Rendered at 22:20:35 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
arjie 2 hours ago [-]
Surprisingly low hype for a company running perhaps the most advanced consumer-interactive robots. I’m quite fond of these machines and will periodically rescue them when someone has misused them (door not closed, most commonly). Hope they do well. Very good road participants.
padolsey 13 minutes ago [-]
People seem so used to it now. I love them, I think they're probably one of the most exciting tech I've used in the last ten years. They're also like magical little rescue pods when socially overwhelmed in a busy city.
inigyou 5 minutes ago [-]
They're also covered in cameras the police have access to, which have been used to track down legal protestors in the past. That's why there was a spate of people setting them on fire a few months ago. Basically, every Waymo car is a Flock camera.
SR2Z 2 minutes ago [-]
Stop spreading FUD. The police do not in any meaningful way "have access" to Waymo cameras.
They can subpoena recordings and Waymo will call the cops on you if you commit a crime in one of their cars, but your statement implies Flock-like access which the police simply don't have.
cyanregiment 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cortesoft 2 hours ago [-]
I live very close to LAX, and we have hundreds of Waymos in our area. At first i was a little weary, and kinda weirded out by all of them.
They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers).
I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and it was a bit annoying and kind of funny, but again, it does not happen nearly as often as for human drivers.
I also like taking them. It is nice to just get in and relax and not have to talk to anyone or worry about who is going to pick you up. You can control the temperature and music from your phone, you can drop the pin exactly where you want to be dropped off and picked up, and the ride is smooth and comfortable.
We can debate all the knock on effects of Waymos, but the user experience is pretty great.
WarmWash 1 hours ago [-]
>and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers.
Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news.
Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...
slg 23 minutes ago [-]
Would we apply this same logic to Tesla Autopilot?
As a disclaimer, this is neither an anti-Waymo comment or a pro-Tesla comment, I just find in interesting how these small sample size incidents are both covered and perceived in the absence of actual verifiable safety statistics.
jackp96 10 minutes ago [-]
I'm under the impression (worth a check) that we do have verifiable safety statistics and that Waymos are significantly safer than Teslas at this point?
That's not to say that Tesla's autopilot isn't safer than the average human driver—it might be—but I thought it was settled territory that Waymos are better on safety.
echelon 27 minutes ago [-]
> Edgewood Georgia,
I love when HN mentions my state or city, but that's the road and neighborhood one block down from me. I feel seen.
To add something more substantive to this thread, apparently Google's deal with Uber for distribution has become incredibly adversarial in our state. Uber won't explicitly let you book a Waymo or let you know if you're in the Waymo range.
inigyou 4 minutes ago [-]
Thank you so much for revealing your location. This data point has been added to your shadow profile. Kind regards, Palantir.
alex1138 31 minutes ago [-]
There was a story here about it hitting a child (I think) but it was determined to be much less serious than if a human driver was involved
"As the Waymo approached the double-parked SUV, a child ran out from behind the SUV and into the roadway, directly in front of the Waymo."
Waymo cannae change the laws of physics. Braking distances exist for AI-driven vehicles just as much as human-driven ones.
waterhouse 14 minutes ago [-]
And if anything, I'd expect machines to have faster reflexes than humans. The Medium article is walled off, but I found another source[1]:
"The child reported minor injuries and did not require transportation to a hospital. ... Waymo said at the time that the child ran into the street from behind a double-parked SUV and that the vehicle braked hard before contact, reducing speed significantly before impact."
In SF, there's a crosswalk on a street near me where cars regularly go 35 mph, so they rarely stop for pedestrians. A few days ago, I was waiting on the sidewalk to cross, and a Waymo stopped. I was so surprised, at first I thought it was letting someone out. It took a few seconds to realize that no, it was stopping for me to cross the street.
sebzim4500 4 minutes ago [-]
>You can control the temperature and music from your phone
That's really cool but makes sense. Can't wait for them to be available in London. I'd use them instead of Uber even if they cost much more.
lokar 1 hours ago [-]
I took one to a show at the Hollywood Bowl. Chaotic traffic environment: lots of cars, cones, people directing traffic, pedestrians everywhere. It did great.
asdff 21 minutes ago [-]
YMMV. I tried to order one from a bar. It got confused when it got there, did a 3 point turn in front of me then left without me.
runarberg 15 minutes ago [-]
Whenever I visit San Francisco I get the sense that these robo-taxis are nothing but public transit for those who are willing and able to spend extra money.
I would not compare the user experience to drivers, or the safety record to private cars. I would compare the user experience and the safety record to human driven taxis, buses, light rail, and metro. I am curious if the rider experience is actually any better then taking the M train from the Castro to SF state or the 49 bus between the Mission and Geary. The latter is certainly cheaper, and orders of magnitude more efficient.
epolanski 2 hours ago [-]
It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans.
On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans.
And even though a self-driving car will never road rage or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets, we'll still tolerate humans driving more than one odd 1-in-a-billion ai-error caused incident.
overgard 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to novel situations" is probably the biggest blocker for people to trust them enough for widespread deployment. I'd love to see one of these things drive on a poorly mapped dirt road up in the mountains, for instance (I'm not saying it can't -- I just mean I would personally love to see how it can adapt to that kind of situation)
whack 1 hours ago [-]
> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make
Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying
johngalt 30 minutes ago [-]
That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk.
Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.
cortesoft 60 minutes ago [-]
While I agree with you, not everyone does.
You and I are thinking with a purely logical thought process, but most people don’t reason that way.
A lot of people want to be able to hold someone accountable, and that is more important than the pure probabilities.
They want to be able to blame a person for making a mistake.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations
Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.
stefan_ 39 minutes ago [-]
That's an odd claim. Human failures are uncorrelated, but the Waymos all running the same software must be expected to fail in the same way, in the situations in which they fail. Which is why they often make the news; one Waymo stuck soon sees many of its brethren join it.
ericmay 25 minutes ago [-]
Don't humans fail in the same way too, broadly speaking? Wouldn't it depend on how you categorize failure?
