I’ll be the last person to defend Google’s property rights. But what’s going on with casual arson in American cities? This isn’t the first article of its type I’ve read. I remember an incident...
I’ll be the last person to defend Google’s property rights. But what’s going on with casual arson in American cities? This isn’t the first article of its type I’ve read. I remember an incident from last year where this happened to a parked car in a different city. I’m mostly upset about the chaos these people are causing in a place where normal good people live.
I mean, the article said they threw a firework in it which caused the fire, not a molotov. Not defending them, just saying this was less "let's burn shit" and just dumb assholes getting out of...
I mean, the article said they threw a firework in it which caused the fire, not a molotov. Not defending them, just saying this was less "let's burn shit" and just dumb assholes getting out of hand.
Reckless arson, yeah, but no more chaos than any sports team victory might bring.
It may be because I've been watching The Good Place again but it has very Jason Mendoza vibes. Someone yelled Bortles and chucked a firework and thought very little about the consequences. Idk if...
It may be because I've been watching The Good Place again but it has very Jason Mendoza vibes. Someone yelled Bortles and chucked a firework and thought very little about the consequences.
Idk if it's just a "fuck with the robot" thing or what the way they're targeted. While this is much more dangerous, I laugh at the people that put cones out to confuse the self-driving cars.
There's definitely a lot of hate for these vehicles in the city. They aren't ready to be out here driverless, but we don't have politicians stopping it. A driverless car (cruise) recently ran over...
There's definitely a lot of hate for these vehicles in the city. They aren't ready to be out here driverless, but we don't have politicians stopping it. A driverless car (cruise) recently ran over and dragged a woman in SF. Combine that with a general hate of tech by some in the bay because of the extreme gentrification and you ended up with things like this and the less harmful version where they put cones out to confuse them.
It's frankly kind of interesting to see how property damage, riot, etc has played out in this area. I was in Oakland during the initial BLM protests and I remember walking past the federal...
It's frankly kind of interesting to see how property damage, riot, etc has played out in this area. I was in Oakland during the initial BLM protests and I remember walking past the federal building the morning after and observing how it was all damaged and tagged but the USPS building which was also right there was pristine except the sidewalk was tagged with a bunch of messages like 'keep it up USPS we love you'
Although, it's attacking a building in Oakland because of something that happened in Minneapolis, so it's hardly justice. When people get angry they go after anything local they don't like....
Although, it's attacking a building in Oakland because of something that happened in Minneapolis, so it's hardly justice. When people get angry they go after anything local they don't like. (Sometimes, minority shopkeepers.)
Yeah there were a lot of sad signs posted at the time. In San Mateo someone had boarded up their windows and spray-painted “Black Owned Business” on it. Granted, I don’t recall any broken glass...
Yeah there were a lot of sad signs posted at the time. In San Mateo someone had boarded up their windows and spray-painted “Black Owned Business” on it. Granted, I don’t recall any broken glass north of San Jose at the time. But it’s depressing to think of the real fear people had that they’d get blindly targeted by some idiot thinking that stealing from a local store is supporting a political movement.
Sometimes I wonder if we should be adding more services under the umbrella of organizations we already like. Defund the police? What about instead super-funding the fire department and having them...
Sometimes I wonder if we should be adding more services under the umbrella of organizations we already like. Defund the police? What about instead super-funding the fire department and having them cover some more social services?
I thought that's what "defund the police" was all about? They were saying "stop giving tax payer money to public services that shoot tax payers, and give tax payer money to expand services that...
I thought that's what "defund the police" was all about? They were saying "stop giving tax payer money to public services that shoot tax payers, and give tax payer money to expand services that don't shoot people (and preferably save them)"
And also just, you know, the established media outlets repeatedly echoing the worst-possible-interpretation no matter how many times experts say otherwise.
And also just, you know, the established media outlets repeatedly echoing the worst-possible-interpretation no matter how many times experts say otherwise.
Yes, but good luck condensing "Take social service duties away from the police and give them to other people whom are better qualified" to a 3-word soundbite less-bad than "defund the police." See...
Yes, but good luck condensing "Take social service duties away from the police and give them to other people whom are better qualified" to a 3-word soundbite less-bad than "defund the police."
