Next stop: Miami(waymo.com)
waymo.com
Next stop: Miami
https://waymo.com/blog/2024/12/next-stop-miami/
318 comments
Also relevant, when it rains in Miami during the summer, it pours.
As in, zero visibility for 15-30 minutes, then it's past.
So if it can handle Miami tropical rain, it should be okay with all sorts of normal rain.
Out of curiosity, what's Waymo's current production sensor suite mix? I'd assume lidar and radar would also be very unhappy with the surrounding space suddenly being ~10%(?) liquid water droplets.
As in, zero visibility for 15-30 minutes, then it's past.
So if it can handle Miami tropical rain, it should be okay with all sorts of normal rain.
Out of curiosity, what's Waymo's current production sensor suite mix? I'd assume lidar and radar would also be very unhappy with the surrounding space suddenly being ~10%(?) liquid water droplets.
Far less than 10%. During a heavy downpour, by volume, about one part in a million is liquid. In a cubic meter of heavily rain, there are only a few tens of raindrops.
Yep, but what matters for radar/lidar is the projection. I mean what percentage of 1 _square_ meter (not cubic meter) is occupied by droplet projections. Or, in radial terms, what percentage of "Solid angle" is occupied by rain droplets.
Imagine if it were 10%, though. During the time it took for a droplet to fall 1 metre, you’d have 10cm of water on the floor.
I reckon it’d feel quite heavy.
I reckon it’d feel quite heavy.
Rain falls at 9m/s, so in a second you'd almost completely fill that space with 900 liters. For the immediate area around you, imagine an olympic pool of water falling roughly every second.
According to NASA, terminal velocity for the largest droplets is ~10 m/s.
Which seems oddly close (in magnitude) to Earth gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2).
Weird!
Which seems oddly close (in magnitude) to Earth gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2).
Weird!
LiDAR sensors, like for example from SICK can have multiple 'layers' of sensors, which combined with various algorithms can handle rain pretty good.
Not just visibility in the rain, but diminished or fully obstructed visibility due to ponding and full flooding. Then there are the physical navigational problems associated with that. They probably shouldn't be driving though a foot of sea water.
Lidars perform very well in the rain [1].
[1] https://ouster.com/insights/blog/lidar-vs-camera-comparison-...
[1] https://ouster.com/insights/blog/lidar-vs-camera-comparison-...
Thanks! Super informative link, and what I was hoping to get.
> So if it can handle Miami tropical rain, it should be okay with all sorts of normal rain.
I feel like a lot of "How well does it handle rain?" comes down to how the roads are built and maintained (Huge puddles, proper drainage, etc) rather than about the car itself, as the car you could test by blasting it with water from different directions and amounts.
I feel like a lot of "How well does it handle rain?" comes down to how the roads are built and maintained (Huge puddles, proper drainage, etc) rather than about the car itself, as the car you could test by blasting it with water from different directions and amounts.
There’s also the question of how other drivers handle the rain. And I have to imagine it’s nontrivial to, on a test range alone, permute the full range of different surfaces’ handling characteristics under different precipitation conditions.
I wonder whether, like many human drivers, Waymos might be wont to pull over and wait out the short-but-extreme Miami squalls.
I wonder whether, like many human drivers, Waymos might be wont to pull over and wait out the short-but-extreme Miami squalls.
Hopefully it does, because the drivers that don't stop are just driving blind and won't see the waymo.
I would expect service to be canceled while it is pouring down. Do we have reasons to believe that they have the ability to ride safely during heavy rain? I haven't been keeping up.
They can handle heavy rain, see time 6:00: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1A3aaQnh0
From their August 2023 blog post:
> During this past winter season in California with its record rain, high winds, and thunderstorms, we were able to maintain 99.4% fleet uptime
From their August 2023 blog post:
> During this past winter season in California with its record rain, high winds, and thunderstorms, we were able to maintain 99.4% fleet uptime
Where I come from that might be called a "shower". Heavy rain here is like fog. It's so thick you can only see a few meters, and the windscreen wipers can only give you a brief glimpse of what's ahead.
It happens rarely. When it does, more cautious drivers give up and pull over, even if they are on the freeway. That makes travelling at high speed down on freeway at high speed in those conditions near suicidal.
It only lasts a few minutes. I expect Waymo would handle like any human. Stop, or just creep forward.
It happens rarely. When it does, more cautious drivers give up and pull over, even if they are on the freeway. That makes travelling at high speed down on freeway at high speed in those conditions near suicidal.
It only lasts a few minutes. I expect Waymo would handle like any human. Stop, or just creep forward.
Example of moderate Miami tropical rain: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/HAvKGwtQ2Uo
How does it make out lane markings? Or is it all just GPS-based?
Localization is primarily based on visual registration, i.e. matching the current surroundings to the closest data in its map. Lane markings are based on map data and what it's able to see in real-time.
Maybe similarly how humans do it.
Humans do it super badly in a heavy rain/snow though. We're basically blind and just toodle along following the guy in front and hoping for the best.
A machine driver should not accept these conditions.
A machine driver should not accept these conditions.
On the contrary, sticking strictly to the lane markers when everyone else is blindly straddling lanes seems the worst of all worlds.
Right, but I’m arguing that the correct behaviour for everyone is to pull over and wait for conditions to improve — robots and humans alike.
Thank you, that was fascinating.
If it's too dangerous for humans to drive (regardless of whether they do anyway, humans do all manner of things which are unacceptably dangerous) then I don't expect Waymo to offer service even if they believe they technically could have the Waymo driver [their software] continue to deliver service.
The weather becomes too dangerous to drive because of mechanical (lost of adherence) problems way sooner than humans have sensorial problems anyway.
So if it's too dangerous for people, it's also too dangerous for computers.
So if it's too dangerous for people, it's also too dangerous for computers.
You moved the goalpost by introducing the "too dangerous for humans to arrive" qualifier. The person you're replying to never said that. They asked if it would refuse to drive in pouring rain. They never asked if it would refuse to drive in scenarios where it's too dangerous for humans to drive.
The problem is that "pouring rain" is vague. So that's why I drew a more specific line.
Interestingly is there a potential moral issue in the making here? What happens if/when self driving dependency is so prevalent that the majority of inhabitants in a city don't know how to drive. In addition add the fact that self driving cars don't have a steering wheel so even people who know how to take over driving can't actually take over.
What happens if there's an event that requires a mass evacuation such as a Category 5 hurricane and the major self driving car companies deem it too risky to drive in the conditions that precede the storm?
What happens if there's an event that requires a mass evacuation such as a Category 5 hurricane and the major self driving car companies deem it too risky to drive in the conditions that precede the storm?
