Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The movie debuted at the height of turtlemania in 1990 and became the highest grossing independent film ever at the time. It’s also a genuinely good movie.

Well this would have been fun if the stupid title hadn’t spoiled the whole thing.

The issue is not the overall track record on safety but how AV accidents almost always involve doing something incredibly stupid that any competent, healthy person would not.

As long as the overall number of injuries/deaths is lower for autonomous vehicles (and as you’ve acknowledged, that does seem to be what the data shows), I don’t care how “stupid” autonomous vehicles’ accidents are. Not to mention that their safety records will only improve as they get more time on the roads.

That’s probably true, but their handling of edge cases will only get better the more time they spend on the roads, and it already looks like they’re significantly safer than humans under normal circumstances, which make up the vast majority of the time spent on the road.

In December, Waymo safety data—based on 7.1 million miles of driverless operations—showed that human drivers are four to seven times more likely to cause injuries than Waymo cars.

From your first article.

Cruise, which is a subsidiary of General Motors, says that its safety record “over five million miles” is better in comparison to human drivers.

From your second.

Your third article doesn’t provide any numbers, but it’s not about fully autonomous vehicles anyway.

In short, if you’re going to claim that their track record is actually worse than humans, you need to provide some actual evidence.

Edit: Here’s a recent New Scientist article claiming that driverless cars “generally demonstrate better safety than human drivers in most scenarios” even though they perform worse in turns, for example.

Exactly. As early as the technology still is, it seems like it’s already orders of magnitude better than human drivers.

I guess the arbitrary/unfeeling impression of driverless car deaths bothers people more than the “it was just an accident” impression of human-caused deaths. Personally, as long as driverless car deaths are significantly rarer than human-caused deaths (and it already seems like they are much, much rarer), I’d rather take the lower chance of dying in a car accident, but that’s just me.

How does “driverless cars hitting people is so incredibly rare that a single instance of it immediately becomes international news” at all signify “boring dystopia”? If anything we should be ecstatic that the technology to eliminate the vast majority of car deaths is so close and seems to be working so well.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of ridiculously, insanely amazing.

Good.

I’m just waiting to see how they fuck up Monster Hunter Wilds at this point.

I’ve been playing this game for years and I was today years old when I discovered that it’s not actually a thumbs-up.

The millennial version of minion boomer memes.

I’m a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.

never use my main for anything

Are you sure it’s your main?

Source? No? Thought not.

Yup, I’m so outed by my… citing mainstream sources supporting completely uncontroversial and widely accepted facts, which “MAGA chuds” are well known to do, of course. rolls eyes

Y’all really need to chill on the tribalism bullshit here for a second or so, hey?

“Sorry I didn’t circlejerk” they sniff with superiority as they bravely parrot “blue state good, red state bad” in [email protected]. Yet again, however, this conversation isn’t about which state is good and which state is bad - it’s about which is more important and valuable, and in both cases, the clear answer is Texas.

You’re correct that it’s not currently the largest state economy (Texas would be the 8th largest economy in the world), but you’re ignoring the fact that Texas’s economy and population is growing much faster than California’s (whose population is currently shrinking), which is the relevant metric here, fueled by its natural resource wealth, strategic position, and appealing location for both public and private investment. In the long term, Texas is currently significantly more valuable than California is, and is on track to eclipse its sister state in both economic size and population in the next decade or so.

That has nothing to do with whether this is a good thing or not, of course, but it is a demonstrable fact.

Come talk to me when Texas isn’t violating human rights.

Come talk to me when you can separate your performative moral outrage from a conversation it’s not even relevant to.

Texas isn’t valuable or important and is on the verge of collapse as people are moving out in droves.

Unfortunately, you being real, real mad at the big meanie red state doesn’t change the fact that Texas is seeing an economic and population boom that hasn’t been seen in the US in decades. And while it’s certainly possible that their deeply unpopular policies may inhibit this growth somewhat, that hasn’t been borne out by the data (yet).

That has very little real impact on Texas’ import or value, especially when events like the ones in question are incredibly rare. I’m happy to have a critical conversation about how Texas’ energy policy is hurting its citizens and is ultimately self-defeating, but even if Texas had widespread, daily rolling blackouts it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s demonstrably the most important and valuable state at the moment.

That’s like me arguing that bitcoin isn’t the most important and valuable cryptocurrency by pointing out how much energy it uses and how horrible it is for the environment - that’s also true, but has very little to do with the conversation at hand.

Third world countries definitely don’t, especially at Texas’ scale, but I get your point.

Even so, if Intel’s ok with the power distribution situation, I don’t really see how your comment is relevant to the thread.

Ditto.

Not sure why I’m surprised at the hypocrisy. I’ll remember that the next time I try to engage in good faith with users like you.

Yeah, why bother contributing to the conversation and potentially educating yourself when you can just fall back on getting offended and playing the victim instead!

The only reason I framed my comment the way I did was because of your flippant, entirely unjustified attack on RLL’s credibility, and therefore on me for being dumb enough to be so easily duped by them. I suppose I should be equally sorry that approachable, informative content offends you, but then, I’m not the one that insults people and then gets all offended when the energy I brought to the conversation is matched by my interlocutor.

Edit in response to your edit:

I’m getting really tired of explaining this.

Seems like this behavior of making intentionally antagonizing statements and then playing the victim is reoccurring behavior on your part then. Might want to take a step back and re-evaluate.