I won't disagree there...but BLM was ambiguous enough of a blurb that it let "All Lives Matter" spring up and sucker in otherwise well-meaning centerists whom would agree with BLM. The point is...
I won't disagree there...but BLM was ambiguous enough of a blurb that it let "All Lives Matter" spring up and sucker in otherwise well-meaning centerists whom would agree with BLM.
The point is there's no winning, and even the best blurbs will inevitably be twisted into their worst-possible light by those threatened by them.
There is no doubt that the opposition will always be well funded and hire skilled staff, including lawyer and pr experts. I try to remember the history of social movements, the successes as well...
There is no doubt that the opposition will always be well funded and hire skilled staff, including lawyer and pr experts.
I try to remember the history of social movements, the successes as well as the failures, but it is never an even fight.
If you have to explain that your slogan actually means something completely different from its plain reading then you've chosen a terrible slogan and the consequences of that are your own damn fault.
If you have to explain that your slogan actually means something completely different from its plain reading then you've chosen a terrible slogan and the consequences of that are your own damn fault.
Most frustrating aspect of the whole thing. As soon as my parents heard "defund the police" they assumed it meant get rid of them entirely. It didn't matter how much I tried to explain to them...
Most frustrating aspect of the whole thing.
As soon as my parents heard "defund the police" they assumed it meant get rid of them entirely. It didn't matter how much I tried to explain to them that the idea is to reorganize and re-prioritize law enforcement spending so that when an autistic kid has a meltdown, the only person who shows up to help isn't some underpaid dude with a gun and no training in how to handle a mental health crisis.
I am aware but I never heard anyone say who would get the money. I assumed it would go to a new service or something obscure. I’m certain if the calls for defunding the police were followed with a...
I am aware but I never heard anyone say who would get the money. I assumed it would go to a new service or something obscure. I’m certain if the calls for defunding the police were followed with a request to add funding to firefighters everyone would nod along in agreement.
A human driver driving down a block where there are thousands of people in the streets with fireworks would probably turn around, not try to inch through.
A human driver driving down a block where there are thousands of people in the streets with fireworks would probably turn around, not try to inch through.
As you say, that was Cruise, not Waymo. Using that particular incident to justify stopping all driverless cars would be like wanting Airbuses to be grounded because of something Boeing did. The...
As you say, that was Cruise, not Waymo. Using that particular incident to justify stopping all driverless cars would be like wanting Airbuses to be grounded because of something Boeing did.
The DMV was able to make that distinction, but I guess people in general don't.
What's the ratio of miles per fatal accident for these driverless cars? If it's less than that of real drivers, then they are already a net win in terms of safety. It's really sad when someone...
What's the ratio of miles per fatal accident for these driverless cars?
If it's less than that of real drivers, then they are already a net win in terms of safety. It's really sad when someone dies in an accident, but I think people forget how dangerous cars already are in the hands of human drivers. Taking these automated vehicles off the roads will only make the roads safer if these cars are more likely to cause a fatal accident than the average human driver.
These aren't well studied. We don't even have an idea of rates after training, virtual experiments, etc. We have vanishingly little data on this because it's all corporate IP.
These aren't well studied. We don't even have an idea of rates after training, virtual experiments, etc. We have vanishingly little data on this because it's all corporate IP.
Mob mentality is one thing that truly infuriates me. I see videos like these of a crowd of onlookers goading strangers into increasing levels of criminality, cheering every escalation until a...
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”
Men in Black
Mob mentality is one thing that truly infuriates me. I see videos like these of a crowd of onlookers goading strangers into increasing levels of criminality, cheering every escalation until a full-blown riot erupts. I’m a pretty even-tempered dude but something about this phenomenon makes me rage. I just want to grab these idiots by the lapels, remove them from the jeering audience, and ask them what the hell they are doing and why the hell they’re doing it. I want to lecture them for an hour about respect, decency, empathy, and striving to make better people of ourselves. I want to shame them. I want to see recognition light up in their vacant faces and I want to hear them bleat feeble apologies.
I mean I guess all (non-victimless) crime gets under my skin to some degree, but it’s the emergent inhumanity that shows up in crowds that just particularly makes me seethe.