Interesting random fact: when it rains, waymo turns on the windshield wipers
Is this relevant? Are any of its cameras/sensors behind the windshield? Or are there wipers directly on the external cameras?
I think it's just for passengers' experience
Probably also a legal requirement to run them during rain, even if it's not actually needed for the self-driving cars to work.
Plenty of south florida rain is not helped by windshield wipers. Anyway I wonder if waymo sensors actually have better visibility in such conditions than people do
I think the comment you are replying to is implying that it's a bit funny/weird that the wipers turn on, because there aren't any sensors that are looking out the window to see. (As others pointed out, it could just be default auto-wiper functionality, and of course passengers still like being able to see out the window, even if they aren't controlling the vehicle).
> Interesting random fact: when it rains, waymo turns on the windshield wipers
The jaguar i-pace does this independent of the waymo use case.
The jaguar i-pace does this independent of the waymo use case.
The interesting part here is... the Waymo has no reason to. There is no driver. All cameras and sensors are outside. It's just for not freaking out the passenger :)
Waymo has wipers on it's LIDAR dome
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlysatisfying/comments/6biyr8/way...
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlysatisfying/comments/6biyr8/way...
some places have laws that require wipers to be on while it's raining. Seems like a smart thing to have until laws are updated just to prevent your cars from getting pulled over by police.
> The interesting part here is... the Waymo has no reason to. There is no driver. All cameras and sensors are outside. It's just for not freaking out the passenger :)
We have very different thresholds for what's interesting.
The platform provides this feature out of the box, why would waymo go out of their way to disable it. Obviously potential occupants would appreciate seeing out the windshield if it's raining, why that is interesting escapes me.
We have very different thresholds for what's interesting.
The platform provides this feature out of the box, why would waymo go out of their way to disable it. Obviously potential occupants would appreciate seeing out the windshield if it's raining, why that is interesting escapes me.
Rain + lidar = challenges
I'm guessing you've never tried driving in a tropical rainstorm. It's as bad a driving in heavy fog. Sometimes you only really have visibility of a few feet.
The.... driverless car... doesn't look out the window....
Who said anything about windows? I would imagine LIDAR looses some accuracy when its refracted by raindrops.
When I took Waymo in Phoenix, I booked a ride from a suburban hotel to a restaurant in a strip mall. One of the things I noticed was that I was picked up far away from the entrance of the hotel (eg, not under the overhang that protects from sun and rain, where every Uber has picked me up and dropped me off). I recall thinking that it was good there was no weather in Phoenix b/c I had to walk far enough I'd have gotten soaked in a decent rainstorm.
Have they changed this?
Have they changed this?
Also Waymo will not pick you up on private streets. I live in a small community with a private street and I have to walk to the nearest public one (2 mins).
One thing I've noticed about the SF deployment is that it's slowly gotten better at this. At first it was very cautious about where it would pick you up/drop you off, but now it offers much closer options (from a menu -- a bit like Uber at airports).
I suspect this might be something that is human-added from data collected in past trips.
I suspect this might be something that is human-added from data collected in past trips.
Waymo can handle heavy rain, see time 6:00 here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1A3aaQnh0
And yet I regularly get stuck behind a Waymo in SF when there's just a little bit of fog.
Good point! Though also worth mentioning that they're already in Atlanta, which gets ~50in (and 59in so far this year, despite the mind-bending "first October without rain in recorded history")
I think they've announced they're headed to Atlanta in early 2025. So they may be testing there, but I don't believe they are at GA in GA :)
They are frequently spotted but not yet available in ATL.
Good point, I guess I missed when that happened. Looking at some news sites and Waymo's blog, it seems that they are testing in Atlanta and will start accepting customers in 2025.[0]
>It currently operates fleets of driverless cars in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Phoenix. It also plans to launch a robotaxi service in Atlanta in an exclusive partnership with Uber.[1]
[0] https://waymo.com/blog/2024/09/waymo-and-uber-expand-partner...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/5/24313346/waymo-miami-robo...
>It currently operates fleets of driverless cars in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Phoenix. It also plans to launch a robotaxi service in Atlanta in an exclusive partnership with Uber.[1]
[0] https://waymo.com/blog/2024/09/waymo-and-uber-expand-partner...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/5/24313346/waymo-miami-robo...
The rainfall can pose serious visibility risks that will be as much of a challenge as picking up and dropping off customers on a rainy day. Extreme high tides do still flood some roads on Miami Beach with brackish water, which isn't something you want to drive through in an electric car.
On the less challenging side, the city has zero snow, no road ice to worry about.
On the less challenging side, the city has zero snow, no road ice to worry about.
I think the most interesting part is that the article says that Waymo's handing its operations to Moove. It seems like Waymo's trying to become a software provider while having other companies handle the capital-intensive parts.
> having other companies handle the capital-intensive parts.
Waymo definitely wants to outsource the areas where they don't have special expertise (i.e. Waymo is 100x better at driving, but not 100x better at washing and vacuuming cars). I'm not sure how capital-intensive regional operations are. The vehicles are definitely the largest capital expense. This is more like an AirBnB property owner hiring a cleaning service.
Waymo definitely wants to outsource the areas where they don't have special expertise (i.e. Waymo is 100x better at driving, but not 100x better at washing and vacuuming cars). I'm not sure how capital-intensive regional operations are. The vehicles are definitely the largest capital expense. This is more like an AirBnB property owner hiring a cleaning service.
Also, contracting out the menial labor makes Waymo's labor practices look much better. They can tell their engineers that all employees make a living wage and get excellent health insurance.
When the actual labor is done by part-timers with no health insurance making not much over minimum wage.
When the actual labor is done by part-timers with no health insurance making not much over minimum wage.
The pivot has already happened. They’re handing over Austin and Atlanta to Uber, and now Phoenix and Miami to Moove. The only places they will continue to own operations for at least the next year are SF and LA.
Pivot to what exactly?
To owning just the self driving stack and not the physical operations of running a robotaxi service.
Capital-intensive, or labour-intensive? If I were a provider of 'special smart sauce' that goes on a common piece of equipment, I'd be trying to focus on making it so I could provide the sauce rather than dealing with all the real-world issues that come with all the real-world people using the saucy equipment.
Depends.
Chick-fil-A grew into a pretty big business by vertically integrating outside of just selling sandwiches to Waffle House.
So sometimes it's worth owning sauce distribution too. ;)
Chick-fil-A grew into a pretty big business by vertically integrating outside of just selling sandwiches to Waffle House.
So sometimes it's worth owning sauce distribution too. ;)
Seems smart. They'll continue to have all the leverage since they own the tech and will offload all the operational risk
Compared to software, hardware sucks.
Mother nature OS is by far the worst to develop for.
Mother nature OS is by far the worst to develop for.
It does not suck! Hardware just barely works.
I design motherboards for industrial computers for living. Last gem: radio module draws 5 amps while transmitting instead of specified 2 amps. Trust nobody!
I design motherboards for industrial computers for living. Last gem: radio module draws 5 amps while transmitting instead of specified 2 amps. Trust nobody!
This makes sense. If they don't outsource, they need to run millions of cars. This will cost Alphabet hundreds of billions capex, which is not cheap even for them. This is not just the money problem, but also has significant implications on their speed of business expansion. Let's say Google decides to pour tens of billions every year on Waymo, it will takes tens of years to expand into all of the major US cities. They probably don't want to give the competitors that much time.
This seems much more scaleable. Car share services (eg. Evo in Vancouver) seem like good partners as they already have the fleet management services and a recognizable (and hopefully trusted) brand.
I'm not sure about other car share services work, but in the case of Evo they have existing relationships with the cities that make up Metro Vancouver. I wonder if this would ease rollout as you'd already know all the required people to talk to within municipal government?
I'm not sure about other car share services work, but in the case of Evo they have existing relationships with the cities that make up Metro Vancouver. I wonder if this would ease rollout as you'd already know all the required people to talk to within municipal government?
B.C. in particular went out of their way to ban autonomous vehicles a few years back, so I'm sure waymo's in no rush to talk to local partners there.
That is very unfortunate. I'm confused why they wouldn't want to get involved in trials and investigate all the benefits. Do you know the rationale behind the decision?
Ugh, don’t remind me of the lost decade or so during which the local taxi lobby captured the regulators and prevented the entry of Uber. It wasn’t until the provincial government was about to be blown away anyhow that they cashed in their chips in a few ridings where the majority of cab owners live…
I have no doubt that BC may be a nice place to live for a variety of reasons, but it will be the last place to have autonomous vehicles.
I have no doubt that BC may be a nice place to live for a variety of reasons, but it will be the last place to have autonomous vehicles.
our service – which already provides over 150,000
trips per week across Phoenix, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Austin
I wonder how close they are to being profitable? As soon as they are getting close to being profitable, they will probably scale this up super fast.
I don't know how much Google invested into Waymo so far. Something like $10B?
If they at some point make $10 per ride, they would only need something like 50 million rides per year to justify that investment with a p/e ratio of 20.
To go from 8M rides to 50M in 5 years they would have to increase their capacity by 50% per year. Might be possible?
The number of trips increased 10x from Sep 2023 to August 2024.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/waymo-robotax...
Just a few hours ago Sundar Pichai said it's 175k/wk https://youtu.be/kZzeWLOzc_4?t=926
How many rides are there every day in developed countries?
Their internal business case probably has them targeting not 50 million rides per year, but per week… at an absolute minimum
Regardless; at some point specialised vehicles will be developed which are ultra small and lightweight - less than $1,000 to produce - to take care of short downtown rides, for example.
It’s going to be a wild world.
Their internal business case probably has them targeting not 50 million rides per year, but per week… at an absolute minimum
Regardless; at some point specialised vehicles will be developed which are ultra small and lightweight - less than $1,000 to produce - to take care of short downtown rides, for example.
It’s going to be a wild world.
Profitable from an operations perspective? Surely close since they charge the same order of magnitude as an Uber/Lyft and have fewer than one driver per vehicle (monitoring the vehicles).
We have to add the deprecation and maintenance of the car.
Plus I guess they need high resolution maps? Not sure if that is a significant cost factor.
Plus I guess they need high resolution maps? Not sure if that is a significant cost factor.
Since they're using entirely electric cars that they will likely never sell so depreciation and maintenance will be favorable. There is the up-front cost of equipping the cars with equipment though, which I imagine is substantial.
For the high resolution maps, that cost is fixed per market area. It could limit a rollout to new markets by driving area.
For the high resolution maps, that cost is fixed per market area. It could limit a rollout to new markets by driving area.
On the other hand, they certainly have a much better vehicle utilization than the other ride-app companies. They cars are cooperating in covering an area, not competing for the rides there.
I mean, they're Google -- I'm guessing they're pulling out their "pointcloud of the entire world" for this one. The first point is a great one, tho; rideshare companies exist by offloading as much cost as possible onto their employees, and even then barely make it work.
Plus, at least some of the Waymos are super-fancy Jaguars -- tho it looks like roughly 20K Jaguars to 65K Chrysler minivans, according to Wikipedia. Still, they're all brand new vehicles; even with bulk discount, that can't be cheap.
Plus, at least some of the Waymos are super-fancy Jaguars -- tho it looks like roughly 20K Jaguars to 65K Chrysler minivans, according to Wikipedia. Still, they're all brand new vehicles; even with bulk discount, that can't be cheap.
Waymo does not have 85k cars lol. In their latest CPUC report they only have 480 cars in California and that is their biggest market by far. If they had 85k cars and only 175k rides per week that would be the worst business in the history of businessing.
It looks like they contracted to buy "up to" 20,000 Jaguars: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/waymo-sel...
Pretty effective press release! Nothing in it is untrue, but it's obviously misleading even to careful readers.
Pretty effective press release! Nothing in it is untrue, but it's obviously misleading even to careful readers.
Yes, and I have up to 20,000 jaguars in my garage. (ok, I don't even have a garage...)
Google has invested and also drawn external funding. From what I've seen in the last 15 years since founding the lower bound for their cost seems to be higher than $12bn and I can only imagine expenses will only accelerate.
Assuming they don't license the technology to everybody else and keep running their own cars. How much is this technology worth to every taxi company, every car manufacturer, every fleet operator in the world?
I imagine it's hard to quantify "profit" with such a research-driven org. It's like penciling out the profitability of the metaverse after years of $XX billion dollar losses. In general I get the sense that Waymo is more of a diverse investment than a pure ride-hailing play; for example, as of 2020 they were working for Volvo, Chrysler, Jaguar, and Nissan[1], presumably for $$$.
It's also worth remembering that Zoox exists (Amazon's more futuristic self-driving car play, no steering wheel at all), and has not at all gone the way of Alexa/the Dodo bird (yet). I expect them to make a big splash sometime in the coming decade, personally.
That is, of course, assuming they survive regulatory capture by Tesla, which would need a miracle or an unfair advantage to beat these two at this point, even if they finally follow the science on the need for LiDAR. Another big unknown is how the electorate will react to self-driving cars becoming more than a novelty; Elon Musk is absolutely correct that a backlash of some kind is inevitable even if the safety stats pencil out, IMHO. Trusting a machine is kind of inherently creepy - see Prof. Weinersmith's lectures on the topic:
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/decisions
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fsd
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsilver/2020/06/29/waymo-an...
It's also worth remembering that Zoox exists (Amazon's more futuristic self-driving car play, no steering wheel at all), and has not at all gone the way of Alexa/the Dodo bird (yet). I expect them to make a big splash sometime in the coming decade, personally.
That is, of course, assuming they survive regulatory capture by Tesla, which would need a miracle or an unfair advantage to beat these two at this point, even if they finally follow the science on the need for LiDAR. Another big unknown is how the electorate will react to self-driving cars becoming more than a novelty; Elon Musk is absolutely correct that a backlash of some kind is inevitable even if the safety stats pencil out, IMHO. Trusting a machine is kind of inherently creepy - see Prof. Weinersmith's lectures on the topic:
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/decisions
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fsd
- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsilver/2020/06/29/waymo-an...
sixQuarks(6)
There were three things in Waymo's latest CPUC filing that interested me. First, through the end of August, Los Angeles still irrelevant. Over 85% of their California rides were still in SF. Second, ridership in SF doubled in 90 days without a significant expansion in either vehicles or trips per service hour, but they had the cars out on the road more hours every day. Third, the geographic concentration of their rides is extreme, with a large fraction of trips starting near either the Ferry Building or Fisherman's Wharf, which suggests that it is popular with and useful to tourists.
I wonder when they will be able to provide service in northern cities (that get snow).
Once they can do that -- and (I guess) can prove profitable -- they could expand non-stop across the country.
Once they can do that -- and (I guess) can prove profitable -- they could expand non-stop across the country.
Anyone know the timeline for Waymo expanding to northern areas outside urban centers? Or are these underserved populations forever stuck waiting hours for an Uber that still cancels half the time?
It's got to be the lowest priority; population density improves economics and utilization. Not to mention that it's hard enough to drive in a city with snow, compared to all the other kinds of situations that can manifest outside of urban centers.
It sounds like what we need is a program akin to rural electrification and rural free mail delivery, which (despite
obvious unprofitability in the "small picture" sense) were both subsidized by forward-thinking government programs.
At the end of the day that isn’t a technical problem but a unit economics one.
Removing the driver from a taxi doesn’t bring down costs that much. Self driving cars aren’t going to change the uber/taxi model at a fundamental level.
They have a finite fleet that they need to deploy. Urban centers mean that fleet utilization is high, and relatively less time and miles are spent driving with no one on board. In rural areas with little demand they will sit empty or have to drive empty for many more miles to their pickups. It just isn’t profitable to use your fleet that way no matter what you do.
Removing the driver from a taxi doesn’t bring down costs that much. Self driving cars aren’t going to change the uber/taxi model at a fundamental level.
They have a finite fleet that they need to deploy. Urban centers mean that fleet utilization is high, and relatively less time and miles are spent driving with no one on board. In rural areas with little demand they will sit empty or have to drive empty for many more miles to their pickups. It just isn’t profitable to use your fleet that way no matter what you do.
Hmm, I'm not sure about that - fully autonomous taxis wouldn't be subject to the limitations of human drivers in terms of availability / reliability / endurance. You could ostensibly leave a few taxis around to service otherwise underserved areas and have them run without having to secure a driver each time.
That being said, there is still the cost of maintenance and cleanup, but that can be mitigated (the taxis for five towns could drive to one centralised depot, maintenance can be scheduled to maximise operational time, and eventually all of this can be automated, too)
I don't know if that's how things will work out just yet, but it seems like a possible future based on Waymo's current operational strategy.
That being said, there is still the cost of maintenance and cleanup, but that can be mitigated (the taxis for five towns could drive to one centralised depot, maintenance can be scheduled to maximise operational time, and eventually all of this can be automated, too)
I don't know if that's how things will work out just yet, but it seems like a possible future based on Waymo's current operational strategy.
> You could ostensibly leave a few taxis around to service otherwise underserved areas and have them run without having to secure a driver each time.
I think you’re dramatically overestimating how much of a barrier obtaining a driver is here. The primary cost is opportunity cost of the capital that isn’t being utilized. Not having to have a driver doesn’t somehow make it so you can infinitely provision a fleet.
I think you’re dramatically overestimating how much of a barrier obtaining a driver is here. The primary cost is opportunity cost of the capital that isn’t being utilized. Not having to have a driver doesn’t somehow make it so you can infinitely provision a fleet.
Theres a bunch of factors that will mess with your intuition here: 1) ride hail demand as significant spikes in usage during morning and evening rush hours AND it has a fairly strong seasonal trend depending on geo. 2) Insurance is also a big expense and for large operations like this is priced per mile or per operating hour, having more deadhead time means a higher loss to insurance. 3) People are very sensitive to wait times AND reliability. The desire to use the service drops a ton when wait times are greater than 10 minutes or if you're consistently not able to find a ride. Could waymo support less dense suburbs now? Maybe at certain off peak hours, but the economics and product experience are difficult.
They won’t have to pay for the driver when idle, but owning cars ties up capital and the fewer rides they do, the longer it takes to pay off. This isn’t specific to cars - all capital equipment works that way. Lower utilization is sometimes unavoidable, but it still means less revenue which can be the difference between a profit and a loss.
How much this matters depends on the price of the car. We don’t know how much a Waymo costs, but they’re probably not cheap.
To be profitable with lower utilization, they’ll need to work on reducing how much each car costs somehow.
How much this matters depends on the price of the car. We don’t know how much a Waymo costs, but they’re probably not cheap.
To be profitable with lower utilization, they’ll need to work on reducing how much each car costs somehow.
> To be profitable with lower utilization, they’ll need to work on reducing how much each car costs somehow.
Definitely. Their custom vehicle had optimizations for cost, but seems to be on hold due to tariffs.
Waymo also has the option to drop prices lower than Uber/Lyft when vehicles are unutilized, though they still need to stay above their per-mile depreciation and operating costs.
Definitely. Their custom vehicle had optimizations for cost, but seems to be on hold due to tariffs.
Waymo also has the option to drop prices lower than Uber/Lyft when vehicles are unutilized, though they still need to stay above their per-mile depreciation and operating costs.
> Waymo also has the option to drop prices lower than Uber/Lyft when vehicles are unutilized
I think that’s an unproven assumption.
There’s certainly reason to believe it to be true of course, but uber and Lyft are already capturing upwards of 50% of the fares for each ride, and that’s without the capital costs on their books. Removing the driver from the equation can’t lead to much more than that 50% (realistically much less) margin.