If a Waymo failed because it missed a stop sign, and then another Waymo failed because it was confused about some strange markings on the road, is that not failing "the same way" in the same sense that a person failing to yield or driving drunk?
inigyou 2 minutes ago [-]
I think they're saying if one waymo misses a stop sign every waymo will miss the same stop sign
signatoremo 1 hours ago [-]
Statistics is still the most reliable indicator, because you can’t really tell if a situation is “novel”. How novel is novel? I doubt even Waymo knows for sure.
People will trust them by familiarity, not by any objective measures. Their trust grow as they see them more often, without bad accidents.
JLO64 1 hours ago [-]
My understanding is that they only operate in areas they’ve had approved and pre-mapped out for them though. Practically I don’t think the scenario you’ve described would ever happen, but I too would like to see it (I suspect they wouldn’t handle it well).
I live East of DTLA and twice I’ve seen people driving them around, presumably to map those areas out. It’s pretty annoying that I can’t use them for my late night commutes yet, but I’m eagerly looking forward to when I can!
madaxe_again 2 hours ago [-]
IDK, I've been in the car with someone when they just up and up drove off the road because they failed to notice that there was a corner - and that's a sober human. Another time, someone else, they rounded a corner, saw a tractor in the other lane, and were so surprised that they hit a tree. My mother has totalled six cars - she insists it was someone else's fault every time, but the statistics are somewhat damning. My wife's driving has given me haemmorhoids, I clench so fucking hard. Blind corners at twice the speed limit, looks over her shoulder to talk to passengers, and I constantly find myself buying wing mirrors, fenders, headlights, body panels, hubcaps, and anything else she can break off on traffic, rocks, or street furniture. Well, I did until someone finally took her license away from her for a year.
So... not so sure. Every AV I've ever been in has driven incredibly cautiously compared to a human driver.
munk-a 23 minutes ago [-]
> or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets
On the contrary, autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside. Instead you just place an explosive in the device and send it to the intended destination - as an organization the primary concern then becomes whether the ride is traceable back to you which might be do-able given how "frictionless" rideapps are as long as you get a burner phone, prepaid credit card and are very careful about making sure the device is clean and can't be tied to your person.
Right now the tech is limited to places where carbombings aren't commonplace, but I think driverless cars open a huge potential issue in other markets. I absolutely agree they're safer than drivers are, but let's not be hyperbolic.
JumpCrisscross 22 minutes ago [-]
> autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside
Every city has courier services, including Uber.
inigyou 46 seconds ago [-]
An Uber driver was recently incarcerated for driving a package of drugs 7 hours.
jazzyjackson 1 hours ago [-]
> a self-driving car will never … use the car as a weapon
You are lacking in creativity and vision. With networked autonomous vehicles, all cars can be used as a weapon simultaneously.
hvb2 1 hours ago [-]
> meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
Any company that builds self driving cars or operates them should show how reliable they think they are. Not by showing pr material or stats, that's all 'free'.
Make yourself, as the company, legally liable. If you think it's good, put your name on it and own the risk.
When that happens, I'll trust whoever says it's safe.
dylan604 1 hours ago [-]
When a human driver messes up, there's a person to hold responsible. When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible? If the human messes up to the point they are no longer allowed to drive, that person is no longer on the streets to cause more mistakes. When a robot car messes up, are all of the other cars pulled off the streets as well until the glitch is fixed? Every robot car is essentially the same driver.
cortesoft 57 minutes ago [-]
While we hold humans financially responsible for all accidents, we don’t hold them personally responsible in every case. Most accidents end with no arrests or even tickets. If your hand slips on the steering wheel, you don’t go to jail.
Robot cars would be the same. Insurance is financially responsible, and if the accident is deemed caused by a flaw, it would be the company that made them that is held responsible for fixing it.
phoghed 39 minutes ago [-]
Why would it work any differently than any other category of product or service? If you’re rich you can sue them, if not you’re fucked.
Unless there’s a very bad and widespread issue. Then you join a class action and get $24 on a visa giftcard you can’t figure out how to redeem and then forget about.
elliottkember 59 minutes ago [-]
Mistakes aren’t glitches when the environment is so dynamic. I imagine they are making errors constantly, and constantly learning from them.
When a robot car makes a mistake, all robot cars learn from the experience. When a human messes up, only that human learns from it.
> When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible?
The company owning and operating the robot?
sudokatsu 41 minutes ago [-]
Ah yes, can’t wait to sue Google on equal monetary and political footing. It will be very easy, and very fair. /s
shakna 1 hours ago [-]
If a human makes a mistake, we give them the liability to own up to their mistakes, and carry the costs.
Most self-driving enterprises are trying very hard to ensure their non-driver continues to carry this liability instead of their company.
This helps a them v. us attitude. The company needs to be trusted widescale by the public, and do seem to undercut their own PR efforts on that, repeatedly.
brunoborges 1 hours ago [-]
> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
It comes down to accountability, IMO. We tend to be forgiven to humans because we are humans too and we know we, humans, make mistakes, and these can have serious consequences.
When a human makes a mistake, they are immediately accountable, and therefore judged and forgiven (or not). When technology makes a mistake, who's to blame? The CEO? The software developer who wrote the code? The tester? The architect?
Yes, we want technology to be an order of magnitude safer than humans for this reason, because we know that, given the current way our judicial system works, when technology makes a mistake, no one is held accountable.
sudokatsu 2 hours ago [-]
We don’t tolerate machine incidents because who is liable if an accident occurs? A company with a $4.6 trillion market cap? They’re not a legal opponent any of us really want to take on.
sebzim4500 3 minutes ago [-]
Good point because massive insurance companies can't afford lawyers and no one ever sues large companies.
xnx 45 minutes ago [-]
Lawyers are salivating at the possibility of suing Waymo if they ever make a mistake. Much better to be hit by a Waymo (or a Tesla Robotaxi) than the typical uninsured, "judgement proof", human driver.
sgustard 26 minutes ago [-]
Exactly, imagine the huge sums of liability insurance Google is carrying to make payouts when the worst-case scenario happens. That financial burden is a prime driver of their operational safety record.
sudokatsu 39 minutes ago [-]
Any stats to back up that the _typical_ driver is uninsured?