That is how these people feel about the corporations who have done irreperable harm to their communities. The little spark that ignites the crowd to go further doesn't just come from nowhere. Tech...
That is how these people feel about the corporations who have done irreperable harm to their communities. The little spark that ignites the crowd to go further doesn't just come from nowhere. Tech billionaires have absolutely pillaged San Francisco and they care nothing at all for the people they've hurt and communities they've exploited. You SHOULD ask the people why the hell they're doing it. Describing is as emergent inhumanity is kind of poetic, because the people they rail against have spent a lot of time dehumanizing them.
There is a pretty justifiable feeling that tech companies have more rights than the humans living in San Francisco. It has been a problem for a while already and the people have no recourse...
There is a pretty justifiable feeling that tech companies have more rights than the humans living in San Francisco. It has been a problem for a while already and the people have no recourse because they have no money. San Franciscans living in the places where they test these vehicles do NOT want them doing it there, but they are being ignored. So I wouldn't call this casual arson really, but a last resort at trying to have some control over their own community and send a message ro waymo. People really hate those cars and it's crazy that they are allowed to test them out without nearby people consenting to it.
Waymo sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to prevent data on driverless crashes from being released to the public. The city is suing the public utilities commission for giving companies approval to operate without requiring any real safety requirements. The approach is only to revoke a permit AFTER an incident egregious enough to scare people. Like the pedestrian who got hit and dragged 20 feet. Personally I don't think tech companies should have the right to experiment on us. The people who burned the car likely believe that local governments should have a say in whether a potentially dangerous fleet of unmanned vehicles is allowed to operate there.
From the video it doesn’t seem like a thoughtful protest. I would absolutely be all for a protest that couldn’t cause any harm to anyone. Google needs their arrogance checked.
From the video it doesn’t seem like a thoughtful protest. I would absolutely be all for a protest that couldn’t cause any harm to anyone. Google needs their arrogance checked.
I kind of suspect the people who burned the car thought it would be a bit of fun and some entertainment rather than having any moral underpinning/motivation. Is it? They have a safety driver in...
I kind of suspect the people who burned the car thought it would be a bit of fun and some entertainment rather than having any moral underpinning/motivation.
People really hate those cars and it's crazy that they are allowed to test them out without nearby people consenting to it.
Is it? They have a safety driver in the cars aiui so it doesn't really make sense why they should require the approval of local residents moreso than any other corporation who wants to drive company cars around?
The term you're looking for is "(over)zealous sports fanatic". There are jokes made about certain cities- Toronto and Philadelphia come to mind- where whether the sports team wins or loses,...
The term you're looking for is "(over)zealous sports fanatic".
There are jokes made about certain cities- Toronto and Philadelphia come to mind- where whether the sports team wins or loses, there's going to be property destruction and far-from-peaceful shenanigans.
The rioting is worse when we win. Losing just deflates any enthusiasm for flipping cars. The Illuminati demanded the Eagles not be permitted to win a second or third Superbowl within a decade,...
The rioting is worse when we win. Losing just deflates any enthusiasm for flipping cars.
The Illuminati demanded the Eagles not be permitted to win a second or third Superbowl within a decade, lest it trigger the revolution. Notice increase in large demonstrations nationwide in the wake of Superbowl 52. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
Bouts of vandalism have unfortunately happened a few times here in Toronto after sporting events (e.g. after the Raptors won the 2019 NBA Finals), but it's pretty rare, never caused hugely...
Bouts of vandalism have unfortunately happened a few times here in Toronto after sporting events (e.g. after the Raptors won the 2019 NBA Finals), but it's pretty rare, never caused hugely widespread damage, and never been due to a loss, AFAIK. It's always been caused by over-exuberant celebrations after big wins, since our sports teams rarely get big wins so we tend to go a bit overboard whenever they do. :(
This would be my mistake- I'm probably thinking of the Vancouver incident. However, given the Toronto Maple Leaf's record in hockey (and just to point it out, I realize I'm talking about Canadian...
This would be my mistake- I'm probably thinking of the Vancouver incident.
However, given the Toronto Maple Leaf's record in hockey (and just to point it out, I realize I'm talking about Canadian teams, not ones from the USA)... a win by them might have some less than savory effects on the city.
LOL. Yeah, in the extremely unlikely event that the Leafs ever actually win the Stanley Cup, the city (and rest of the Province) is probably going to go absolutely crazy. But I doubt it will be...
LOL. Yeah, in the extremely unlikely event that the Leafs ever actually win the Stanley Cup, the city (and rest of the Province) is probably going to go absolutely crazy. But I doubt it will be too bad even then, probably just more cases of vandalism like we saw after the Raptors won. If the Leafs make it to the cup but lose... well, we're more used to losing than most, so I don't forsee a riot happening here like it did in Vancouver. ;)
Just a thing that happens, I guess, does that not happen in other places? I just kind of accepted that its a semi-normal thing to happen on occasion, and I don't even live in a large city or near...
Just a thing that happens, I guess, does that not happen in other places? I just kind of accepted that its a semi-normal thing to happen on occasion, and I don't even live in a large city or near one at that.
Yeah, I mean I think I hear about football hooligans setting stuff on fire about as much as I hear about Americans setting things on fire. People like fire. It's one of the things we do as a species
Yeah, I mean I think I hear about football hooligans setting stuff on fire about as much as I hear about Americans setting things on fire. People like fire. It's one of the things we do as a species
I work in the city. I know it's not a hell hole. I don't really know that much about the approval process these cars went through or the ability of citizens of SF to have changes made.
I work in the city. I know it's not a hell hole.
I don't really know that much about the approval process these cars went through or the ability of citizens of SF to have changes made.
The process did not include local governments agreement, and local government has sued the public utilities commission, but it isn't going super well. They want regulations and safety...
The process did not include local governments agreement, and local government has sued the public utilities commission, but it isn't going super well. They want regulations and safety requirements, and they want transparency into accident data. Waymo said no, that's proprietary.
Regardless of the supporters of autonomous machines, I think their designers should remember that people have fewer inhibitions about damaging them or cheating them/ stealing from them, than they...
Regardless of the supporters of autonomous machines, I think their designers should remember that people have fewer inhibitions about damaging them or cheating them/ stealing from them, than they would with human beings. And crime against people is already a significant problem
That's why you use paint for your property damage. Some not-so-tastful graffiti makes them a blight to drive around...and they probably won't be able to bill the insurance company for a total loss.
That's why you use paint for your property damage. Some not-so-tastful graffiti makes them a blight to drive around...and they probably won't be able to bill the insurance company for a total loss.
When I saw this I thought it was modern day luddites smashing technology that was endangering them. But from overall impressions it's just normal city-sets-stuff-on-fire, except with a driverless...
When I saw this I thought it was modern day luddites smashing technology that was endangering them. But from overall impressions it's just normal city-sets-stuff-on-fire, except with a driverless car which is already pretty futuristic if you think about it.
10k rule: The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were a labor movement of highly-skilled artisians using the tools they were destroying. They were only destroying the tools of owners whom...
The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were a labor movement of highly-skilled artisians using the tools they were destroying. They were only destroying the tools of owners whom were using them with untrained workers to churn out low-quality goods instead of high-quality goods, thus destroying the market for high-quality goods.
The disposable garbage we have now is a result of the Luddites losing their battle.
Not even the technology....the application of that technology. A skilled technician using a machine will produce much better goods than an unskilled one. An example that you can see today: The...
Not even the technology....the application of that technology. A skilled technician using a machine will produce much better goods than an unskilled one.
An example that you can see today: The workmanship difference between a good roofing company using skilled laborers and one using temp workers overseen by a manager or two. Power tools enable skilled workers to work faster, but they also lower that barrier to entry for unskilled workers...and shady companies will happily throw together shoddy work to underbid skilled workers. You generally won't notice shoddy work right away on an shingle roof replacement...you'll notice it after a few bad storms when a bunch of poorly-secured shingles rip off your roof. Or badly-done flashings bring leaks into your ceiling.
The recent writers and actors strikes were at least partially about providing protections against AI devaluing their labor falls into that same vein as well.
It is certainly not intended as such, and I'm sorry it came across that way. It is intended as a way of saying: I know there's a decent chance you know this, and it's definitely been discussed on...
It is certainly not intended as such, and I'm sorry it came across that way. It is intended as a way of saying:
I know there's a decent chance you know this, and it's definitely been discussed on Tildes before. But it's important to get visibility because otherwise this is how misinformation spreads. You never know who is encountering it for the first time.
