments