A beautiful sight. The tech corps joined the wrong side of this afraid of their own free will. It should cost them at least a little.

But it might be noted that ICE raids are carried out using data provided by Silicon Valley companies—most notably Peter Thiel and Alex Karp’s Palantir, which has a $30 million contract with ICE to manage a “real-time” surveillance system on immigrants. But whether directly or through third party contractors, much of big tech, including Google, has made deals with ICE, too.

A human driver would have the common sense not to drive into a war zone. A robotic money vacuum, not so much.

I get your point, but calling it a war zone is exactly what right wing media wants everyone to hear. It's a protest, we've had one every single weekend since 1/20, in nearly every state, and nobody needed to call the NG.

Let it not go unsaid: fuck waymo, I'm happy to see those death traps burn.

Palantir will be playing the role of IBM in this reenactment of fascism.

Death traps? Can you elaborate?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YwN5hU5PYWs
Sure, this wasn't that dangerous, but knowing that you gotta call Customer Service to get the car to stop in case of emergency is pretty bad design, safety wise.

Map of the incident for clear context https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/08/us/la-immigration-protests-photos-map.html

Archive
https://archive.is/2025.06.10-171551/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/08/us/la-immigration-protests-photos-map.html

I don’t understand why people keep trying to appease right wing media. They are going to say whatever the hell they want in all the bad faith they want anyway to further their agenda. Fuck trying to appease those scum sucking cunts

good to know there's a button in the car. For some reason I thought there only was one in the app which, would it have been the case, is fine if you called the car, but if you're a guest passenger or just in an emergency and can't use the phone, then you'd be screwed.

Doesn't sound too death trappy. Driverless vehicles hold the potential to save many thousands of lives. We should demand the best in the process of transition, and there's no reason to be corporate schills, but fear mongering this technology only slows progress.

I agree that it would be safer eventually, but also, testing in vitae might not be the good way to do it. Sure, testing in prod is fast, but there is a reason we don't do it.

Closed course testing has been near perfect. At some point it needs to be real world tested. It's arguably already far safer than human performance. That seems like a reasonable threshold for prod testing. If this were a vaccine it would likely be on schedule already.

Assuming that what you say is true about closed course testing (and that they truly made an effort to replicate the dynamism of a city), why do they gotta test this snack dab in the middle of cities (where we should rather invest in public transportations anyway) instead of, I don't know, some trails in the woods, where there would also be a bunch of unknowns?

All this reeks of "gotta go to market ASAP to please the investors / shareholders above the rest of humanity" to me.

A driverless car without an emergency stop button IS a death trap. Arguing that this is not so is just really dumb, sorry. All big machinery have emergency stops for a reason, and the laws for those reasons usually are written in blood.

A driverless car without an emergency stop is a disaster in the making

Have you been in one of these vehicles? There is an emergency stop. It's just not a brake. Are you assuming that people can better predict when it's safe to stop emergently? I've never seen data that shows that. If you are in a panic situation the emergency stop pulls over and stops as soon as it can do so safely. You can't break a bus or a train or a taxi. As a passenger you can request any of those to stop when safe to do so. Cars are death traps. People are dying in cars all the time. Driverless vehicles are a safer option and saying otherwise is either ignorance or pushing a luddite agenda.

Waymo's are safer than human drivers, prove me wrong.

Fascist snitches aren't safe. Done.

I work in an area adjacent to autonomous vehicles, and the primary reason has to do with data availability and stability of terrain. In the woods you're naturally going to have worse coverage of typical behaviors just because the set of observations is much wider ("anomalies" are more common). The terrain being less maintained also makes planning and perception much more critical. So in some sense, cities are ideal.

Some companies are specifically targeting offs road AVs, but as you can guess the primary use cases are going to be military.