> we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans
This was the hypothesis. But based on e.g. FSD, it doesn’t seem borne out in reality.
decimalenough 1 hours ago [-]
We have a much higher level of tolerance for things that benefit us while posing a risk to others ("should my own car have FSD") than we do for things that benefit others while posing a risk to us ("should Waymos be allowed in my neighborhood").
andrewmutz 37 minutes ago [-]
> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
I completely disagree with this. I don't "give a pass" to humans killing other humans with a car.
Every year that skeptics delay adoption of autonomous driving is another year where tens of thousands of deaths could be prevented.
munk-a 15 minutes ago [-]
Tesla, in particular, has given those skeptics so much ammunition to be mad at. The delay isn't purely due to luddites but also somewhat driven by prior obvious bad actions by self-driving car companies.
It's also likely that if a switchover is aggressively pursued it'll cause a massive social backlash and likely evolve into a culture war issue.
phinnaeus 52 minutes ago [-]
> a magnitude of order
unless I'm missing something, you meant "order of magnitude"
YKutsev 2 hours ago [-]
Been in a Waymo in SF — impressive tech. But I keep wondering: does the math actually work? Car + all the sensors + maintenance + mapping. Can a single vehicle ever turn a profit?
dmitriy_ko 1 hours ago [-]
Uber rides are around $1.5 per mile on average. Assume Waymo car drives 200K miles over it's lifetime, 3mi/kWh EV efficiently and $0.20/kWh electricity cost. It will generate $300K over it's lifetime and use $13K worth of electricity. Right now it costs $150K to manufacture Waymo car because they are custom built and Lidars are still expensive. Even at $150K unit economics should be OK. But the cost of self driving cars will go down as they are manufactured at larger scale and will eventually approach cost of regular mid-range car. In a few years they will be under $50K per car. Mapping is a one-time cost and the need for mapping will eventually disappear. This will be a massively profitable business for self-driving fleet operators.
xnx 42 minutes ago [-]
Good calculation approach. Waymos will drive a lot more than 200K miles in their lifetime. Taxis often do a million miles. There are already photos out there of Waymo odometers over 100K.
overfeed 1 hours ago [-]
> Can a single vehicle ever turn a profit?
That depends on how low they can get the costs. Waymo took delivery of the last Jaguar i-Pace, and are scaling up production of the Zeekr-based EVs, which I assume are significantly cheaper.
I think the math works, using car rental companies as an anchor point: they are (mostly) profitable*; they have relatively lower Cost of Revenue, but Waymo will have much fatter margins.
* There was a blip when Hertz had to write-down its bold bet on EVs didn't quite work out.
Philpax 2 hours ago [-]
Are you running your replies through a LLM, or is the LLM producing them entirely?
YKutsev 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
otterley 2 hours ago [-]
These companies are taking a very long view (and are funded accordingly). The future vision is one in which cars with drivers just aren't a thing in cities anymore. Nobody owns a car to use in day-to-day intra-city journeys; instead, you just take a drive in an autonomous vehicle on demand.
fragmede 1 hours ago [-]
Back of the envelope, three car costs $200k, charge $20/ride, say that ride costs $5 to operate, $200k/$15 gets you 14,000 rides (rounded). Say 10 rides a day... shy of 4 years to break even.
Substitute in whatever numbers you think are reasonable.
twosdai 2 hours ago [-]
I thought about this as well. The dsytopian world I think will exist in the future where the Waymo is priced higher and people will want to take it more, over a cheaper Uber. Precisely because the human driver is removed from the equation.
So yes, I think they will be able to turn a profit by charging more for the experience. Which is a humanless car.
jerlam 1 hours ago [-]
At least in my area, Waymos are always more expensive than Ubers.
fragmede 25 minutes ago [-]
So, uh, you don't really tip your Uber drivers much then do you?
Right now, Tuesday 3pm, Waymo will cost me 13.76 cross town. UberX 10.95, Lyft 11.95. If I don't tip Lyft/Uber they'll be cheaper but I definitely don't tip the Waymo.
vb-8448 1 hours ago [-]
I'm just curious how it works on the legal side: if a human run the red light he gets a fine, who gets fined with a waymo car?
If the car I'm in cause a big damage or kill someone? I guess the damage will be paid by the insurance but whom insurance? Mine or waymos? And what about criminal implications? Insurance doesn't cover thoose for sure.
skybrian 40 minutes ago [-]
It should be the same as for any public transport: it's the service operator's responsibility to run the system. The rider doesn't need insurance.
I imagine Google has enough money that they can self-insure. Particularly since it's a very low accident rate.
This is somewhat similar to the situation here in LA where they service and very often drive through Westlake/MacArthur-Park which undoubtedly low income. I think it’s for practical reasons though, as they’re not allowed to use the freeways here yet. So for people going from rich areas (Bel-Air/Beverly Hills) to DTLA they need to cross/drive through there anyways.
Even so, I’ve encountered plenty of people who live in those areas and have been able to take Waymos which is great given how sketchy that area can be…
fragmede 12 minutes ago [-]
Ish. The problem with Waymos is there's no human driver, so they'll adjust pick up and drop off in a way that could be dangerous for the passenger. A human driver isn't going let a passenger off into a dangerous situation. They'll block traffic to drop the passenger off at their destination instead of a few blocks away in a dangerous neighborhood.
Waymo's got the legal go ahead to use freeways, but they're working on some of the subtleties of self-driving on the freeway vs city streets before enabling it for everybody. (Specifically, California car culture is you merge left early instead of staying in the right lane until you have to. Apparently the Waymo driver was staying in the right lane.)
judge2020 3 hours ago [-]
I doubt the geofence exclusion is because of the demographics of those areas and not the demand for autonomous vehicles in those areas, although I don't doubt the latter is a result of the former.
smt88 2 hours ago [-]
I doubt this is correct. “It’s expensive to be poor” — a lot of people who can’t afford cars (or have bad credit) end up Ubering to/from work every day
epolanski 2 hours ago [-]
How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.
powersurge360 1 hours ago [-]
If you are curious about this, I recommend There’s No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America. It covers how some folks, with no credit, are forced to live in extended stay hotels (where they take cash up front and don’t run credit) which can cost multiple times what rent can cost.
