Technology

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 16 points 4 days ago

It cannot be blinded. What an incredibly bold statement, unless they aim to go bankrupt soon anyway

parent

[+] fuzzzerd@programming.dev -11 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I'm not saying the robot is "right", but the number of people crusing around with their high beams on as a matter of corse, is as they saying goes, too damn high. So I can absolutely believe that a vehicle's high beams limited its "vision" because that regularly happens to me driving and as a pedestrian.

Now if the robot fled the scene that's a completely different issue for which it's operators are responsible.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 20 points 4 days ago

I'm not saying that you’re "wrong", but the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt to a piece of technology in service of a corporation is, as the saying goes, bonkers.

parent

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

If those high beams are legal, then all that means is the robot can't safely operate under normal/legal conditions. If it can't operate safely, why is it allowed in public?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

High beams are NOT legal in the city. And they were in all likelyhood not being used in this scenario.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah, for some reason I read high beams and just thought of the bright LEDs everyone has. Either way, I agree that it doesn't make sense to blame high beams.

parent

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

It's not legal to use them in a city. If you're blinding someone with them, it's not legal (at least in my US state)