| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The value of a business is based off how much value they will provide to others. In order to be a trillion dollar business you have to be providing a lot of value to others in the current or people are speculating you will provide value in the future. | | |
| ▲ | oldjim798 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The value of a business is entirely the part the second of the line - its entirely people speculating on the future value. Thats why Telsa is worth so much compared to other auto makers - its a small, niche player who makes poor quality cars - but investors believe it will take over the world hence its 'valuation'. This is assuming you mean just the economic definition of value. If you mean value more broadly, then your statement is even less true; in that case hedge funds would be worth nothing. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >hedge funds would be worth nothing. People who want to maintain their wealth find value in hedge funds. Being able to insulate your wealth from whateveris happening in the world, without you having to think about it is valuable. |
| |
| ▲ | groggo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And you have to have a monopoly though? Farms provide the most value to the world but there's so much competition that it's commoditized, so as far as I know there's no super valuable farms... Hopefully the same thing happens with autonomous cars, cloud computing, etc. | |
| ▲ | asdff 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The customer is often merely a product to be farmed like livestock for as much of their disposable income as can possibly done. The people who are provided value are usually the shareholders not the people who are using the product or service. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Both the business and the customer get value when the customer spends their income on something from the business. | | |
| ▲ | asdff 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If I charge you $100 for a glass of lemonade you get value too, but it is not a good value. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If it wasn't good value for me I wouldn't buy it from you. | | |
| ▲ | asdff 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Too bad. I bought out almost all the competing lemonade stands and the water company. If you want to drink you have to play my game. Oh and as for my competitors stands? They price them like mine because their shareholders expect the margins I achieve. You want to open a stand? My lemon companies won't sell to you. The city won't grant you a license to operate a stand. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elzbardico 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do we still believe this propaganda? Really? |
| |
| ▲ | bpodgursky 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because Americans spend 93 billion hours driving each year and tens of thousands of people literally die each year in car crashes. Unlocking that time and those lives is an unimaginably large quality of life improvement. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Probably not ideal if one company controls the whole shebang though. | | |
| ▲ | Fricken 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Currently it's looking like Waymo's most viable competitors are in China, namely Pony.ai and Baidu's Apollo. Even without competition it will be a long time before Waymo is operating in most American cities. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Assuming Chinese competitors get cut off as a "threat to national security", I'm sure Waymo would behave responsibility as a monopoly and won't be driving for a system that "accidentally" end with private car ownership being eroded along with public transport options in favour of their product. It would be crazy if a self driving car company would undertake projects that undermine public transport, for example. Proposing mad things like vacuum pod trains to head off conventional HSR for example. Imagine! | | |
| ▲ | astrange 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Americans are incapable of constructing HSR all on their own. It doesn't matter if anyone tries to distract them, they'll be tied up in 200 years of lawsuits over whether the fake environment reports are long enough anyway. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | oldjim798 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Autonomous cars would be safer, I completely agree. They won't fix traffic though. | | |
| ▲ | hibikir 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They will make it worse, as it makes it easier to move a vehicle around. When the price goes down, the usage goes up. And it's traffic whether the vehicle has a human being transported, it's circling waiting for a fare, or it's on the way back, empty, from taking a child to school | | |
| ▲ | earthnail 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You no longer need inner city parking, and people will be more willing to jump on public transport to skip traffic because you are not bound by the location of your own car anyway. | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Are all those cars going to keep circling the block at night when nobody is driving? | | |