If you put the author, Brian Goldstone, into YouTube, you can find some recent news coverage of some of the folks from the book and iirc one of them is Ubering in a lemon, working 60-80 hours a week just to break even.
In America, unfortunately, we’ve perfected the debt trap and turned poverty into a profit center. The same equity companies own rental properties, extended stay hotels, and storage locations so they can vertically integrate homelessness.
fragmede 8 minutes ago [-]
The most evil thing I heard was companies like Doordash and Uber buying up data on who has credit card debt, so they know which driver is more desperate for cash, so they can low-ball them and give them a worse offer because they're more likely to take it because they're desperate for it.
>How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.
It's not and it's indeed a very sad statement on public transport. My father has spent some time in his retirement Uber-ing and said it was shocking to him how many repeat customers he got that were having to spend so much just to get to a minimum wage job.
Cider9986 2 hours ago [-]
It's not. It's expensive to be poor.
reaperducer 1 hours ago [-]
How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.
All you have to do is basic math.
Monthly car payment (which is higher if you're poor) + monthly gas spent (which is higher if you buy it in a poor neighborhood) + monthly insurance (which is likely to be higher if you're poor, and/or live in a poor neighborhood) + maintenance is very often far less than what it costs to take a rideshare ride 14 times a week.
When I drove for Uber, about 20% of my rides were people commuting to and from work who could not afford a car.
epolanski 1 hours ago [-]
Aren't you going 20 times per month, twice, that's 40 rides.
At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.
reaperducer 44 minutes ago [-]
Aren't you going 20 times per week, twice, that's 40 rides.
Work 5 days a week = 10 rides. Plus four rides on the weekend, or not. That's why I used 14.
Where do you get 40 rides per week?
At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.
Even if someone did 40 rides per week at your posited average of $25/ride, that's $4,000, not $1,000. Are you letting an LLM do math for you?
elictronic 2 hours ago [-]
Tesla has fewer miles than I have driven in my lifetime. It’s currently still a half baked product. This might be a story in a few years but today you’re comparing an F150 to a Delorean.
hmokiguess 3 hours ago [-]
Missed opportunity to say "Open to Y'all"
BugsJustFindMe 3 hours ago [-]
"Open to All Y'all"
raddan 2 hours ago [-]
Isn't there supposed to be a liaison in there? "Open to Alls Y'all"
That's also when the partnership with Rivian really takes off. Uber clearly wants its own fleet of robotaxis; they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago. Looks like they're content letting other companies take the risk while helping fund them.
overfeed 1 hours ago [-]
Uber also partners with Zoox and Lucid on self-driving, missing this wave may be an existential risk, so they aren't putting eggs in one basket. Nevermind a level of duress due to the Uber/Waymo partnership being (almost certainly) part of a settlement agreement regarding alleged IP theft from Google by way of Anthony Levandowki.
> ...they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago
It was for the best; the Kalanick-era company culture wasn't (/isn't?) compatible with the levels of public trust required for successful self driving.
xnx 38 minutes ago [-]
It's hard to see how Uber is in any way relevant to the future of self-driving.
hexis 3 hours ago [-]
It is so so so so so so bad to have to risk an uber every time I want to hire a Waymo.
flatline 53 minutes ago [-]
I have still not gotten a Waymo even once. I am in the service area. I don't use the service frequently, just enough to be disappointed.
pm90 13 minutes ago [-]
DFW is amongst the top 5 metroplexes in the US and is extremely low density, high sprawl with few public transit options and a car heavy culture. This is a a welcome change.
culi 42 minutes ago [-]
This urbanist youtuber did a really in-depth video on what the future could look like (both good and ugly effects) if self-driving cars become enough of a success to affect the way we build infrastructure
I watched a bit of it and it's mostly stating their own conjectures as facts. There's nothing objective about it, it's just pushing their own personal agenda.
semiquaver 3 hours ago [-]
> Dallasites
Is that seriously the demonym? Terrible. Try harder, Dallasites.
dgunay 3 hours ago [-]
It sounds too much like "parasite" for me to be comfortable using it. I'm assuming some random person made it up. It's okay to just say "people of/from <place>", guys.
raddan 2 hours ago [-]
But then you lose extra important information from words like "masshole."
ndm000 3 hours ago [-]
Having grown up in Dallas, I usually just say "Texan" and call it a day.
gryfft 3 hours ago [-]
Dallasians?
Dallasers?
Dallaslets?
Dallards?
CalRobert 3 hours ago [-]
Dalwegians?
stronglikedan 2 hours ago [-]
Dallazens
dyauspitr 2 hours ago [-]
Dallamites, Dallsatians
JacobAsmuth 3 hours ago [-]
Dallonians
adrianmonk 2 hours ago [-]
What's your better suggestion? Dallasonian? Dallaser? Dallasan?
Also, do you have the same issue with the demonyms Manhattanite or Seattleite?
phinnaeus 49 minutes ago [-]
Seattleite is fine, it is close to satellite
v64 2 hours ago [-]
I live here and use Dallasian myself
seizethecheese 3 hours ago [-]
Texas -> Texan
Kansas - Kansan
Honduras -> Honduran
It should be Dallan?
chasd00 2 hours ago [-]
better than "cityofhate" which is what we're called most of the time.
behnamoh 1 hours ago [-]
In all fairness, I've noticed people here in Dallas/TX are indeed more racist than the East and West coast cities, esp. towards brown people.
triceratops 2 hours ago [-]
Understandable, I'd also hate to live in Dallas /s
gumby271 2 hours ago [-]
Dallmatians
bijowo1676 3 hours ago [-]
I like North Texans
mchusma 3 hours ago [-]
I thought it was a typo, or strange url at first.
behnamoh 1 hours ago [-]
I'm with you on this and this is something I brought up on Dallas subreddits before moving here and got downvoted to oblivion.
"Dallasite" sounds like "parasite". Dallasian/etc. would be better.
massysett 42 minutes ago [-]
How do the cars do when breaking a rule is necessary? For instance, a car is broken down in the one forward lane of a two-lane road, requiring the waymo to cross the double-yellow line to get around it. Or, a signal is red for so long that obviously its car detector isn’t working.
varenc 15 minutes ago [-]
It handles these circumstances. Definitely seen it cross to the other side with oncoming traffic to get around a truck blocking a lane. For the signal light, never experienced that, but I imagine after awhile it'd figure it out. Possibly with the assistance of a remote human telling it.
pyaamb 1 hours ago [-]
Elon may have been technically correct about 'if humans can do it with vision only then theres no reason why vision-only cannot work' but turned out to be the wrong strategy for learning how to get there. lidar gives you a constant stream of data to check your vision yourself against and interatively learn. Once trained you turn it off. whereas teslas strategy ended up having to rely on human drivers for error feedback which made the learning loop way longer.
alex1138 29 minutes ago [-]
Elon annoys me. Waymo has AFAICT simply a better safety record than Tesla. And he runs SpaceX...?
chrisXOXO 2 hours ago [-]
I am really wondering, how they tackle the long trail problem of unknown situations. Sure they are monitor them constantly but I am asking precisely, how to handle situations that occur ridiculously infrequently: do they sample them 1000x in sim? Or do they use a different model and track uncertainty in the model constantly?
How to get another 0 between the dot and the percent sign in situations where the model makes the wrong choice with a significant probability?
jdlshore 2 hours ago [-]
There was an article a while back that talked about their simulated world model. It has the ability to do things like floods, elephants on the road, etc.
Good case for shorting Uber longer term. The Persian taxi driver may be a good exec but he lost the race
InfiniteRand 60 minutes ago [-]
I wonder how they would handle a freak snowstorm
Sheeny96 2 hours ago [-]
Why are the cars so big? Wouldn't it make sense to have a bunch of much smaller, single person vehicles?
porphyra 2 hours ago [-]
Tesla Cybercab has about three or four times the efficiency and like a fifth of the price by having smaller, two person vehicles. Indeed, the vast majority of trips are taken by single people and it's ridiculous to have a giant machine for them. It would also be okay to have a handful of larger, Model Y-sized vehicles for the multi-person trips.
To actually answer your question: Part of the reason why the Waymo cars are so big is because they got a deal on buying all the Jaguar I-Pace vehicles, which checked several boxes:
* Electric vehicles and hybrids are preferable for self driving cars as they have robust electrical power for the sensors and compute
* Larger minivans or SUVs are preferable for both development work and early scaling up where you can't afford to have both smaller and larger vehicles
* The I-Pace wasn't selling well so they managed to snag the whole production batch
* Though Jaguar isn't exactly known for their great reliability and electrical systems, the I-Pace, manufactured by Magna Steyr, is actually decent
The first two reasons are why the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, the only hybrid minivan sold in the US, was so popular for early self driving car efforts (including with Waymo) in the 2010s.
That said, Waymo's Ojai is somewhat more space efficient than the older I-Pace. They also have the Ioniq 5 coming.
redox99 18 minutes ago [-]
The cybercab would be almost perfect if it weren't for it's low height. It's easier for the elder to get into and out of taller vehicles.
klaff 33 minutes ago [-]
I have one of the most inefficient EVs and it's only 2.4x hungrier than the cybercab. It can comfortably carry 6 adults. I've been in Tesla 3s as Ubers before. They only need 31% more energy than the cybercab.
If the cybercab was 1/5 the price it would be $14k. It won't be $14k.
porphyra 23 minutes ago [-]
The Waymo I-Pace is much less efficient than the regular roadgoing I-Pace. One X user posted a pic of the dashboard of a Waymo with 111,000 miles on the odometer, and it averaged 1.0 kWh per mile [1][2]. This is about 2.5x worse than the EPA rating of a normal Jaguar I-Pace. Probably the difference is because the Waymo has tons of compute and the sensors have a surprisingly large impact on aerodynamic efficiency. I was being generous to the Waymo in my original comment. If we compare the actual rating of the Cybercab at 165 Wh per mile, it would be 6x as efficient.
Also, whereas the stock Jaguar I-Pace was $70k, the Waymo one with all its sensors and compute have estimates ranging from $150k to $200k. In a comment made in late 2024, Waymo CEO Dmitri Dolgov mentions that the sensors and compute themselves cost $100k [3].
> The equipment on Waymo’s fifth-generation robot taxis — electric Jaguar I-Pace vehicles — costs as much as $100,000, Dmitri Dolgov, Waymo’s co-chief executive, said on a podcast in February.
That is the same generation as the current I-Pace fleet that makes up the majority of Waymos.
> Tesla Cybercab has about three or four times the efficiency and like a fifth of the price by having smaller, two person vehicles
I read this as Tesla Cybertruck and was mightily confused for a minute.
Looking it up in Wikipedia I see it has no driver support (steering, pedals, etc). Is that even road-legal?
cortesoft 2 hours ago [-]
Why would it make more sense? It isn't like a car half the size would cost half as much, but it would severely limit the capacity. Now, you can get a waymo for 1-4 people, but if some (or all) were single occupant, you would be limited.
Being smaller does not help that much much in cost per mile, but has a big cost for functionality.
jwpapi 2 hours ago [-]
I’m thinking that since 2015. Like BMW C1 just with doors on the side and a bit more security. This would approx allow 3-4x as many travellers on a given route compared to traditional cars.
grim_io 2 hours ago [-]
A C1 with more security, meaning more material and air between you and a potential high-speed obstacle, is called a car and is sized like one.
smt88 2 hours ago [-]
SFC costs don’t scale linearly with volume or number of seats.
The cameras, LIDAR, and sensors are all fixed costs. You need them on even a single-person car. And they’re extremely costly.
arccy 2 hours ago [-]
Americans are fat, they don't fit.