Going from charging $10 to $5 isn’t going to make rides suddenly materialize. Especially in rural areas there are just times that people aren’t going to be looking to go anywhere, and wait time becomes far more of a factor that raw costs.
I think that’s an unproven assumption.
There’s certainly reason to believe it to be true of course, but uber and Lyft are already capturing upwards of 50% of the fares for each ride, and that’s without the capital costs on their books. Removing the driver from the equation can’t lead to much more than that 50% (realistically much less) margin.
Going from charging $10 to $5 isn’t going to make rides suddenly materialize. Especially in rural areas there are just times that people aren’t going to be looking to go anywhere, and wait time becomes far more of a factor that raw costs.
> There’s certainly reason to believe it to be true of course, but uber and Lyft are already capturing upwards of 50% of the fares for each ride,
That's not true. If you check Uber's Q3 financials, gross bookings for "Mobility" were $21B while revenue was $6.5B. That's way lower than 50%.
That's not true. If you check Uber's Q3 financials, gross bookings for "Mobility" were $21B while revenue was $6.5B. That's way lower than 50%.
> but uber and Lyft are already capturing upwards of 50% of the fares for each ride
I'm not sure if that's an accurate number, but I have seen a lot of complaints from drivers that they're getting a far lower share of the trip revenue than they used to. It's pretty remarkable that in a competitive market where Uber and Lyft are almost perfect substitutes for each other and charge almost exactly the same prices, that they're able to maintain these gross margins.
I'm not sure if that's an accurate number, but I have seen a lot of complaints from drivers that they're getting a far lower share of the trip revenue than they used to. It's pretty remarkable that in a competitive market where Uber and Lyft are almost perfect substitutes for each other and charge almost exactly the same prices, that they're able to maintain these gross margins.
> Removing the driver from a taxi doesn’t bring down costs that much
The average pay for a gig driver $18/hr. So for your typical 15-minute ride, that adds $4.50 to it.
Let's say that 15 minute ride is 10 miles. Average. Uber rates are about $1.50 a mile, so that ride is $15.
Therefore, the driver costs almost a third of the cost of the fare.
Waymo's operational cost per mile, however, should be much lower than a regular driver because they will pay lower bulk rates for energy (already much cheaper because it's mostly off peak electricity instead of gasoline) and maintenance (standardized vehicles with highly controlled driving patterns and pre-negotiated repair contracts).
The average pay for a gig driver $18/hr. So for your typical 15-minute ride, that adds $4.50 to it.
Let's say that 15 minute ride is 10 miles. Average. Uber rates are about $1.50 a mile, so that ride is $15.
Therefore, the driver costs almost a third of the cost of the fare.
Waymo's operational cost per mile, however, should be much lower than a regular driver because they will pay lower bulk rates for energy (already much cheaper because it's mostly off peak electricity instead of gasoline) and maintenance (standardized vehicles with highly controlled driving patterns and pre-negotiated repair contracts).
> Removing the driver from a taxi doesn’t bring down costs that much
A driver's salary costs as much as a new car. Every year.
A driver's salary costs as much as a new car. Every year.
That doesn't follow from the facts. Rideshare drivers get around 50% of the fare (though this seems to vary from 25%-75%). And many riders tip 10-20% of the total. Most of that cost goes away if a single operator is monitoring ~10 cars. The tip goes away entirely.
An average per-trip reduction of ~50% changes the economics entirely.
An average per-trip reduction of ~50% changes the economics entirely.
The driver's 50% pays for depreciation, insurance, car maintenance, and cleaning, all of which will need to be paid for no matter what
I know that rideshare workers have a raw deal, but they are absolutely not paying all of their earnings towards cleaning their car and insurance give me a break. Fulltime drivers are making a living. A robot literally requires 100% less costs for living. Plus no tip.
Removing the driver does allow for single occupant models that could be significantly cheaper (reduced materials, smaller battery - assuming they'll all be EVS).
It will be interesting to see how things develop once the driver is no longer required and cost is the most important factor (after safety). Exciting times!
It will be interesting to see how things develop once the driver is no longer required and cost is the most important factor (after safety). Exciting times!
Taxis today are already far far larger than they need to be for two people.
Logistically you need the flexibility of having more seats available. If you’re in a rural area and need to transport a family are you going to send 4 vehicles separately?
Ironically it’s probably urban areas where single occupancy vehicles make the most sense, given that there’s always going to be sufficient demand to allow for more specialization in vehicles for different use cases.
Logistically you need the flexibility of having more seats available. If you’re in a rural area and need to transport a family are you going to send 4 vehicles separately?
Ironically it’s probably urban areas where single occupancy vehicles make the most sense, given that there’s always going to be sufficient demand to allow for more specialization in vehicles for different use cases.
> If you’re in a rural area and need to transport a family are you going to send 4 vehicles separately?
Probably still years off, but Waymo will probably have a library of vehicles ranging from 2 seats to 20.
Probably still years off, but Waymo will probably have a library of vehicles ranging from 2 seats to 20.
We already have single occupant vehicles that are low cost and fun to use: bicycles and e-bikes. They are very popular in areas where safe infrastructure is available.
I'm already an avid cyclist throughout the year, but there's a real drop in the number of people cycling during the winter months. If we can get people in AVs I think this will be a real positive for cyclist for the following reasons:
1. Reduced curb space dedicated to parking. If you don't need to come back to the same vehicle you only need space to be picked up/dropped off, reducing the amount of parking spaces needed. This space could be used for separated bike lanes. 2. Safer - This is still an unknown but data looks good atm [1]. It would be even better if AVs could be design to prevent cyclists being doored that would be amazing.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-l...
1. Reduced curb space dedicated to parking. If you don't need to come back to the same vehicle you only need space to be picked up/dropped off, reducing the amount of parking spaces needed. This space could be used for separated bike lanes. 2. Safer - This is still an unknown but data looks good atm [1]. It would be even better if AVs could be design to prevent cyclists being doored that would be amazing.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-l...
I envy your optimism.
Self-driving cars will eventually lower the total cost of driving and it will allow for longer commutes as people will be able to either sleep or do some work while in the vehicle.
The inevitable consequence of that is an increase of car traffic, which means more congestion, noise and air pollution (tires and brake pads). We can't know whether the theoretically lower collisions per distance traveled will translate into lower actual injuries until we know how much the distance traveled will increase.
Most importantly, the more people rely on a particular form of transport, the more they will vote to facilitate it, via more lanes, more highways, more forgiving legislation, etc.
I would rather see more active transportation and more efficient forms of transportation. Four-wheel single occupancy vehicles are just about the worst option of all.
Self-driving cars will eventually lower the total cost of driving and it will allow for longer commutes as people will be able to either sleep or do some work while in the vehicle.
