It doesn't matter how cheap I can get one, because A) it is incredibly ugly and shouts to everyone around you that you have incredibly bad taste, and B) because it is a poorly designed piece of junk that breaks just by being in the car wash. Why would I want something that is both expensive to fix AND breaks easily?
Looking at the raw data from NYC, in 2025 there were 15 crashes with fatalities and only 3 with serious injuries. To follow your train of thought, I would think the survivability of a serious crash is important to optimize for, and Waymo has a better ratio for that (4 to 2 versus 3 to 15).
I'm not shilling for AI cars, I'm correcting idiots who either don't know how to read or who intentionally give incorrect information.
You, for instance, just said "imagine downplaying a 50% increase in death rate." That is false. It's a 50% increase in crashes involving death OR a serious injury. Is your reading comprehension bad and you didn't notice that it was for both types of crashes, or are you intentionally giving bad information to try to make a point? Additionally, there have only been 2 crashes involving Waymos where people have died. BOTH of those crashes were the fault of the human driver in the other car. One of them was the Waymo sitting stopped at red light and it got rammed from behind by a drunk driver in an SUV, which pushed the Waymo into the intersection where another car hit it. There have also only been 4 Waymo crashes with serious injuries in something like 220 million miles. I can't find whether those 4 crashes were the Waymo's fault. You seem caught up on this 50% increase number, so if we compare it to taxi drivers, that means they had 4 crashes per 220 million miles that had either a death or serious injury, compared to Waymo's 6. But the problem is the statistics aren't comparable. There were 15 fatalities from taxis in NYC in 2025 alone, versus 2 fatalities in Waymos total. There are just far far far more millions of miles driven to pull data from. It's also comparing apples to oranges with where each group is driving. You are probably going to argue that, but looking at the NYC data, 11 of the 15 fatalities were involving Black Cars that normally take people to the airport and will be driving faster versus medallion cabs that are inside the city at much lower speeds. Waymo operates in faster driving cities with less traffic than medallion cabs, so they'll be expected to have more serious injury crashes. Also interesting: in 2025 there were 15 fatalities with taxis in NYC, but there were only 3 crashes with serious injuries. You are more likely to die in a crash in a taxi than get a serious injury, but in a Waymo you are more likely to survive a serious crash.
As far as me ignoring minor incidents that would not have been reported to police, why would I bring that up? There is no information to compare. Waymo might have that data, but the taxi drivers in NYC and human drivers all around the world do not report and so we will not have the data to compare to. Why are you ignoring minor incident data from taxi drivers? Are you shilling for Yellow Cab?
You are quoting the serious or fatal injury stats. The overall injury accident rate, though, as quoted from the article: "When all injury-causing crashes were considered, Waymo performed better. Its robotaxis were involved in 67% fewer injury crashes per million miles than New York City's for-hire vehicles."
No, they actually have fewer total accidents per mile than actual taxi drivers. Did you read the link you posted? They are involved in 1.5 times more accidents with severe or fatal injuries per mile, but that is comparing Waymos driving in more open cities at higher speeds to taxis in the very slow speed, high traffic city of NYC where the primary use case is different. Also, the only fatal accidents (2 of them) have been the fault of other cars, not Waymos, so it's kinda unfair to include those.
And here and there, it’s possible to look at pricing and conclude it’s pants-on-head bananas. Trading and therefore price action is dominated by algorithms which amplifies hype cycles. Who couldn’t see SpaceX as being overvalued?
But that's the problem. Many of us definitely knew SpaceX was overvalued. It should have been a no-brainer to short this stock at IPO... however, look at Tesla stock. That shit should have cratered years ago but still hasn't. I wanted to short this stock, but I didn't trust the Musk morons to not continue humping his sack. Even when you can see that something is pants-on-head bananas, there are enough idiots out there (and enough insider traders) making shit irrational.
I contributed first by no longer posting there and only rarely lurking on niches that aren't popular here. I am contributing more now that they have blocked old.reddit, because ain't no way I'm even lurking with the new interface.
This ruling doesn't get into that question. Based on how courts treat refusing to take a breathalyzer, I'm guessing it opens you up to being detained for 24 hours on suspicion of a crime, giving them time to obtain a warrant. A different write-up says that if you do not give a password, they can detain your device and make you wait; but you are not required to give up the password. No other write-ups I can find mention the password issue.
I know previous rulings have said that Face Unlock does NOT count as forcing your password and is allowed by police in searches. When I go on international trips, I disable Face Unlock on my work phone before going to the airports to block that pathway since my phone contains company proprietary information and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). I have nothing embarrassing or illegal or incriminating on my personal phone, so I usually don't bother.