2 hours ago [-]
elianaive 3 hours ago [-]
Keeps on being rolled out in red states while being delayed in blue states, quite unfortunate.
runako 2 hours ago [-]
Divide this differently:
- states where the major cities commonly have snow for > 3 months
- states where the major cities commonly have snow for < 1 month
Inclement weather is likely the differentiator. Blue state California gets Waymo in its biggest cities, which handily do not get much snow. The other Waymo cities are all below the Mason-Dixon Line.
xnx 2 hours ago [-]
Blocked even from testing in NYC. Blocked from DC and Boston. Unfortunately this does have more to do with bad government than bad weather.
runako 2 hours ago [-]
Boston, according to Waymo[1], is dependent on the legislature making autonomous vehicles legal. Apparently NY state laws also require a human driver at the wheel.
The only surprising thing about this is that other states did not require changes in law. It's Good, Actually, that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us.
In any case, there are more than 2-3 "blue" states. We can note that it's also not running in cold "red" states either. The climate angle fits the data best and aligns with what Waymo says, which aligns with what we have known about the tech for at least a decade.
(That note also suggests they are still testing their cold-weather kit and are not quite ready.)
I personally saw a Waymo in NYC on June 26th at 14th St and 8th Avenue, so they’ve done some recent testing at least.
cyberax 1 hours ago [-]
NYC's government is focused on maximizing the pain and inconvenience for its citizens. So this tracks.
runako 35 minutes ago [-]
State law requires a human driver to operate vehicles at all times. This is not coming from NYC.
WarmWash 1 hours ago [-]
NYC has Mamdani, who is a very progressive populist mayor, and a longtime (active) supporter of the taxi drivers union.
There is close to zero chance it gets approval in NYC before 2030. I'd be totally floored if he goes against the union, but the optics are absolutely terrible for cabs.
overfeed 1 hours ago [-]
Waymo can't launch anywhere in NY state due to state law, but by all means, trot out your favorite whipping boy.
staplor 15 minutes ago [-]
It is unfortunate, but we're still in the early days of AV's. I think that more cities and states will be amenable to them once they have proven themselves as indispensable.
cortesoft 2 hours ago [-]
They have been fully open here in Los Angeles for almost two years now.
porphyra 2 hours ago [-]
the metro areas where it gets rolled out are all blue regardless of state
Zigurd 2 hours ago [-]
It's easier to roll out in places where it seldom snows.
xnx 2 hours ago [-]
Definitely true, but snow affecting driving conditions is becoming pretty rare in cities like Chicago.
skeeter2020 2 hours ago [-]
maybe weather events that disrupt travel, but impact things like visibility, lane definition, etc? That's still super-common in Chicago and a lot of the US.
dmitrygr 3 hours ago [-]
"Maybe it's something you've got that they haven't got." - Owen Kellogg
mrtesthah 3 hours ago [-]
Is it unfortunate, though?
km3r 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wwalexander 2 hours ago [-]
What “anti-science slopulism” are you referring to? And what does corporate rollout strategy have to do with science?
xnx 2 hours ago [-]
History of being anti-nuclear. Now against "AI" and self driving cars because they like trains.
mridulmalpani 2 hours ago [-]
I love waymo, but it's very costly compared to Uber.
breckenedge 3 hours ago [-]
Service area is still miniscule.
xnx 2 hours ago [-]
Gotta start somewhere. Still bigger than any competitor.
yieldcrv 3 hours ago [-]
Waymo sells itself
People hate human drivers more than they hate the idea of AI drivers
It’s an extremely consistent experience, and you can sit in the front seat (something I like personally). With Uber and taxi services, you never know what kind of driver or ride you’re going to get.
ooopsss 2 hours ago [-]
Uber is at least 1000x better than traditionally taxi, without any rating system.
sbuttgereit 2 hours ago [-]
They use to be (along with Lyft). But it's been a very long time since that was clearly true.
In reality I think you can get better experiences than a taxi with a rideshare service (which they really haven't been for a very long time), but it's very hit or miss.
So less consistently bad as a taxi service... but far from consistently good.
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago [-]
The real test is, can these self-driving cars drive I-4 without getting into any sort of wreck?
I love Waymo. The only problem I have with it is that it further siphons wages from local economies into Silicon Valley, beyond what Uber/Lyft already did.
boc 2 hours ago [-]
You could argue that cheaper/safer local rideshare would boost traffic to local bars and restaurants in denser areas though. If you want to keep the $ local, just add an AV tax that goes to the city.
Geezus_42 3 hours ago [-]
Dallas drivers are bad enough already...
0xWTF 1 hours ago [-]
Dear American government regulators: nationwide autonomous driving is proving to be easier than delivering fiber to every home. Why do you hate Americans?
ape4 2 hours ago [-]
Anyone with a credit card
ventana 2 hours ago [-]
Debit card works just fine with Waymo, just like with Lyft and Uber.
wilg 2 hours ago [-]
I'm sure you can imagine why it might be unnecessarily complicated for a Waymo to take cash.
vel0city 2 hours ago [-]
There are tons of automated systems which take cash. I do agree it would add some complexity to the equipment in the car, but its not like it would be that difficult to do it. These cars have to go back to the depot eventually, emptying the cash bins would just be one more cleaning step. I do agree though they don't bother because it probably would cost more to manage in the end than the amount of rides they're losing not accepting cash.
Just another example though, while credit card processing fees aren't always cheap its not like its free to process cash.
1over137 2 hours ago [-]
And presumably their app?, which requires either an Apple or Google account.
smt88 2 hours ago [-]
Uber app only requires an email address
smt88 2 hours ago [-]
What reason would someone have not to have a credit or debit card? Credit cards are literally free money, as long as you pay the balance off on time
dymk 2 hours ago [-]
Credit cards are not free money lmao
phoghed 21 minutes ago [-]
They mean the rewards. You can get some % cash back with no annual fee. Effectively my credit card costs me nothing, comes from the same bank as my checking and savings, and gives me cash back.
GuinansEyebrows 14 minutes ago [-]
the other end of this is that all of those rewards are paid for through merchant fees, which lead to higher prices at the register. it's not free money. it's a fraction of a percentage of the profit credit card companies receive in fees paid by the places you shop. i would not be surprised to learn that even with rewards points we spend more money now that those programs are commonplace.
Cider9986 2 hours ago [-]
It does seem necessary to have cameras inside driverless cars but I don't want to if Google is running the show. Your biometrics will probably be stored for "enforcing Google's policies" at a minimum [1].