Linking the comic and saying 10k rule is much more concise, and providing a link to the origin avoids a lot of subsequent 'what does that mean' or googling instead and hitting the wrong thing.
The whole point of hyperlinks is that it becomes easier to contextualize things. And the XKCD comic explaining it has just as few odds of being seen as the correct information about Luddites. And it's a light and airy way of saying 'celebrate sharing information.'
And am I trying to make it a thing? Yes, because it helps provide social context that says "I think most people either should or already do know this." Which I think is especially relevant on a site like Tildes where a good number of us have had these conversations before and you never know which newcomers (or oldtimers for that matter) haven't seen it.
I appreciate the thought that you put into your reply. However i think you should reconsider replying to people with '10k rule.' You should know that on the receiving end, it has the opposite...
I appreciate the thought that you put into your reply. However i think you should reconsider replying to people with '10k rule.' You should know that on the receiving end, it has the opposite effect than "celebrating sharing information."
It does not feel good when you try to add to a discussion, and someone ignores what you wrote and instead replies with an xkcd about people learning about something for the first time. Even if you intend it to gently correct someone, or be a nice thing for a broader audience, it comes off as assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, and feels like 'putting someone in their place.'
We could discuss the Luddites and disagree, or engage on their history and misconception, but bypassing that and assuming someone doesn't know what they're talking about and are going to find out for the first time by linking to a comic is, hopefully understandably, insulting.
Based on your response, I don't think this was your intent, but I think you should know the effect that it had. If you want to make it a thing, consider how disrespectful it feels when you accuse someone (wrongly) of not knowing what they're talking about.
If we do have a disagreement about Luddites, it would be interesting to talk about it. I suspect that we're on the same page -- they were a group that was not anti-technology, but rather anti- capitalist industrialists using that technology to exploit unskilled workers, displacing them. They did smash that technology when it was used by wealthy industrialists to harm them.
Personally I am less radical than that, and don't typically agree with destroying property unless it is really crossing some moral threshold, but the group I originally linked to has a more nuanced take on it. If modern day protestors were really going out to destroy self-driving cars as protest against rich industrialists circumventing safety concerns and putting them at risk, then I would say their motivations are related to those original Luddites.
I’ll be the last person to defend Google’s property rights. But what’s going on with casual arson in American cities? This isn’t the first article of its type I’ve read. I remember an incident from last year where this happened to a parked car in a different city. I’m mostly upset about the chaos these people are causing in a place where normal good people live.
I mean, the article said they threw a firework in it which caused the fire, not a molotov. Not defending them, just saying this was less "let's burn shit" and just dumb assholes getting out of hand.
Reckless arson, yeah, but no more chaos than any sports team victory might bring.
It may be because I've been watching The Good Place again but it has very Jason Mendoza vibes. Someone yelled Bortles and chucked a firework and thought very little about the consequences.
Idk if it's just a "fuck with the robot" thing or what the way they're targeted. While this is much more dangerous, I laugh at the people that put cones out to confuse the self-driving cars.
There's definitely a lot of hate for these vehicles in the city. They aren't ready to be out here driverless, but we don't have politicians stopping it. A driverless car (cruise) recently ran over and dragged a woman in SF. Combine that with a general hate of tech by some in the bay because of the extreme gentrification and you ended up with things like this and the less harmful version where they put cones out to confuse them.
I gotta say I far prefer random mob arson against insured corporate property over yester-years' random violence against minorities or the homeless.
It's frankly kind of interesting to see how property damage, riot, etc has played out in this area. I was in Oakland during the initial BLM protests and I remember walking past the federal building the morning after and observing how it was all damaged and tagged but the USPS building which was also right there was pristine except the sidewalk was tagged with a bunch of messages like 'keep it up USPS we love you'
Although, it's attacking a building in Oakland because of something that happened in Minneapolis, so it's hardly justice. When people get angry they go after anything local they don't like. (Sometimes, minority shopkeepers.)
Yeah there were a lot of sad signs posted at the time. In San Mateo someone had boarded up their windows and spray-painted “Black Owned Business” on it. Granted, I don’t recall any broken glass north of San Jose at the time. But it’s depressing to think of the real fear people had that they’d get blindly targeted by some idiot thinking that stealing from a local store is supporting a political movement.