The inevitable consequence of that is an increase of car traffic, which means more congestion, noise and air pollution (tires and brake pads). We can't know whether the theoretically lower collisions per distance traveled will translate into lower actual injuries until we know how much the distance traveled will increase.
Most importantly, the more people rely on a particular form of transport, the more they will vote to facilitate it, via more lanes, more highways, more forgiving legislation, etc.
I would rather see more active transportation and more efficient forms of transportation. Four-wheel single occupancy vehicles are just about the worst option of all.
I can’t believe the level of ignorance I’m seeing in these comments.
The driver is THE overwhelming cost of a taxi/uber. What are you talking about?
Your problem is you’re not seeing past the costs of a Waymo vehicle with all its sensors and LiDAR, plus all the costs of keeping high definition maps updated, and having teleoperaters on hand.
Tesla doesn’t have those costs. Their FSD version 13 already drives close to a Waymo of not better in some circumstances. its a done deal, Tesla has won this game
The driver is THE overwhelming cost of a taxi/uber. What are you talking about?
Your problem is you’re not seeing past the costs of a Waymo vehicle with all its sensors and LiDAR, plus all the costs of keeping high definition maps updated, and having teleoperaters on hand.
Tesla doesn’t have those costs. Their FSD version 13 already drives close to a Waymo of not better in some circumstances. its a done deal, Tesla has won this game
I think ultimately the solution to this problem is the same as it was for electrification and telco: government funded mandates to provide service to populations where it's otherwise uneconomical.
One interesting thing today is that CoL can be as high in rural areas as urban areas in the same state, partly because the additional costs of things that don't scale (mostly transportation and healthcare). But we've given up on government helping people, apparently.
One interesting thing today is that CoL can be as high in rural areas as urban areas in the same state, partly because the additional costs of things that don't scale (mostly transportation and healthcare). But we've given up on government helping people, apparently.
That is indeed one solution to this "problem". However, maybe people who live in the sticks should just accept the tradeoffs that come with rural life? If you want next day delivery and taxi service maybe you should live in a place that has those? Not every service has to serve all people in all places and times equally. The government should absolutely not be mandating service levels across the whole US.
Some people need to live in "the sticks" to produce the resources (food, ores, oil, timber) that the rest of society relies on. Subsidizing the availability of services for those people doesn't seem unreasonable, and it is certainly something the federal government has historically taken responsibility for (for mail, electricity, telephone).
Why not just let the market find its own equilibrium? If people need to live there to produce valuable resources, then the cost of those resources will naturally rise to cover the expenses of those employed in those industries.
So people in the sticks are entitled to self-driving ride-sharing. Then why not casinos, operas, theme parks?
The deal has always been and will always be the same for the rural people: more freedom for less things to do.
The deal has always been and will always be the same for the rural people: more freedom for less things to do.
Sure, although I think there's room for reasonable people to disagree where to draw the line for various services. But taxi service? Seems way way out there in terms of costs and of minimal benefit.
State governments already operate special rural transportation services, like busses or even volunteers. Think people who are sick/injured and can't get to healthcare services because they can't drive.
It's not unreasonable to me that they would subsidize robo-taxis for those services since they are already funding services that are expensive or inadequate. Especially if there is some give and take to be had with regulatory overhead for the taxi service.
It's not unreasonable to me that they would subsidize robo-taxis for those services since they are already funding services that are expensive or inadequate. Especially if there is some give and take to be had with regulatory overhead for the taxi service.
People are clowning on you, but I think rural airport rides would be huge for waymo.
No one's saying it wouldn't be huge, it's that there are so many other places to solve for first.
SF in 2015 (with passengers 2021), Phoenix in 2022, Miami in 2025. Northern urban centers are probably a decade out, let alone areas outside urban centers. There are a lot of cities in the Sun Belt to expand to first.
They've been testing in Michigan for a while. I guess the only problem is that you can only test this stuff in a third of the year.
They should test year round so they can drive year round.
Assuming they stop relying on hd maps, or map everywhere
We're worried that Google, the company that brought us Google street view, can't map the entire world, when they've already done it once?
Based on what I saw in SF they're still pretty limited to noob-level driving. I expect driving difficulty will be way more of a barrier than snow.
If twin peaks and downtown are your definition of "noob-level driving", what's normal difficulty? Mumbai rush hour? An active war zone?
I don't think there's a "normal". It's a scale with SF at the very bottom, Mumbai at the top. North West Europe in the middle, etc.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you disagreeing that SF is very easy driving? There's very little traffic. The roads are a perfect grid. Nothing ever blocks the lanes. The roads are all very wide so finding a place to stop is easy. Etc. etc.
Most driving in the world is not like that.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you disagreeing that SF is very easy driving? There's very little traffic. The roads are a perfect grid. Nothing ever blocks the lanes. The roads are all very wide so finding a place to stop is easy. Etc. etc.
Most driving in the world is not like that.
Have you ever driven in SF? None of those are true. Here's a random street in the twin peaks neighborhood I mentioned: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XnGpwPN7YH24YJGQ7
Double parked vehicles are also a regular occurrence in SF, and even triple parked vehicles happen frequently enough to be a problem at fleet scale.
Double parked vehicles are also a regular occurrence in SF, and even triple parked vehicles happen frequently enough to be a problem at fleet scale.
Driving in SF alone means it’s above mid tier in most other places.
SF drivers are pretty okay as far as my experiences go. Unless it rains, if it is raining then they'll act like this is the first time they have driven in the rain. Seattle-Tacoma area was the worst. I have never seen so many people drive with so little attention paid to their surroundings.
I was referring to road layouts and obstacles on the roads mostly.
But SF road layout is a simple grid and there are basically zero obstacles on the road.
But they’re narrow, all the slopes, parking on the street, pedestrians and construction make it challenging I think.
They aren't narrow! Slopes don't really add to driving difficulty. Based on what I saw parking on the street generally didn't actually block any lanes - they're mostly designated bays.
I just went to a random location - I promise it's not cherry picked - on streetview:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5u8BGVgYSnLz9kj39?g_st=ac
How easy is that? I have absolutely no idea how it's going to deal with actual parking on the street like this
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UMwkJau85gMG4txG9?g_st=ac
That's a 2-way road. Quite annoying but pretty common in the UK.
Don't get me wrong - they've absolutely done the right thing by starting in the easiest possible places (Tesla's plan is ridiculous in comparison). I just think it will still be at least another decade before they come to more difficult driving locations.
I just went to a random location - I promise it's not cherry picked - on streetview:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5u8BGVgYSnLz9kj39?g_st=ac
How easy is that? I have absolutely no idea how it's going to deal with actual parking on the street like this
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UMwkJau85gMG4txG9?g_st=ac
That's a 2-way road. Quite annoying but pretty common in the UK.