And then a Waymo dropped teenagers off at the police? I don't care if that was a human, I don't want no snitch car service [2].
They can subpoena recordings and Waymo will call the cops on you if you commit a crime in one of their cars, but your statement implies Flock-like access which the police simply don't have.
They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers).
I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and it was a bit annoying and kind of funny, but again, it does not happen nearly as often as for human drivers.
I also like taking them. It is nice to just get in and relax and not have to talk to anyone or worry about who is going to pick you up. You can control the temperature and music from your phone, you can drop the pin exactly where you want to be dropped off and picked up, and the ride is smooth and comfortable.
We can debate all the knock on effects of Waymos, but the user experience is pretty great.
Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news.
Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...
As a disclaimer, this is neither an anti-Waymo comment or a pro-Tesla comment, I just find in interesting how these small sample size incidents are both covered and perceived in the absence of actual verifiable safety statistics.
That's not to say that Tesla's autopilot isn't safer than the average human driver—it might be—but I thought it was settled territory that Waymos are better on safety.
I love when HN mentions my state or city, but that's the road and neighborhood one block down from me. I feel seen.
To add something more substantive to this thread, apparently Google's deal with Uber for distribution has become incredibly adversarial in our state. Uber won't explicitly let you book a Waymo or let you know if you're in the Waymo range.
"As the Waymo approached the double-parked SUV, a child ran out from behind the SUV and into the roadway, directly in front of the Waymo."
Waymo cannae change the laws of physics. Braking distances exist for AI-driven vehicles just as much as human-driven ones.
"The child reported minor injuries and did not require transportation to a hospital. ... Waymo said at the time that the child ran into the street from behind a double-parked SUV and that the vehicle braked hard before contact, reducing speed significantly before impact."
[1] https://ktla.com/news/local-news/new-details-released-in-way...
That's really cool but makes sense. Can't wait for them to be available in London. I'd use them instead of Uber even if they cost much more.
I would not compare the user experience to drivers, or the safety record to private cars. I would compare the user experience and the safety record to human driven taxis, buses, light rail, and metro. I am curious if the rider experience is actually any better then taking the M train from the Castro to SF state or the 49 bus between the Mission and Geary. The latter is certainly cheaper, and orders of magnitude more efficient.
On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans.
And even though a self-driving car will never road rage or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets, we'll still tolerate humans driving more than one odd 1-in-a-billion ai-error caused incident.
Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying
Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.
You and I are thinking with a purely logical thought process, but most people don’t reason that way.
A lot of people want to be able to hold someone accountable, and that is more important than the pure probabilities.
They want to be able to blame a person for making a mistake.
Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.
If a Waymo failed because it missed a stop sign, and then another Waymo failed because it was confused about some strange markings on the road, is that not failing "the same way" in the same sense that a person failing to yield or driving drunk?
People will trust them by familiarity, not by any objective measures. Their trust grow as they see them more often, without bad accidents.
I live East of DTLA and twice I’ve seen people driving them around, presumably to map those areas out. It’s pretty annoying that I can’t use them for my late night commutes yet, but I’m eagerly looking forward to when I can!
So... not so sure. Every AV I've ever been in has driven incredibly cautiously compared to a human driver.
On the contrary, autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside. Instead you just place an explosive in the device and send it to the intended destination - as an organization the primary concern then becomes whether the ride is traceable back to you which might be do-able given how "frictionless" rideapps are as long as you get a burner phone, prepaid credit card and are very careful about making sure the device is clean and can't be tied to your person.
Right now the tech is limited to places where carbombings aren't commonplace, but I think driverless cars open a huge potential issue in other markets. I absolutely agree they're safer than drivers are, but let's not be hyperbolic.
Every city has courier services, including Uber.
You are lacking in creativity and vision. With networked autonomous vehicles, all cars can be used as a weapon simultaneously.
Any company that builds self driving cars or operates them should show how reliable they think they are. Not by showing pr material or stats, that's all 'free'.
Make yourself, as the company, legally liable. If you think it's good, put your name on it and own the risk.
When that happens, I'll trust whoever says it's safe.
Robot cars would be the same. Insurance is financially responsible, and if the accident is deemed caused by a flaw, it would be the company that made them that is held responsible for fixing it.
Unless there’s a very bad and widespread issue. Then you join a class action and get $24 on a visa giftcard you can’t figure out how to redeem and then forget about.
When a robot car makes a mistake, all robot cars learn from the experience. When a human messes up, only that human learns from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
The company owning and operating the robot?
Most self-driving enterprises are trying very hard to ensure their non-driver continues to carry this liability instead of their company.
This helps a them v. us attitude. The company needs to be trusted widescale by the public, and do seem to undercut their own PR efforts on that, repeatedly.
It comes down to accountability, IMO. We tend to be forgiven to humans because we are humans too and we know we, humans, make mistakes, and these can have serious consequences.
When a human makes a mistake, they are immediately accountable, and therefore judged and forgiven (or not). When technology makes a mistake, who's to blame? The CEO? The software developer who wrote the code? The tester? The architect?
Yes, we want technology to be an order of magnitude safer than humans for this reason, because we know that, given the current way our judicial system works, when technology makes a mistake, no one is held accountable.
This was the hypothesis. But based on e.g. FSD, it doesn’t seem borne out in reality.
I completely disagree with this. I don't "give a pass" to humans killing other humans with a car.
Every year that skeptics delay adoption of autonomous driving is another year where tens of thousands of deaths could be prevented.
It's also likely that if a switchover is aggressively pursued it'll cause a massive social backlash and likely evolve into a culture war issue.
unless I'm missing something, you meant "order of magnitude"
That depends on how low they can get the costs. Waymo took delivery of the last Jaguar i-Pace, and are scaling up production of the Zeekr-based EVs, which I assume are significantly cheaper.
I think the math works, using car rental companies as an anchor point: they are (mostly) profitable*; they have relatively lower Cost of Revenue, but Waymo will have much fatter margins.
* There was a blip when Hertz had to write-down its bold bet on EVs didn't quite work out.
Substitute in whatever numbers you think are reasonable.