Sometimes I wonder if we should be adding more services under the umbrella of organizations we already like. Defund the police? What about instead super-funding the fire department and having them cover some more social services?
Postal banking really lines up with the love for the USPS
Oh yeah. No overdraft or ATM fees would sell pretty well.
I thought that's what "defund the police" was all about? They were saying "stop giving tax payer money to public services that shoot tax payers, and give tax payer money to expand services that don't shoot people (and preferably save them)"
It is exactly this, but it's also an excellent example of poor marketing of the idea.
And also just, you know, the established media outlets repeatedly echoing the worst-possible-interpretation no matter how many times experts say otherwise.
Most people only read the headline, not the article.
If you create a slogan, it should explain itself and contribute to marketing your cause.
Yes, but good luck condensing "Take social service duties away from the police and give them to other people whom are better qualified" to a 3-word soundbite less-bad than "defund the police."
See also: Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives matter spoke to me and to many left leaning people. Defund the police did not until I heard it explained
I won't disagree there...but BLM was ambiguous enough of a blurb that it let "All Lives Matter" spring up and sucker in otherwise well-meaning centerists whom would agree with BLM.
The point is there's no winning, and even the best blurbs will inevitably be twisted into their worst-possible light by those threatened by them.
There is no doubt that the opposition will always be well funded and hire skilled staff, including lawyer and pr experts.
I try to remember the history of social movements, the successes as well as the failures, but it is never an even fight.
"replace the police"?
If you have to explain that your slogan actually means something completely different from its plain reading then you've chosen a terrible slogan and the consequences of that are your own damn fault.
Most frustrating aspect of the whole thing.
As soon as my parents heard "defund the police" they assumed it meant get rid of them entirely. It didn't matter how much I tried to explain to them that the idea is to reorganize and re-prioritize law enforcement spending so that when an autistic kid has a meltdown, the only person who shows up to help isn't some underpaid dude with a gun and no training in how to handle a mental health crisis.
I am aware but I never heard anyone say who would get the money. I assumed it would go to a new service or something obscure. I’m certain if the calls for defunding the police were followed with a request to add funding to firefighters everyone would nod along in agreement.
My favorite was that salad place, Mixt, had graffiti that just said "fuck salads".
I'll accept a mob burning a driverless car over a mob destroying a car owned by some private citizen who needs it to get to work.
Can we not have either, please?
A human driver driving down a block where there are thousands of people in the streets with fireworks would probably turn around, not try to inch through.
As you say, that was Cruise, not Waymo. Using that particular incident to justify stopping all driverless cars would be like wanting Airbuses to be grounded because of something Boeing did.
The DMV was able to make that distinction, but I guess people in general don't.
Waymo did hit a cyclist last week. We don’t have an objective third party to say what happened. But the cyclist wasn’t seriously injured.
People in general are very stupid
What's the ratio of miles per fatal accident for these driverless cars?
If it's less than that of real drivers, then they are already a net win in terms of safety. It's really sad when someone dies in an accident, but I think people forget how dangerous cars already are in the hands of human drivers. Taking these automated vehicles off the roads will only make the roads safer if these cars are more likely to cause a fatal accident than the average human driver.
These aren't well studied. We don't even have an idea of rates after training, virtual experiments, etc. We have vanishingly little data on this because it's all corporate IP.
Mob mentality is one thing that truly infuriates me. I see videos like these of a crowd of onlookers goading strangers into increasing levels of criminality, cheering every escalation until a full-blown riot erupts. I’m a pretty even-tempered dude but something about this phenomenon makes me rage. I just want to grab these idiots by the lapels, remove them from the jeering audience, and ask them what the hell they are doing and why the hell they’re doing it. I want to lecture them for an hour about respect, decency, empathy, and striving to make better people of ourselves. I want to shame them. I want to see recognition light up in their vacant faces and I want to hear them bleat feeble apologies.
I mean I guess all (non-victimless) crime gets under my skin to some degree, but it’s the emergent inhumanity that shows up in crowds that just particularly makes me seethe.
