This is true.

Now to start a tangent, what's the easier problem to solve: FSD, or a robust public transport system? Moving rooms have always been around in the form of trains, busses, streetcars etc...

▲

OkayPhysicist 3 days ago | parent [-]

Turns out, we have an answer to this: Self driving is easier. By a lot. It's not even close. No entrenched interests trying to block your infrastructure plans by claiming that your rail line passes through the territory of some flightless owl, no need to be called racist for cutting through the cheapeast land in the city to build out rails, no need to dig tunnels for subways. No need to overcome class prejudices where the middle class don't want to ride BART with the naked dude with a needle behind his ear.

To people outside the Bay, self driving might still seem like some far-off future tech. I can tell you that the future is already here. I haven't used an Uber in the last 3 years because I will always pick Waymo instead.

▲

PhunkyPhil 3 days ago | parent [-]

Fair enough. I will ask, how many billions have been spent in not only FSD but the car infrastructure that makes room for FSD investment?

I'm being slightly fanatical, but if our priorities were not car-centric in the 50's, do you think we would have spent more, or less money over the last 70 years on the transportation economy?

	▲	AlotOfReading 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're assigning decades of infrastructure costs to AVs, none of which was done with the intention of supporting them. They'd work fine on 1950s roads. The global AV industry has taken roughly as much funding as California HSR has on its own, and less than what HSR will need to finish. I've been doing public transit advocacy for my entire adult life. I've worked in the AV industry somewhat less than that. My advocacy has produced a couple of bike lanes and bus stops, contrasted against 3 AV launches. I'd love to build more public transit, but experience tells me that the most effective thing I can do to support my community is AVs.