This is about dealerships pre-installing an alarm system and trying to upsell people at paperwork signing. If they turn down the option, the dealers just don't activate the alarm system. Some dealers are shadier about it than others. I went into final docs signing without ever being told about the $600 option and only barely noticed it before I signed. I was like, "uhhh, what's this?" Luckily I was aware of other bullshit upcharges dealers tack on like underbody coatings and stuff, so I made sure to go line by line on the price. $600 for an alarm that could be bought for $200, plus I think it also had a recurring yearly fee for it.
So all of those people were informed that their vehicle did have this privacy and security invasion. There was just no way to have it uninstalled.
Does Nintendo get a refund? I thought the tariffs were paid by the people who import the product, not the manufacturer. Meaning Best Buy or Amazon would be paying the tariff and entitled to a refund, not Nintendo.
I guess there is also Nintendo NA, who might be the importer who then distributes to Best Buy or Amazon???
NASA flies roughly 3 missions per year. DoD/DoW launches around 12 missions per year. NRO launches around 5 per year. That is a total of around 20 government missions per year. SpaceX launches roughly 150 missions per year, so removing state funding would only take out about 13% of their $18 billion annual revenue. 100 of those launches are Starlink, which gets funded by both commercial, private users, and government users.
It's almost like things are fundamentally different now from "historically." Historically, we (I'm in the launch vehicle industry) didn't have reusable launch vehicles. Even 10 years ago the launch community was hugely skeptical of being able to successfully refurbish a rocket and maintain mission assurance.
My point is that most of the launches being performed now are not state sponsored or for scientific discovery. You are looking at it from the lens of a period when there were only two providers and only a few customers. With tons of commercial companies interested in proliferated LEO programs, there is a lot of profit in launch.
However, that STILL only gives the stock a value of around $8/share.
On a federal basis, you are likely correct. On a local basis, I highly disagree. Many politicians in areas that are left-leaning are putting in place data center bans. Local elections matter.
He was calling a heroic cave rescuer "pedo guy" for daring to beat him to rescuing children before his cool submarine was built... 8 years ago. And people back then weren't surprised how awful that was, because it had already been well publicized how fucking awful he is.
When poor people have a car accident it’s already fix it themselves, tolerate it, or replace it the vast majority of the time.
So your solution to exploiting poor people is to force the burden on the victim to just deal with it when someone else is at fault?
"I'm sorry the person who just totaled the most important part of your livelihood chose not to have insurance. Guess you just have to fix it yourself with all that free time and money you have, tolerate it, or buy a new one with all that money you have. Sucks you are poor!"
Got it, so you think it is punishing to poor people to make them pay $60-$100/mo for the privilege of driving a dangerous vehicle that can cause many thousands of dollars in damage to both cars and people, but your response to high car repair bills is for poor people to "just buy a new car." I don't think you have thought your cunning plan all the way through. Notice how I never brought up medical bills, only car repair bills? That's because I agree that health insurance should be covered by the state, not private insurance. Health care is a basic human right. Driving a car is not. You talk about exploitation of poor people through making them have insurance, but you ignore that poor people can also be the victim of bad drivers. If a poor person with a $5000 car who badly needs that car to drive to work gets their car totaled by a driver without insurance, your solution is for them to "just buy a new car." Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? Your main argument is that this poor person should not be expected to pay $100/mo for insurance, but you think it is totally fine to ask them to pay $5000 to get a new car that they need to get to work to pay off that car?
And if you think only the wealthier drivers drive more recklessly, you should drive in a really poor part of town. You know who doesn't give a shit whether they crash their cars? The people who drive really shitty cars. The statistics back that up, too. Wealthy areas have lower serious traffic accidents per capita than lower income areas. They also have far lower traffic fatalities per capita, but that can be down to the safety of their expensive cars. People in sports cars do tend to drive faster, but rich moms in expensive SUVs do not.
I didn't mention the medical liability, since a modern civilized society shouldn't need to have me worried about medical liability. I was lucky to have good insurance when I was a pedestrian hit by an uninsured driver. I wasn't on the hook for my $60,000 in medical bills, because I had insurance. In a good society, I shouldn't need private medical insurance to protect me if I get hit by an uninsured driver.
Now, if my new car gets totaled by a shitbox '88 Cutlass Cierra driven by a person who can barely even afford THAT car, then that's where requiring insurance comes into play.
It doesn't matter how cheap I can get one, because A) it is incredibly ugly and shouts to everyone around you that you have incredibly bad taste, and B) because it is a poorly designed piece of junk that breaks just by being in the car wash. Why would I want something that is both expensive to fix AND breaks easily?