Don't get me wrong - they've absolutely done the right thing by starting in the easiest possible places (Tesla's plan is ridiculous in comparison). I just think it will still be at least another decade before they come to more difficult driving locations.
I'm so curious about how the internal dev teams feeling about all this scaling. Four cities across 3 states -- surely there are differences in road signs, lane markings, emergency procedures, etc. Let alone the sheer volume of data of doing hundreds of thousands of miles ever week!
Massive kudos to them if they are able to do all this without things being aflame on the inside...
Massive kudos to them if they are able to do all this without things being aflame on the inside...
> Four cities across 3 states
This is actually a scale up to five cities across four states:
> ...which already provides over 150,000 trips per week across Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Austin
Which of course only adds to your point!
This is actually a scale up to five cities across four states:
> ...which already provides over 150,000 trips per week across Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Austin
Which of course only adds to your point!
Actually they Miami would be #6. They are also starting to operate in Atlanta early next year along with Austin. So 6 cities across 5 states.
Sundar Pichai recently claimed Waymo plans to be in 10 cities by the end of 2025.
Only they know for sure where the bottleneck is. How much mapping do they really need before their software can drive it. How cautious are they being? How slowed down by the capital cost of cars and needing to set up maintenance depot's are they? How much is held up by legal approval in each jurisdiction? Knowing Google, the software is rock solid, it's the rest of everything that's taking forever.
My understanding is they have to make extremely detailed maps of where they operate and at great expense, and everything sort of breaks when anything changes. So lots of work indeed!
Your understanding is wrong. They work perfectly well when road features change and the cars are able to update maps in real time. See https://waymo.com/blog/2020/09/the-waymo-driver-handbook-map...
Why does it only operate in such tiny areas?
Waymo doesn't rely on the maps to operate. It just helps with redundancy in case it's unable to see.
And it's just a matter of the cars driving through each of the streets and working with local authorities.
And it's just a matter of the cars driving through each of the streets and working with local authorities.
>everything sort of breaks when anything changes
What is “your understanding” based on?
What is “your understanding” based on?
That's an interesting choice for several reasons:
1. Literally nobody in Florida can drive. Nobody indicates. People run red lights. They speed on the hard shoulder to overtake someone else who is speeding slightly less;
2. There's a lot of things that come down to timing, like when the bridges are up on the Venetian and over the Miami River. You can also get trains blocking the entire of downtown;
3. It seems like there's constant rerouting for closed roads, typically due to contruction;
4. Inclement weather. High winds and flooding. Biscayne Boulevard is often called Lake Biscayne. 30 minutes can be the difference between Miami Beach being dry and every road being 1 foot deep in water (not an exaggeration); and
5. What will be the covered area? I guess Phoenix and LA sprawl too but what constitutes "Miami" goes south, west and north pretty far. I mean there's no break between Miami, unincorporated Miami-Dade County and Fort Lauterdale.
1. Literally nobody in Florida can drive. Nobody indicates. People run red lights. They speed on the hard shoulder to overtake someone else who is speeding slightly less;
2. There's a lot of things that come down to timing, like when the bridges are up on the Venetian and over the Miami River. You can also get trains blocking the entire of downtown;
3. It seems like there's constant rerouting for closed roads, typically due to contruction;
4. Inclement weather. High winds and flooding. Biscayne Boulevard is often called Lake Biscayne. 30 minutes can be the difference between Miami Beach being dry and every road being 1 foot deep in water (not an exaggeration); and
5. What will be the covered area? I guess Phoenix and LA sprawl too but what constitutes "Miami" goes south, west and north pretty far. I mean there's no break between Miami, unincorporated Miami-Dade County and Fort Lauterdale.
Yeah, I dunno if the team understands just how crazy Miami driving is. Maybe they'll restrict it to Downtown, Miami Beach, the Grove, etc to limit the chaos?
That won't limit the chaos. FWIW I went to whole foods downtown today and nearly got hit twice. I live in Midtown, so it's quite literally a 27-block trip. Some of the worst driving (save for on 95) I've seen here has been either 1. idiots on the Beach 2. idiots in Brickell or 3. idiots in downtown.
People here suck at driving.
People here suck at driving.
It will be a showdown of man vs machine in the city with the worst drivers in the nation. Interesting times.
Did you know that almost every city believes this about their local drivers? I've gotten it in LA, Boston, NYC, DC, SF, Philly, Atlanta, and Austin. Adding Miami to the list.
Having lived in most of those cities and in Miami I can say Miami is definitely the most dangerous driving I've seen. And my car insurance company certainly seems to agree.
Most Americans don't understand that Miami is full of expats from the caribbean and latin america, some of whom may be here illegally, and so can't get a driver's license. They also may have grown up in places where they didn't get a drivers license or learn the rules. So they literally aren't supposed to be driving and never learned how. Because they can't legally drive a car, they buy a beater second-hand for cash, and it's never inspected, and of course falls apart and causes accidents. Add to that the crime in general, and yeah, insurance is $$$$$, and lots of crazy driving. (It's a minority of people, but enough that it creates more extreme outlier events than in most states)
Not to mention The Ticket Clinic, a private service to pay a small fee to get out of traffic court. I probably had 10 different traffic violations thrown out, for $80 a pop, when I grew up there in the 00's.
Not to mention The Ticket Clinic, a private service to pay a small fee to get out of traffic court. I probably had 10 different traffic violations thrown out, for $80 a pop, when I grew up there in the 00's.
This right here.
I currently live in Miami. I've lived all over the country. I'm from NYC burbs. I thought NYC drivers sucked before I moved here almost a decade ago.
Miami's drivers are horrible, mostly because most of the people here have never been trained to actually drive.
I currently live in Miami. I've lived all over the country. I'm from NYC burbs. I thought NYC drivers sucked before I moved here almost a decade ago.
Miami's drivers are horrible, mostly because most of the people here have never been trained to actually drive.
Yes, that’s true, but in this case they’re all actually wrong. I’ve driven or lived in all of those cities, and they’re all placid next to Miami. It’s not even close.
LA Drivers aren't that bad, driving just is awful there because the amount of traffic. NYC Driving is an absolute pleasure compared to Miami driving. I have what should be an easy ten minute commute and every day I am avoiding an accident due to a driver doing something crazy you would almost never see in another US city.
This is exacerbated by the dysfunctional government which is happy to let developers do whatever they want without regard to impact on traffic flow, while doing no investment in infrastructure itself. I'm generally pro-growth, and I think California goes too far with its restrictions, but living in Miami has caused me to gain some appreciation for the reason behind some of what California does.
