They probably do, they just don't give a shit. It's still the "move fast and break things" mindset. Internalize profits but externalize failures to be carried by the public. Will there be legal consequences for Waymo (i.e. fines?) for this? Probably not...
They're one-of-one still. Having ridden in a Waymo many times, there's very little "move fast and break things" leaking in the experience.
They can simulate power outages as much as they want (testing) but the production break had some surprises. This is a technical forum.. most of us have been there.. bad things happened, plans weren't sufficient, we can measure their response on the next iteration in terms of how they respond to production insufficiencies in the next event.
Also, culturally speaking, "they suck" isn't really a working response to an RCA.
Waymo cars have been proven safer than human drivers in California. At the same time, 40k people die each year in the US in car accidents caused by human drivers.
I'm very happy they're moving fast so hopefully fewer people die in the future
"Move fast and break things" is a Facebook slogan. Applying it to Google or Waymo just doesn’t fit. If anything, Waymo is moving too slow. 100 people are going to die in seven days from drunk drivers and New Years in the US.
The most effective way of decreasing traffic deaths is safer driving laws, as the recent example of Helsinki has shown. That and better public transportation infrastructure. If you think that a giant, private, for-profit company cares about people's lives, you are in for a ride.
> The most effective way of decreasing traffic deaths is safer driving laws
This is almost hilariously false. "Oh yeah, those words on paper? Well, they actually physically stopped me from running the red light and plowing into 4 pedestrians!"
> If you think that a giant, private, for-profit company cares about people's lives, you are in for a ride.
I honestly wonder how leftists manage to delude themselves so heavily? I'm sure a bunch of politicians really have my best interests at heart. Lol
> This is almost hilariously false. "Oh yeah, those words on paper? Well, they actually physically stopped me from running the red light and plowing into 4 pedestrians!"
It's very clearly proven that hitting a pedestrian with 50 km/h is exponentially more dangerous than hitting them with 30 km/h. It's very clearly proven that having physically separted bike lines prevents deaths. It's very clearly proven that other measure like speed bumps, one-way streets, smart traffic routing prevents deaths.
And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.
It's very clearly proven that murder is dangerous, yet people still commit it. You still have not explained how laws stop things from happening, as if by magic.
> And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.
This says more about you than it does me. Taking the most cynical view possible, at least a for profit company has a profit motive to keep me alive unlike a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat doesn't lose their salary if traffic deaths go up. In fact, if a problem gets worse, they often receive more funding to fix it. If a government road is dangerous, you cannot easily fire the government and switch to a competitor's road.
The success you mentioned in Helsinki wasn't a triumph of law; it was a triumph of engineering. The question is not whether we want safety, but which system—a state monopoly with no financial penalty for failure, or a private entity that faces financial ruin if it kills its customers—is more likely to engender it.
