I love the idea of Waymo in theory, but unfortunately the only times I've seen them in the news are when things go horribly wrong (like the fact that they've gotten almost 600 parking tickets in SF last year). I will still prefer a human driver, as fallible as we humans are, until we get to avionics level of safety. I drive a lot, and I often forget that cars aren't consumable, fun toys, but rather two-ton hunks of metal that hurtle at inhuman speeds. I'm glad the cars are deferential to pedestrians, but I fear the time when these limits will be unlocked.
grg0•1d ago
I don't even like it in theory: a company with a surveillance business model now giving rides on autonomous vehicles they control.
I have no problems with self-driving in principle.
bitpush•1d ago
Honest question - do you not work in tech? I understand this sentiment from someone not in tech, but you're argument is laughably reductive that it feels silly
Would you rather have software written by Chevrolet than Tech Companies?
grg0•1d ago
Why are you fine giving away control to more surveillance? I don't see what is laughable or reductive about the argument.
Yes, I work in tech, but I generally prefer tech that gives people power, not take it away.
bitpush•1d ago
What part of self-driving car do you find to be objectionable?
grg0•16h ago
The part where a corporation does the driving for you.
Spivak•1d ago
I don't think there's a dichotomy anymore, every car manufacturer is a tech company now. Tesla is a car company run like a tech company and I'll take Honda or Toyota over them every time. And it's not like the tech chops are lacking among traditional automakers, Mercedes launched (albeit limited) actually full self driving where you're not expected to take over and they take liability.
"Tech" isn't that generic. There's no reason to believe that a company that makes a search engine will do any better at self driving. I mean they bought Waymo after they were already promising.
nytesky•1d ago
So many “tech” companies aren’t really tech, they just apply fairly standard software principals to new industries.
Companies like salesforce, Uber, Airbnb are more marketing or market making apps. Eventually they do apply some more sophisticated software to scale their products, but their core business is not technical in nature. Even Facebook started out as an electronic blend of the school facebook (paperback) and hotornot.
I’m not in SV tech so perhaps my perception is wrong? But googles core competency was search algorithms, though their business is ads of course. So more of a tech company.
more_corn•18h ago
It’s ok for people in tech to not like or trust companies with a surveillance business model. Especially when Google has recently shown a renewed willingness to put profits far above what is best for their customers.
I’m in tech and have recently been disgusted by googles abuses of what they used to believe.
tzs•14h ago
He said he objected to having it from a company with a surveillance business model. Are you assuming that all tech companies have a surveillance business model?
DogOfTheGaps•17h ago
It's not surprising that you only hear about Waymo in the news when something goes wrong. That doesn't mean it hasn't been extremely successful, which it has by any objective measure, other than profitability at least in the short term. The tech works.
creer•15h ago
> the only times I've seen them in the news
This speaks more to the news than to Waymo. If you want more viewpoints, look for cyclists speaking of their preference for encountering waymos instead of human drivers; look to reddit for videos of waymos avoiding red-light runners and balls and pedestrians in dangerous places.
Then again this very article was not about things going "horribly wrong" but about the growth in ridership: Waymo is in production mode and ramping up BECAUSE it's working well.
High speed red light runners, in the meantime, are highly present in San Francisco these days. Now THAT's dangerous. Not to mention (less frequent) people deliberately pointing their "two-ton" vehicles at pedestrians. I don't see Waymo doing that.
evilsaloon•1d ago
grg0•1d ago
I have no problems with self-driving in principle.
bitpush•1d ago
Would you rather have software written by Chevrolet than Tech Companies?
grg0•1d ago
Yes, I work in tech, but I generally prefer tech that gives people power, not take it away.
bitpush•1d ago
grg0•16h ago
Spivak•1d ago
"Tech" isn't that generic. There's no reason to believe that a company that makes a search engine will do any better at self driving. I mean they bought Waymo after they were already promising.
nytesky•1d ago
Companies like salesforce, Uber, Airbnb are more marketing or market making apps. Eventually they do apply some more sophisticated software to scale their products, but their core business is not technical in nature. Even Facebook started out as an electronic blend of the school facebook (paperback) and hotornot.
I’m not in SV tech so perhaps my perception is wrong? But googles core competency was search algorithms, though their business is ads of course. So more of a tech company.
more_corn•18h ago
tzs•14h ago
DogOfTheGaps•17h ago
creer•15h ago
This speaks more to the news than to Waymo. If you want more viewpoints, look for cyclists speaking of their preference for encountering waymos instead of human drivers; look to reddit for videos of waymos avoiding red-light runners and balls and pedestrians in dangerous places.
Then again this very article was not about things going "horribly wrong" but about the growth in ridership: Waymo is in production mode and ramping up BECAUSE it's working well.
High speed red light runners, in the meantime, are highly present in San Francisco these days. Now THAT's dangerous. Not to mention (less frequent) people deliberately pointing their "two-ton" vehicles at pedestrians. I don't see Waymo doing that.