| ▲ | smelendez 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They’ll do what taxis have always done when not in use — go to a lot or garage in a cheap part of town. | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You think taxi companies are paying for enough parking spaces to store most of their fleet at once? A lot of those cars are stored on the street in front of the house of the driver. Also, the problem of storing something like 10k taxis pales in comparison to storing 100k+ cars. Some large cities have millions of cars. When was the last time you drove to a stadium concert or ball game? It takes hours to get something like 30k cars in and out of those parking lots when everyone is trying to use the same roads at the same time. It's absolute gridlock. So to implement anything like what you're talking about you'd need a network of garages and lots in the periphery of a large city, and the road infrastructure that can handle 100k cars driving from outside the city to your home all in time to whisk you away on your morning commute. For that kind of civic planning & engineering complexity you could just build public transportation based on trains, light rail and busses. | |
| ▲ | gs17 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For now, their Nashville test cars seem to be stored in a lot that's basically unused otherwise (I'm not even sure what building it belongs to). I drive by it occasionally. It's not the cheapest part of town, but it's probably pretty affordable. |
| |
| ▲ | Scoundreller 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe do some overnight legs to other cities? Need some sleeper cars. Covid taught us that we don’t really have enough space to park all aircraft: we expect them to “park” in the sky. I wonder how downtimes will go when one of the inevitable duopoly players has a system downtime. |
|
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's what congestion pricing is for. |
| |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They might fix it a bit. Cars might be able to travel at more consistent speeds, not speeding up and slowing down, that causes traffic, and fewer accidents would also reduce traffic. Maybe in the future they could also travel closer together! | |
| ▲ | willahmad 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | you are right, it probably won't fix the traffic, but it doesn't matter because if you are not steering the wheel then you can work or study while in the traffic. there is a huge economic impact | | |
| ▲ | oldjim798 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh good, even more hours of the day my boss can take from me to wring even more labour out of me | | |
| ▲ | warkdarrior 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Or you could use that time for your own purposes, no reason to allow for your boss to control your commute. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | McAlpine5892 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We already have solutions for this called trains, buses, subways, etc. Public transportation. Yes, America is huge but look at China building out high-speed rail at an incredible pace. The amount of money dumped into self-driving could have built out an impressive amount of infrastructure for public transportation. Not to say this isn’t a worthy problem to solve or that cars have no use. They’re great for rural life. But maybe 80% of the use-case for self-driving cars is pretty much solved by trains. They’re fast, generate no traffic, are very safe, and reduce pollution in urban areas. Even electric cars produce noxious break dust. Addendum The “America is too big” argument drives me nuts. (1) Again, look at China. (2) The EU is decently large and connected very well by rail. (3) We’re America. We went to the frickin moon. Defeated the Nazis. Etc. We can build trains. Not to mention what a boost it would be to the economy with all the jobs a project like that would create. Sure, we wouldn’t have an Elon but that’s fine by me. | | |
| ▲ | llbbdd 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This argument never makes a lick of sense, these are entirely different problems. Trains, buses, subways, do not go to my house, and they do not go to my destination. They (sometimes) get close, and then I have to get through the last mile somehow, often a taxi or Uber. That transfer alone is annoying and it often makes sense to just take the taxi the whole way, even if it costs more, and it's a better experience than any public transit, so why not? Maybe that setup works in China where everyone lives on top of each other in shoeboxes and you can just route a monorail through an apartment building, but I like both having my space and living adjacent to a large city. You could put a teleporter to the train station on my boulevard and I'd stand next to it while I wait for an Uber. You could build a train station a block from my house and I'd move somewhere else. I would pay multiples of any train ticket price to get into an autonomous sleeper Waymo and wake up in a city hours away in front of my hotel. You literally could not pay me to take more public transit if I have any other option, and I don't think I'm alone in that, and building more of it doesn't solve that. America's strength here is that it's full of great places where you can live like that, take public transit everywhere, walk everywhere else, if that's what you want, with the compromises it comes with. But instead of moving to those places people say "build more public transit", which then just sounds like "I wish public transit was more accessible to me specifically" and then we're just back at taxis, or building rail to connect the front doors of everyone on earth. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Maybe that setup works in China It doesn't, really. China sells absolutely fucktons of cars domestically. There are also dozens of brands that most people have never even heard of and don't even get exported because domestic demand for a functional 10-15,000 electric car is so high. Every residential complex is absolutely rammed with cars, ranging from tiny runabouts to Tank 700 plus-sized SUVs. That demand doesn't exist because everyone lives 5 minutes walk from work and loves the subway. Though millions upon millions of people do both, and subways have expanded probably 1000% or more in the last 15 years, million upon millions also want a car. In many cases they may not represent all the miles a person travels (eg subway to work but car for other trips). High speed rail also is a replacement for many car miles driven because while a cross-country ticket is expensive, driving is still expensive in fuel and wear and takes days to boot. | | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | llbbdd 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are definitely places in the US that I would like to see intercity high-speed rail specifically. Flying is convenient and frankly magical but always feels like a huge chore to do. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Even in China, flying is usually cheaper than HSR, and over twice as fast once airborne (300km/hr train vs 800km/hr plane). But getting and through airports is still more of a hassle than the trains. Even when taxis are fairly cheap, there's nothing like popping out in the city. Though it's not quite like a cosy European station near the old town: some some stations are the better part of half a mile across (not along the platforms, across), and aren't right in the city centre so there can still be some walking involved! On the other hand, you can have takeaway food delivered to the station ahead and receive it at your seat. And it's far more comfortable even in economy. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | oldjim798 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | -->You literally could not pay me to take more public transit if I have any other option The diversity of the world truly never ceases to amaze me. Thats a wild take. Driving is an awful experience - its expensive, its stressful, cars are uncomfortable, and the whole thing is extremely dangerous. More over, I would argue that America is very much not a place where you can live car-free. There are very few places in the country where you can live without a car, certainly if you have a family. That being said, building more public transit everywhere would allow more people to get out of the way of people like you who will drive no matter what. | | |
| ▲ | llbbdd 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, the alternative view is just as wild to me, and I've travelled plenty both ways. It's only expensive if you don't value the advantages, and even in absolute terms it doesn't cost much more. Public transit is for me way more stressful because crowds are annoying, train and bus schedules are annoying, people are inconsiderate and you have no control over it at all. The worst part of public transit is the public; I love going to the theatre but I've mostly stopped for the same reason and got a nice setup at home instead. It's not IMAX but IMAX isn't that fun anyway with a bad audience. Cars are clean and if they aren't, there's a rating system for that. Bus is dirty? The city will surely see to your ticket eventually. Cars are uncomfortable? Pay another couple dollars and Uber will send you an SUV just for you if you want. Try offering a couple dollars to the people sandwiching you on either side on the subway and see if it makes you more comfortable. I've never had a license beyond a temp, my family doesn't own a car. I agree driving is stressful, which is why I prefer to pay people who drive for a living to do it for me, so it's not about driving for driving's sake, it's about what's comfortable to use and convenient. Most public transit is neither. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jjice 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For long distance trains: While I also love trains and public transit, China is about the same physical size of the US, but has about four times the population, so it's four times denser. Definitely makes trains more appealing for them. > We’re America. We went to the frickin moon. Defeated the Nazis. Etc. We can build trains. Absolutely we can build trains. It's not that we're incapable. It's that it's not financially viable based on the usage it'll get. Again, I'd love better trains in the US, but it doesn't make sense in a lot of cases in the US still due to density and current value props for individuals. If it was valuable, someone would do it. Now, for intra-city transit, the lack of trains also drives me insane. | | |
| ▲ | rangestransform 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There are already places in the US that can financially justify Japan-tier high speed rail (specifically the northeast corridor), but Connecticut simultaneously wants high speed rail through the coastal towns and opposes the land acquisition required to get adequately straight tracks. If American politics is unable to get out of the way in such a slam-dunk case for rail, what hope is there to bring public transit and urbanism to all of the car-dependent suburbia in the rest of the country? | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'd say the success of Florida's Brightline, from Orlando to Miami, says that it's viable (or that the people in Florida are crazy), especially since it was finished in 2018 and not 1820. |
|
|
|
|
|