top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 237 points 1 year ago (26 children)

“Since there was no human driver, a ticket couldn’t be issued (our citation books don’t have a box for “robot”),” reads the post.

The department said that it had alerted Waymo of the glitch

That's not how it fucking works

How have you guys not bothered to prepare for this? It's not the cop's fault, but it is not a secret that there are Waymo cars in San Francisco. How is this something that nobody thought of?

Last year, California governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that allows police officers to issue a “notice of noncompliance” if a driverless car breaks traffic laws. The law goes into effect in July 2026.

Oh, pardon me. So you're on top of it.

The bill was introduced by assemblymember Phil Ting of San Francisco amid several incidents in the city, including driverless cars blocking traffic, dragging a pedestrian, interfering with firetrucks, and entering active crime scenes.

And your plan was to call up Waymo and ask them politely to improve their tech please? Or, that becomes the plan as of 2026?

With the new law, first responders can order a company to move autonomous vehicles out of an area, and the company has two minutes to direct its cars to leave or avoid that area.

The San Bruno police department, in response to people who believed officers were being lenient, reaffirmed: “There is legislation in the works that will allow officers to issue the company notices.”

My guy these cars went on the road EIGHT FUCKING YEARS AGO

The big invasion of Ukraine was years in the future, Covid hadn't happened and wasn't going to any time soon, Obama had just stepped down, CALIFORNIA EXPLAIN

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 176 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Dude, you can't just penalize a corporation. That would be commiesocialism or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    According to the government, "Corporations are people too."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'll believe a corporation is a person when The Texas department of corrections executes one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is successfully murdered. I don't care who does it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Herds/corporations dissipate: only individuals can truly-die.

    Groups have been hiding that pertinent-fact from discussion for ages, now..

    It's time that we created legally-distinct categories for those who are only aggregates, like herds/corporations, vs individuals-who-can-die.

    That'd take spine, though, which politics-the-arena weeds-out/prevents-from-having-any-say.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    And just like real people. They’re dead when they have no more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And yet, they can sell their debt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    That’s only because the liberals government took away Americans’ right to buy and sell people. Gotta bundle debt and people together for good business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Back then, both in the US and the UK, the liberal philosophers of the times considered it an infringement on property rights to restrict the buying and selling of slaves. Liberalism: A Counter-History goes over the debates at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    “Since there was no human driver, a ticket couldn’t be issued (our citation books don’t have a box for “robot”),” reads the post.

    Did nobody think to just write "waymo" and use the company HQ as the driver's address?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Just tell the cops they're allowed to stab the tires and have it towed. The problem will fix itself one way or another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You've got the right spirit but I think it's unlikely that the car would realize its tires have been destroyed, I think it would just keep driving around just with less control over its actions which might not be the best.

    Give them a little hand-carried version of The Grappler, and then if Waymo has some kind of concern about what has happened to the brakes and suspension and all sorts of shit that is broken now, just give 'em one of these.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The state’s allowed to ban the company from the roads if they bother too many people or officials—a fairly enormous stick.

    Make the whole world’s governments mad? Investors won’t be too happy. Huggge stick.

    It does break from our “one immediate fine/ticket for one infraction” paradigm so I understand why it looks bad.

    Gosh can you imagine if they drop our numbers from ~seven Californians killed on our roads every day to [far] fewer… (guy can dream, obvy they’re not perfect)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You finally found out how long it takes to get laws into effect bro.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Obama was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009. The biggest overhaul to American health care since FDR went into effect on March 23, 2010, and that was with the US congress involved, which always inevitably turns everything into more of a shit show than it needs to be.

    You can do it, you just have to be something other than dysfunctional wreckage to do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Aircraft must have pilots in command.

    Radio stations must have control operators.

    Pedestrian manglers can just roam free!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The entire reason they’re deploying AI in the battlefields is to avoid accountability for those firing. The lack of accountability is an intended feature, not a bug.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A troubling conclusion I hadn’t yet come to. God damn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Ticket the damn manufacturer. They need to be made to understand not to put substandard devices into public hands

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I can see rego plates in the picture, are they not linked to anyone? Ticket the owner, it's not rocket science.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It'd likely require a different statute. Like how running a red light is a different penalty if the driver is pulled over by a cop versus the vehicle owner being caught by a stoplight camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They're remote cars. I would ticket the operator, even if its just a corporation. Let the courts figure out if it applies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is the right answer for issues with driverless cars. Ticket the registrant/owner. The State shouldn’t have to fight with a manufacturer to ensure legality in a vehicle’s programming, that’s a losing battle that will cost ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money. Fine vehicle operators so they’ll stop buying vehicles that incur costly fines. Losing customers is the only thing a corporation will listen to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Well also those cars are likely insured as the state law requires and if they keep getting citations, even if those fines are easy for the company to pay off, their insurance should hopefully skyrocket causing more lasting and impactful damage

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Law says the driver is ticketed for driving infractions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So if your car gets ticketed by a speed camera without the driver being identified, who do they send the ticket to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 100 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Just impound the vehicle when the driver refuses to sign, or rip the axle out.