That is how these people feel about the corporations who have done irreperable harm to their communities. The little spark that ignites the crowd to go further doesn't just come from nowhere. Tech billionaires have absolutely pillaged San Francisco and they care nothing at all for the people they've hurt and communities they've exploited. You SHOULD ask the people why the hell they're doing it. Describing is as emergent inhumanity is kind of poetic, because the people they rail against have spent a lot of time dehumanizing them.
There is a pretty justifiable feeling that tech companies have more rights than the humans living in San Francisco. It has been a problem for a while already and the people have no recourse because they have no money. San Franciscans living in the places where they test these vehicles do NOT want them doing it there, but they are being ignored. So I wouldn't call this casual arson really, but a last resort at trying to have some control over their own community and send a message ro waymo. People really hate those cars and it's crazy that they are allowed to test them out without nearby people consenting to it.
Waymo sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to prevent data on driverless crashes from being released to the public. The city is suing the public utilities commission for giving companies approval to operate without requiring any real safety requirements. The approach is only to revoke a permit AFTER an incident egregious enough to scare people. Like the pedestrian who got hit and dragged 20 feet. Personally I don't think tech companies should have the right to experiment on us. The people who burned the car likely believe that local governments should have a say in whether a potentially dangerous fleet of unmanned vehicles is allowed to operate there.
From the video it doesn’t seem like a thoughtful protest. I would absolutely be all for a protest that couldn’t cause any harm to anyone. Google needs their arrogance checked.
Yeah it seemed unplanned and reckless... no one getting hurt was lucky.
I kind of suspect the people who burned the car thought it would be a bit of fun and some entertainment rather than having any moral underpinning/motivation.
Is it? They have a safety driver in the cars aiui so it doesn't really make sense why they should require the approval of local residents moreso than any other corporation who wants to drive company cars around?
The term you're looking for is "(over)zealous sports fanatic".
There are jokes made about certain cities- Toronto and Philadelphia come to mind- where whether the sports team wins or loses, there's going to be property destruction and far-from-peaceful shenanigans.
The rioting is worse when we win. Losing just deflates any enthusiasm for flipping cars.
The Illuminati demanded the Eagles not be permitted to win a second or third Superbowl within a decade, lest it trigger the revolution. Notice increase in large demonstrations nationwide in the wake of Superbowl 52. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
Toronto?
Bouts of vandalism have unfortunately happened a few times here in Toronto after sporting events (e.g. after the Raptors won the 2019 NBA Finals), but it's pretty rare, never caused hugely widespread damage, and never been due to a loss, AFAIK. It's always been caused by over-exuberant celebrations after big wins, since our sports teams rarely get big wins so we tend to go a bit overboard whenever they do. :(
However, the largest and most violent sports riot in Canada actually took place in Vancouver, after the Canuck's lost the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals... so I don't know why Toronto is being singled out.
This would be my mistake- I'm probably thinking of the Vancouver incident.
However, given the Toronto Maple Leaf's record in hockey (and just to point it out, I realize I'm talking about Canadian teams, not ones from the USA)... a win by them might have some less than savory effects on the city.
LOL. Yeah, in the extremely unlikely event that the Leafs ever actually win the Stanley Cup, the city (and rest of the Province) is probably going to go absolutely crazy. But I doubt it will be too bad even then, probably just more cases of vandalism like we saw after the Raptors won. If the Leafs make it to the cup but lose... well, we're more used to losing than most, so I don't forsee a riot happening here like it did in Vancouver. ;)
Just a thing that happens, I guess, does that not happen in other places? I just kind of accepted that its a semi-normal thing to happen on occasion, and I don't even live in a large city or near one at that.
Yeah, I mean I think I hear about football hooligans setting stuff on fire about as much as I hear about Americans setting things on fire. People like fire. It's one of the things we do as a species
I work in the city. I know it's not a hell hole.
I don't really know that much about the approval process these cars went through or the ability of citizens of SF to have changes made.
The process did not include local governments agreement, and local government has sued the public utilities commission, but it isn't going super well. They want regulations and safety requirements, and they want transparency into accident data. Waymo said no, that's proprietary.
The self-driving cars rock. They drive way better than the humans I see.
Most people I know like and support them.
