| ▲ | OGEnthusiast 6 hours ago |
| What's going to happen to all the millions of drivers who will lose their job overnight? In a country with 100 million guns, are we really sure we've thought this through? |
|
| ▲ | 0x457 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes, let's stop all progress and roll-back all automation to keep hypothetical angry people with guns happy. |
| |
| ▲ | Phenomenit 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems like a good description on current events. | |
| ▲ | runarberg 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Autonomous private cars is not the technological progress you think it is. We’ve had autonomous trains for decades, and while it provides us with a more efficient and cost effective public transit system, it didn’t open the doors for the next revolutionary technology. Self driving cars is a dead end technology, that will introduce a whole host of new problems which are already solved with public transit, better urban planning, etc. | | |
| ▲ | sekai 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We’ve had autonomous trains for decades Trains need tracks, cars - already have the infrastructure to drive on. > Self driving cars is a dead end technology, that will introduce a whole host of new problems which are already solved with public transit, better urban planning, etc. Self driving cars will literally become a part of public transit | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Self driving cars will literally become a part of public transit I’ve been hearing people say that for almost 15 years now. I believe it when I see it. | | |
| ▲ | tanseydavid 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> I believe it when I see it. I'm willing to wager that you might not actually believe it at that point either. |
|
| |
| ▲ | drewmate 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unfortunately, many of our urban areas have already been planned (for better or worse) for cars and not the density that makes public transit viable. Autonomous cars will solve a host of problems for the old, young, mobility limited, and just about everyone else. It will prove disruptive to the driving industry, but I think we’ve been through worse disruptions and fared the better for it. | |
| ▲ | xnx 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Self driving cars is a dead end technology I would be happy to bet on some strict definition of your claim. | |
| ▲ | pnut 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope. Humans are statistically fallible and their attention is too valuable to be obliged to a mundane task like executing navigation commands. Redesigning and rebuilding city transportation infrastructure isn't happening, look around. Also personal agency limits public transportation as a solution. | | |
| ▲ | askl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Redesigning and rebuilding city transportation infrastructure isn't happening, look around. The US already did it once (just in the wrong direction) by redesigning all cities to be unfriendly to humans and only navigable by cars. It should be technically possible to revert that mistake. | |
| ▲ | runarberg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unlike autonomous driving, public transit is a proven solution employed in thousands of cities around the world, on various scales, economies, etc. > Redesigning and rebuilding city transportation infrastructure isn't happening, look around. We have been redesigning and rebuilding city transportation infrastructure since we had cities. Where I live (Seattle) they are opening a new light rail bridge crossing just next month (first rail over a floting bridge; which is technologically very interesting), and two new rail lines are being planned. In the 1960s the Bay area completely revolutionized their transit sytem when they opened BART. I think you are simply wrong here. | | |
| ▲ | tanseydavid 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> In the 1960s the Bay area completely revolutionized their transit sytem when they opened BART. 66 years later we see California struggling terribly with implementation of a high-speed rail system -- where the placement/location of the infrastructure largely is targeted for areas far less dense than the Bay Area. I don't think there is any single reason why this is so much more difficult now then it was in 1960 -- but clearly things have changed quite a lot in that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Waymo has been operating since 2004 (22 years ago), and replacing drivers on the road will take many more decades. Nothing is happening "overnight". |
| |
|
| ▲ | skybrian 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If Waymo's history is any guide, it's not going to happen overnight. Even in San Francisco, their market share is only 20-30%. |
|
| ▲ | sekai 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What's going to happen to all the millions of drivers who will lose their job overnight? In a country with 100 million guns, are we really sure we've thought this through? Same was said about electricity, or the internet. |
| |
| ▲ | password54321 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | People keep referencing history but this really is unprecedented. We are approaching singularity and many people will become obsolete in all areas. There are no new hypothetical jobs waiting on the horizon. |
|
|
| ▲ | sroussey 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reminds me of the history or radio and the absolute uproar that someone played a record on the radio rather than live performances!! |
| |
|
| ▲ | lanthissa 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| same thing that happened during the industrial revolution, you pay enough of them to 'protect the law' vs the rest. |
|
| ▲ | sigspec 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| UBI or war, or both |
|
| ▲ | VirusNewbie 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think Uber goes out of business. There is probably a sweet spot for Waymo's steady state cars, and you STILL might want 'surge' capabilities for part time workers who can repurpose their cars to make a little extra money here and there. |
|
| ▲ | gadflyinyoureye 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Those are rookie numbers. The US has 400 million guns. https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-gun-owners... As to the revolt, America doesn't do that any more. Years of education have removed both the vim and vigor of our souls. People will complain. They will do a TikTok dance as protest. Some will go into the streets. No meaningful uprising will occur. The poor and the affected will be told to go to the trades. That's the new learn to program. Our tech overlords will have their media tell us that everything is ok (packaging it appropriately for the specific side of the aisle). Ultimately the US will go down hill to become a Belgium. Not terrible, but not a world dominating, hand cutting entity it once was. |
| |
| ▲ | markvdb 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Ultimately the US will go down hill to become a Belgium. Sharing one's opinion in a respectful way is possible. Less spectacle, so less eyeballs, but worth it. Try it. | | |
| ▲ | nubg 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's wrong with his comparison? He explained what he meant by "a Belgium". | | |
| ▲ | tanseydavid 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The entire side topic of guns and revolt seems misplaced in this thread. The original Luddite movement arose in response to automation in the textile industry. They committed violence. Violence was committed against them. All tragic events when viewed from a certain perspective. My rhetorical question is this: did any of this result in any meaningful impedance of the "march of technological progress"? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Ultimately the US will go down hill to become a Belgium. I'm curious why you say this given you start by highlighting several characteristics that are not like Belgium (to wit, poor education, political media capture, effective oligarchy). I feel there are several other nations that may be better comparators, just want to understand your selection. |
|