So yes, I think they will be able to turn a profit by charging more for the experience. Which is a humanless car.
Right now, Tuesday 3pm, Waymo will cost me 13.76 cross town. UberX 10.95, Lyft 11.95. If I don't tip Lyft/Uber they'll be cheaper but I definitely don't tip the Waymo.
If the car I'm in cause a big damage or kill someone? I guess the damage will be paid by the insurance but whom insurance? Mine or waymos? And what about criminal implications? Insurance doesn't cover thoose for sure.
I imagine Google has enough money that they can self-insure. Particularly since it's a very low accident rate.
Even so, I’ve encountered plenty of people who live in those areas and have been able to take Waymos which is great given how sketchy that area can be…
Waymo's got the legal go ahead to use freeways, but they're working on some of the subtleties of self-driving on the freeway vs city streets before enabling it for everybody. (Specifically, California car culture is you merge left early instead of staying in the right lane until you have to. Apparently the Waymo driver was staying in the right lane.)
If you put the author, Brian Goldstone, into YouTube, you can find some recent news coverage of some of the folks from the book and iirc one of them is Ubering in a lemon, working 60-80 hours a week just to break even.
In America, unfortunately, we’ve perfected the debt trap and turned poverty into a profit center. The same equity companies own rental properties, extended stay hotels, and storage locations so they can vertically integrate homelessness.
It's not and it's indeed a very sad statement on public transport. My father has spent some time in his retirement Uber-ing and said it was shocking to him how many repeat customers he got that were having to spend so much just to get to a minimum wage job.
All you have to do is basic math.
Monthly car payment (which is higher if you're poor) + monthly gas spent (which is higher if you buy it in a poor neighborhood) + monthly insurance (which is likely to be higher if you're poor, and/or live in a poor neighborhood) + maintenance is very often far less than what it costs to take a rideshare ride 14 times a week.
When I drove for Uber, about 20% of my rides were people commuting to and from work who could not afford a car.
At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.
Work 5 days a week = 10 rides. Plus four rides on the weekend, or not. That's why I used 14.
Where do you get 40 rides per week?
At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.
Even if someone did 40 rides per week at your posited average of $25/ride, that's $4,000, not $1,000. Are you letting an LLM do math for you?
Hmm. Maybe in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas?
> ...they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago
It was for the best; the Kalanick-era company culture wasn't (/isn't?) compatible with the levels of public trust required for successful self driving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
Dallards?
Also, do you have the same issue with the demonyms Manhattanite or Seattleite?
It should be Dallan?
Does that include the suburbs?
so, no suburbs, only enclaves
To actually answer your question: Part of the reason why the Waymo cars are so big is because they got a deal on buying all the Jaguar I-Pace vehicles, which checked several boxes:
* Electric vehicles and hybrids are preferable for self driving cars as they have robust electrical power for the sensors and compute
* Larger minivans or SUVs are preferable for both development work and early scaling up where you can't afford to have both smaller and larger vehicles
* The I-Pace wasn't selling well so they managed to snag the whole production batch
* Though Jaguar isn't exactly known for their great reliability and electrical systems, the I-Pace, manufactured by Magna Steyr, is actually decent
The first two reasons are why the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, the only hybrid minivan sold in the US, was so popular for early self driving car efforts (including with Waymo) in the 2010s.
That said, Waymo's Ojai is somewhat more space efficient than the older I-Pace. They also have the Ioniq 5 coming.
If the cybercab was 1/5 the price it would be $14k. It won't be $14k.
Also, whereas the stock Jaguar I-Pace was $70k, the Waymo one with all its sensors and compute have estimates ranging from $150k to $200k. In a comment made in late 2024, Waymo CEO Dmitri Dolgov mentions that the sensors and compute themselves cost $100k [3].
> The equipment on Waymo’s fifth-generation robot taxis — electric Jaguar I-Pace vehicles — costs as much as $100,000, Dmitri Dolgov, Waymo’s co-chief executive, said on a podcast in February.
That is the same generation as the current I-Pace fleet that makes up the majority of Waymos.
[1] https://eletric-vehicles.com/waymo/waymos-retrofitted-robota...
[2] https://x.com/niccruzpatane/status/2073967445509882286?s=20
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/04/technology/waymo-expansio...
I read this as Tesla Cybertruck and was mightily confused for a minute.
Looking it up in Wikipedia I see it has no driver support (steering, pedals, etc). Is that even road-legal?
Being smaller does not help that much much in cost per mile, but has a big cost for functionality.
The cameras, LIDAR, and sensors are all fixed costs. You need them on even a single-person car. And they’re extremely costly.
- states where the major cities commonly have snow for > 3 months
- states where the major cities commonly have snow for < 1 month
Inclement weather is likely the differentiator. Blue state California gets Waymo in its biggest cities, which handily do not get much snow. The other Waymo cities are all below the Mason-Dixon Line.
The only surprising thing about this is that other states did not require changes in law. It's Good, Actually, that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us.
In any case, there are more than 2-3 "blue" states. We can note that it's also not running in cold "red" states either. The climate angle fits the data best and aligns with what Waymo says, which aligns with what we have known about the tech for at least a decade.
(That note also suggests they are still testing their cold-weather kit and are not quite ready.)
1 - https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/back-to-boston/
Not if they’re stupid laws!
https://www.twu.org/twu-tech-newsletter-waymo-no-mo-in-nyc-f...
There is close to zero chance it gets approval in NYC before 2030. I'd be totally floored if he goes against the union, but the optics are absolutely terrible for cabs.
People hate human drivers more than they hate the idea of AI drivers
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/business/uber-sexual-assa...
In reality I think you can get better experiences than a taxi with a rideshare service (which they really haven't been for a very long time), but it's very hit or miss.
So less consistently bad as a taxi service... but far from consistently good.
https://www.worldatlas.com/places/the-most-dangerous-highway...
Just another example though, while credit card processing fees aren't always cheap its not like its free to process cash.
And then a Waymo dropped teenagers off at the police? I don't care if that was a human, I don't want no snitch car service [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49027861
[2] https://www.404media.co/waymo-called-police-on-teens-san-mat...