Regardless of the supporters of autonomous machines, I think their designers should remember that people have fewer inhibitions about damaging them or cheating them/ stealing from them, than they would with human beings. And crime against people is already a significant problem
That's why you use paint for your property damage. Some not-so-tastful graffiti makes them a blight to drive around...and they probably won't be able to bill the insurance company for a total loss.
When I saw this I thought it was modern day luddites smashing technology that was endangering them. But from overall impressions it's just normal city-sets-stuff-on-fire, except with a driverless car which is already pretty futuristic if you think about it.
There was a podcast on Serious Inquiries Only recently which was explaining why people might want to smash technology, historically and in the present...
https://podcastaddict.com/serious-inquiries-only/episode/170309504
10k rule:
The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were a labor movement of highly-skilled artisians using the tools they were destroying. They were only destroying the tools of owners whom were using them with untrained workers to churn out low-quality goods instead of high-quality goods, thus destroying the market for high-quality goods.
The disposable garbage we have now is a result of the Luddites losing their battle.
Yes, exactly. They smashed the specific technology that endangered them.
Not even the technology....the application of that technology. A skilled technician using a machine will produce much better goods than an unskilled one.
An example that you can see today: The workmanship difference between a good roofing company using skilled laborers and one using temp workers overseen by a manager or two. Power tools enable skilled workers to work faster, but they also lower that barrier to entry for unskilled workers...and shady companies will happily throw together shoddy work to underbid skilled workers. You generally won't notice shoddy work right away on an shingle roof replacement...you'll notice it after a few bad storms when a bunch of poorly-secured shingles rip off your roof. Or badly-done flashings bring leaks into your ceiling.
The recent writers and actors strikes were at least partially about providing protections against AI devaluing their labor falls into that same vein as well.
Also you should reconsider blindly linking to that xkcd it's rather condescending
It is certainly not intended as such, and I'm sorry it came across that way. It is intended as a way of saying:
I know there's a decent chance you know this, and it's definitely been discussed on Tildes before. But it's important to get visibility because otherwise this is how misinformation spreads. You never know who is encountering it for the first time.
Linking the comic and saying 10k rule is much more concise, and providing a link to the origin avoids a lot of subsequent 'what does that mean' or googling instead and hitting the wrong thing.
The whole point of hyperlinks is that it becomes easier to contextualize things. And the XKCD comic explaining it has just as few odds of being seen as the correct information about Luddites. And it's a light and airy way of saying 'celebrate sharing information.'
And am I trying to make it a thing? Yes, because it helps provide social context that says "I think most people either should or already do know this." Which I think is especially relevant on a site like Tildes where a good number of us have had these conversations before and you never know which newcomers (or oldtimers for that matter) haven't seen it.
I appreciate the thought that you put into your reply. However i think you should reconsider replying to people with '10k rule.' You should know that on the receiving end, it has the opposite effect than "celebrating sharing information."
It does not feel good when you try to add to a discussion, and someone ignores what you wrote and instead replies with an xkcd about people learning about something for the first time. Even if you intend it to gently correct someone, or be a nice thing for a broader audience, it comes off as assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, and feels like 'putting someone in their place.'
We could discuss the Luddites and disagree, or engage on their history and misconception, but bypassing that and assuming someone doesn't know what they're talking about and are going to find out for the first time by linking to a comic is, hopefully understandably, insulting.
Based on your response, I don't think this was your intent, but I think you should know the effect that it had. If you want to make it a thing, consider how disrespectful it feels when you accuse someone (wrongly) of not knowing what they're talking about.
If we do have a disagreement about Luddites, it would be interesting to talk about it. I suspect that we're on the same page -- they were a group that was not anti-technology, but rather anti- capitalist industrialists using that technology to exploit unskilled workers, displacing them. They did smash that technology when it was used by wealthy industrialists to harm them.
Personally I am less radical than that, and don't typically agree with destroying property unless it is really crossing some moral threshold, but the group I originally linked to has a more nuanced take on it. If modern day protestors were really going out to destroy self-driving cars as protest against rich industrialists circumventing safety concerns and putting them at risk, then I would say their motivations are related to those original Luddites.
The war between the humans and the robots has started
We've given people a chance for the past 100k years, why not try something new? I for one welcome our new robot overlords.