They really can't stop tying themselves into knots to dunk on self driving cars. They don't even know it's the case, they just suspect it's the case. Even if it _were_ the case, the drivers behind them most likely don't have this information available, they probably can't distinguish between "SDV being cautions and giving right of way" and "SDV stopping an immediate impact", they can just see a car in front of them suddnely stopping. So they should stop.
If the pedestrian hasn't gotten to the driveway quite yet, and you're stopping to let them get there and cross out of an abundance of caution, then it may not have been legally required for you to yield. And the motorcyclist behind you could very reasonably have seen the pedestrian too (and reasoned that the pedestrian was still several seconds away from getting to the driveway) and not expected you to stop. In such a situation, such an abundance of caution could have easily "caused" an accident, in that not yielding and proceeding through would have been perfectly safe.
(I'm of course being steel-manning GP's argument here, it could have very easily been that the pedestrian was already crossing the driveway at that point, I didn't see the video. Point is, "more caution" doesn't always mean "less chance of an accident".)
> Point is, "more caution" doesn't always mean "less chance of an accident"
that's a fair point. For example, if you're on a highway and traffic is moving at 80mph however the speed limit is 55mph and so you're driving 55 you're doing way more harm than good. Becoming an obstacle to traffic makes an accident more likely regardless of whether you're right or wrong.
Having said that, I do not see the waymo at fault here at all. The other car driver turned a minor accident into a fatality without involving the waymo, pedestrian, or even the motorcyclist. They were just not paying attention and ran over the poor person.
I think the difference is that, in the table tennis example, it happens unconsciously and you can't help it. But you're right, it likely happens in most sports.
The mixed boys/girls classes example is, as you said, deliberate. And I too remember holding back on purpose in such situations when I was a kid.
With the arcade, no one was deliberately holding back. I'm sure of it.
Is it that you’re holding back against weaker opponents, or that you’re more excited and engaged when you’re playing against someone that forces you closer to the edge of your ability?
Hauling "hundreds of pounds of supplies every single day" is a fringe use case, essentialy nobody does this, it's not relevant.
"Maybe you don't understand people's needs and motivations as much as you think you do."
It's the opposite. You're confusing "needs" with "wants" and extrapolating the needs of the very, very few people who genuinely need a truck onto the entire population.
The vast majority of people use their cars to transport only themselves to work each day, then maybe pick/drop off one more person, then maybe go buy groceries.
I don't think you quite understand just how ridiculously niche valid use cases for trucks are. It's literally just towing, or some very specific off-road hauling. Everything else is going to be handled way better by something else, starting with a regular car, ending with a van.
Hell, for most people even a car is way overkill, a bike works perfectly fine to go to work each day, I assure you. So does public transport. You don't need 2 tons of steel just to to move your 100 kg body around.
To your analogy, I can use my dinky little chromebook 99% of the time and only boot up my PC when I actually need the power.
- My trucks require roads and do more damage to roads than trains do to rail tracks? No problem, roads are paid for by the taxpayer, while the rail companies have to pay to build and maintain their tracks.
- My trucks produce harmful emissions and particulates that trains don't? No problem, I don't pay for any of that.
- My trucks kill people in accidents? Again, no problem, not paying for any of that.
Yay, we've successfully optimized out any inefficiencies of trucks by externalizing literally all that's possible to externalize. Isn't the free market great?
I can't draw a pelican. Literally my only point of reference would be AI pelican drawings from the test. Otherwise I wouldn't know how to draw one at all.
I would be able to draw an accurate bicycle, but I'm an outlier on that. Most people could not draw one [1].
"Cyclist" and "someone on an illegal e-bike" are not one and the same thing.
> And you can see here "normal" bikes clocked at 36 Km:
No, those people freewheeling on a regular city bike on relatively flat ground are not doing 36 km/h. That's around 20 km/h by my somewhat well tuned eyeballs. Have you never been on a bike and measured your speed?
You're not going to be seeing cyclists going 36 km/h beyond significant downhills or sporty people on drop bar bikes putting in significant effort.
Decisively declaring long-term predictions wrong only two years later seems a little premature?
E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be dying and still producing numbers that look like growth for the next few years.
---
Also, how in the world is a Jan 2025 prediction that "I believe we’re at peak AI" getting a simple "Wrong"? How are we deciding what "peak AI" is here?
---
Or, "July 2025: I am not trying to be dramatic, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Cursor is going to die" -> "Wrong (Cursor gets a $60B exit)"
"August 2025: These models have clearly hit a wall where training is hitting diminishing returns" -> "Wrong"
I guess this is just trolling at this point? This is like a research paper tier question, "wrong" doesn't cut it.
---
Very unimpressed with this analysis. Extremely poorly done, and pretty clearly not impartial at all. Shameful. Like, the guy does sound wrong to me, but the analysis is terrible nonetheless.
Now, really? As far as backwards logic goes, this is up there. Better to break the law and endanger others because what, some can't drive for shit?
reply