    You know, like if it had a human owner.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Corporations are people right. So why aren’t they sent all these tickets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I mean, you're supposed to take the ticket when you're pulled over, and I don't believe we should make it easier for people who aren't in the vehicle when driving it.

    Write the ticket, hold it out at the car window, when no one takes it write "Refused", make everyone exit, disable the vehicle until it can be towed to impound, and keep it at impound until some responsible person comes to claim it, sign the ticket, and pay the fees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honestly, should just impound all of the fleet immediately.

    If the goal of the ticket is to stop the danger and enforce compliance, it has to be to the company via the entire fleet, and it must hurt them financially enough to immediately change the behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Easy, Just impound it. When they have to deal with going to get them in person, they'll stop the illegal shit

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    What is this "Airbud" rules.

    Cant give it a ticket cause my ticket book doesn't say anything about "robots" breaking laws.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Doesn't the car have an owner? Because in Brazil, the ticket always goes to the owner, even when someone else is driving - something that has its share of problems

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Google. You think they give a fuck about anything less than six figure sums? Hell, seven figure sums. A low our figure traffic fine is probably less than the person handling the paperwork makes in a week at Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    May a firefighter tear the cars in half using the jaws of life.

    You have 30 minutes to move your cube.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Surprised Pikachu!

    Prepare to run people over!

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I think you can stop robotaxis by just putting a traffic cone on its hood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah but that's easy to take off. The least you could do is epoxy it to the hood of the clanker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (27 children)

    You know, we should re-assess many assumptions in light of emerging technologies. Even the conceptual value of labour is becoming more and more obsolete as AI and automation comes. We need a new Marx in relation to data as leverage to demand social equity, as in advocate for universal basic income/utility. Tech barons stole our data to train AI and automation, it's only right we bear fruit from our personal information.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (27 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That sounds concerning, but how is it different from regular taxes to collect & distribute the funds?

    I mean, besides the obvious push from them to reduce taxes to 0% as they already do in the States.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Not sure it's even possible to achieve being "completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying", but at least getting to a system where the legislature or whoever has the power and the will (if not absolute mandate) to continually evaluate the situation and combat corruption (sanctioning, suspending, or expelling violators; penalizing lobbyists who don't follow the rules; amending the rules as needed to keep ahead of the problems).

    There's just not enough real consequences for any of these people failing to live up to the standards we should expect of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (23 children)

    Well if my choices are

    A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all

    Or

    B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all but I have money for food…

    Man that’s a tough choice. I’ll go with B

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (21 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (20 children)

    Really? Because you’re living in that false dilemma and and humans always have lived in that false dilemma.

    So it’s not all that false

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)

    If you only present 2 options then it is a false dilemma.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

    The sky is blue. True or false?

    Is Chicago in America or not?

    Are palm trees a tree , yes or no?

    You need to revisit the dictionary. Not every a or b choice is a false dilemma.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (17 children)

    Dude, you don't even know the difference between a decision and a question.

    And, just for fun.

    The sky is transparent

    Chicago is in Kwekwe

    Palm trees are a grass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    The sky isn’t transparent it’s translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.

    Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.

    Palm trees aren’t grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They aren’t trees.

    Dictionary. Buy one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)
    • Wait until night. Is the sky blue?

    • You can be in chicago and not in America.

    • Apart from their size, palm trees are nothing like trees.

    • These questions have absolutely no relationship with the topic of false dilemmas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
    1. yes. Now it’s dark blue. The sky isn’t transparent. It isn’t clear. It’s translucent which scatters light and blurs it.

    2. that wasn’t the question. Is Chicago in America? Yes. Are there Chicago’s not in America ? Also yes.

    3. so the answer would be “false” they are not trees. They arent technically grass either just closer to grass. The answer remains the same. Palm trees aren’t trees.

    4. do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.

    You have exactly 2 options. You have a decision to make. You can keep chatting with me or stop chatting with me. Choose. Option a or option b.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.

    Read it. It is not about asking questions with binary answers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Dude… I buy the new versions of both Websters and Oxford dictionary every time the release a new version lol. I do both in case I’m arguing with someone from London about the word “evening”.

    I’m profoundly boring. However like you said I’m very good at talking so it doesn’t sound so bad.

    My point is I don’t need to look at Wikipedia or look anything up. I know what it means in America and in the UK. I know the slight deference between the us and uk definitions.

    I’m not a bad ass, but if you want to argue semantics… boy you’re going to lose fast. You can’t be. I might be wrong about my opinions but I know the limits of the word.

    At best you can say I offered myself a false situation, but again it was illustrative not literal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    For example, one choice you are missing is that you don't have to live in a tyrannical oligarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    That technically true but we always kind do live in a tyrannical oligarchy . It’s kinda always been that way.

    So to be clear I understand what and why you are saying. I totally get that.

    My choice wasn’t suppose to be taken at face value. It was me expressing the simple fact “Is it an option to not be under an oligarchy? Because I can’t find any place here or in the past that wasn’t a tyrannical oligarchy.

    That’s why I said what I said. I understand the point you’re making I just don’t agree.

    I’d compare it to

    Boss: be at work on Saturday or get fired. What’s your choice?

    Employee: that’s a false dillima because I could chose instead to be promoted to your boss

    Boss: that’s not going to happen.

    Of course there is technically a third option. Quit. But quitting because you’re about to get will be written as “fired “ in the paperwork.

    Other options? Yes an infinite amount. But those options aren’t really feasible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemma… by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least that’s a conversation.

    You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.

    Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees aren’t trees.

    It’s like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.

    I'm carrying on the conversation because it's hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. I'm dying to see what comes next.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didn’t not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.

    I said essentially “I see this, I choose that”

    Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.

    That’s not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.

    A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say I’m entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You can’t say I’m throttling your ability to choose things. I didn’t ask you anything, I didn’t present you with any options.

    I’m myself am not “dying to see” what comes next. I replied to you because I’m bored and I’m right. That’s all.

    It is funny to me you can’t see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I said essentially “I see this, I choose that”

    You gave only 2 options to chose from which falsely represented the situation.

    I succinctly pointed this out. You got angry and are now suffering from Logorrhea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
    1. I gave two options to myself then answered. I never asked you anything.

    2. lol I’m not angry at all just bored. Thank you for the complement though. Yes I’m a salesman and a damn good one. I’ve never had someone describe me as Loquacious, but it’s a rarely used word. I knew it though if that was a test.

    Anyway you are clearly balls deep in your histrionics… or maybe you just suffer from HPD in general…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
    1. I gave two options to myself then answered. I never asked you anything.

    Yes. This is exactly what a false binary is. You presented a situation where more than 2 possibilities exist to put forward a false narrative.

    1. I’ve never had someone describe me as Loquacious,

    You still haven't. I'm implying you have written Diarrhea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Want to know something funny?

    My last reply I wrote to was from an ambulance. I was being rushed to the er because I was dying. See I’ve been so violently sick that I hadn’t been able to keep water down for 3 days. I actively dying.

    I got bored in the 20 min ambulance ride to Brownsville so decided to brows Lemmy.

    I can show you the doctors paperwork if you want proof but my point is :

    No, I have never been angry or mad at you. I’m just having a conversation about something that interests me. That’s litterly all. I don’t think you’re stupid I just disagree with you. You’re free to disagree with me. That’s perfectly fine.

    Don’t take it so personally and buy a dictionary lol

    Edit: that would also explain many of my mistakes while we talked. I was half delirious it’s impressive I made coherent speech at all! Lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Our recent conversation aside, I hope you are back on liquids and are now recovering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I lived.

    As for our conversation: believe me I know I’m a sarcastic asshole but I promise I don’t mean anything by it. That’s just how I talk.

    I enjoyed our conversation. I prefer to talk to people who don’t agree with me. It opens the mind. I never much liked circle jerks lol.

    Seriously that bug I got… a lot of people in the hospital also had. So make sure to keep washing your hands and keep distance from people. You don’t want to catch it bro. It was very painful lol I’ve been bitten by vipers, leg turned black and couldn’t walk… that was less painful than this lol keep safe bro.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If that’s the way you want to see it. Good luck with those many other options that aren’t really there.

    I know you believe “no there’s a third option of riding fluffy unicorns into the sunset!”

    No there’s isn’t. That has never been option.

    As for the word my loquacious I guess I just mixed that while speed reading. I’m not really paying all that much attention to you. I’m not angry just bored.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    And that worked extremely well exclusively for white men in that great society you mentioned. It leaves out “lessers” living in that society. The ones who struggled to scrape by because their homes were redlined and valueless and they just took down your neighborhood to build another toll road.

    The fact is that perfect time was only perfect for those in the chosen class. Boo.

    I think we can do better than that.

    Go read “the power broker” good book.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It's an understandable concern but IMO if people are made aware of the value of their personal information being used to advance information age, like people learned the value of their labour during the Industrial age, then we can leverage to demand UBI. We need to be compensated for eventually losing jobs to robots, and using our information that trained the AI doing the jobs they would replace us with.

    And even if it's not compensation by UBI, there is universal basic services in which people are provided housing and utilities unconditionally. Carbon dividend could also be a source of income to fund UBI or UBS until we achieve net zero greenhouse emissions.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder, if they hinder the car enough, wouldn't that cause the remote operator to connect to it? Sounds like you've now identified a driver :-)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Shut it down and impound it? It's a fucking piece of MALFUNCTIONAL equipment, SHUT IT DOWN.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    17 comments in c/offbeat@lemmy.ca view that post
    6 comments in c/avs@futurology.today view that post
    3 comments in c/world view that post