This is exacerbated by the dysfunctional government which is happy to let developers do whatever they want without regard to impact on traffic flow, while doing no investment in infrastructure itself. I'm generally pro-growth, and I think California goes too far with its restrictions, but living in Miami has caused me to gain some appreciation for the reason behind some of what California does.
In my experience it is a State wide problem. I95 seemed to be a speed minimum of 95 if you didn’t want to get run off the road by everyone else for going too slow. I-4 (Daytona to Tampa, through Orlando) had over 400 deaths caused by traffic accidents one year. More than 1 death per mile of road. I don’t think 75 was any better, of course it was rough in Atlanta too, but still.
My experience with Florida driving was not a great experience for the few years I lived there.
My experience with Florida driving was not a great experience for the few years I lived there.
In Florida it is common to see cars drive at speeds in excess of 100mph.
LendingTree says Massachusetts is the worst: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/best-worst-drivers-stu...
Not from Miami, so I wonder (based on news etc.) if flooding is ever an issue for traffic in and around the city?
Flooding is absolutely an issue, during the rainy season (third of the year) localized flooding is quite common. Some streets are partially flooded on an almost daily basis, something human drivers are used to but I imagine will pose a new challenge to waymo.
It is during and after a hurricane. I wouldn’t recommend taking a robotaxi during a storm though.
The real question is how it will handle Miami drivers making right turns from three lanes over, or refrigerators falling off of pickup trucks with no railing on one side of the bed while cruising through Hialeah.
I’m sure they know much more than me and have thought this through, but it feels like Miami is an absolutely awful choice. Traffic is notoriously chaotic there. I’ve driven in LA, Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, SF, Miami, etc. It’s by far the worst place to drive, moreso even than Manhattan.
Why do you think that makes a bad market for a driverless car?
If driving is miserable, that means lots of people that dont want to do it. If traffic is chaotic, that means a good place to improve their software.
If driving is miserable, that means lots of people that dont want to do it. If traffic is chaotic, that means a good place to improve their software.
The unique difficulties of driving in Miami might be the reason this is a good choice, not the reason it’s a bad one.
Miami is a challenging place to drive for most Americans with drivers from dozens of different countries on the roads at any given time, very bad traffic that makes drivers impatient and sometimes aggressive. Driving in Manhattan was way more chaotic than anything I experienced in Miami but that was back in the days of yellow cab dominance and those bastards made full use of their bumpers as offensive implements.
But have you driven in Boston?
Nah. I live in Boston. I strongly prefer public transit, but I'll take driving here over most other cities, any day of the week.
The _road layout_ is awful, but drivers are pretty cooperative on the whole. Certainly more than my years driving in DC, for instance.
Granted, you need to be commmital here: if you put on your turn signal, drivers will generally make space for you to get in - briefly - but you need to be quick to take advantage of the gap. I could see Waymo being too slow to the draw for this, based on what I've seen online.
The _road layout_ is awful, but drivers are pretty cooperative on the whole. Certainly more than my years driving in DC, for instance.
Granted, you need to be commmital here: if you put on your turn signal, drivers will generally make space for you to get in - briefly - but you need to be quick to take advantage of the gap. I could see Waymo being too slow to the draw for this, based on what I've seen online.
boston driving is so much better than SF+LA driving because at least what the drivers do there makes sense
I think that's the point, isn't it? Get the fleet deployed and learn how to drive in very tough cities (LA, Miami, etc.)
It's probably based on where public administrations are supportive. Isn't Florida notorious for being car centric?
One more lane, bro, one more self driving car company, bro... :-)
One more lane, bro, one more self driving car company, bro... :-)
Relevant doomer prophecy ~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
How is Waymo going to continue with the iPACE? Jaguar has ceased production of all cars and they are trying to reinvent themselves as an electric Rolls Royce brand.
They have a contract for 20k cars, so I expect that will continue and will help to fund Jaguar's transition: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/waymo-sel...
Waymo, south American and Caribbean drivers. South American and Caribbean drivers, Waymo.
If there's any stress test for auotmated cars it's driving in Miami
If there's any stress test for auotmated cars it's driving in Miami
"... we’ll work to open our doors to riders in 2026". I guess it takes a while to set up for a new city!
Let’s see how they do with Miami drivers.
The sheer number of these things that are going to get shot by angry Miami drivers ...
Question: Do Waymo rides ever get on a freeway within their operating territory?
Not yet. Freeway rides are open to employees only for now, so I'd imagine it's pretty close to being available to the public.
Come to Europe please
Why do I feel like a regulator would immediately file a suit for $1B+ if Waymo did this?
I am morbidly curious to see how Waymos interact with the Good Vibes Only crazies. Miami is definitely going to be hard mode for self driving.
Haha that’s nothing compared to its hometown of San Francisco. People attack, destroy, burn waymos here. Let alone extreme hills and visibility issues.
Miami will be comparably far simpler.
Miami will be comparably far simpler.
[deleted]
Miami probably has some of the worst, most lawless drivers in the country — it's like a free-for-all out there. Makes me wonder if Waymo picked Miami as a kind of stress test for their self-driving tech. If they can handle the chaos there, they can probably handle just about anything.
I'd imagine NYC to be worse than Miami.
Miami seems to share enough similarity in warm weather to SF to be a similar enough use case to expand while providing slightly different driving conditions to be able to dip ones toes in to the driving habits of a different city.
Miami seems to share enough similarity in warm weather to SF to be a similar enough use case to expand while providing slightly different driving conditions to be able to dip ones toes in to the driving habits of a different city.
Absolutely agreed. Not even just because of the weather imo, but because of the actual driving experience here itself.
I’ve lived and been driving for nearly 15 years in various large cities (SF, ATL, Seattle, Portland, LA, etc.), both cars and motorcycles, and NYC (where i currently live) is the only place in the US I absolutely refuse to ever drive (or ride) in.
Not just because it isn’t as necessary here due to public transit usefulness (which is also true), but also because driving here feels like entering a warzone. Narrow roads and parking, drivers being extremely on the edge and leaving a few cm distance max between each car in traffic, constant honking, having to make very dangerous maneuvers on the daily just to get somewhere, and just the cutthroatness of the whole thing here.
I genuinely believe that NYC will end up being the final frontier for Waymo, after all the other places in the US (aside from those with extreme snow conditions).
I’ve lived and been driving for nearly 15 years in various large cities (SF, ATL, Seattle, Portland, LA, etc.), both cars and motorcycles, and NYC (where i currently live) is the only place in the US I absolutely refuse to ever drive (or ride) in.
Not just because it isn’t as necessary here due to public transit usefulness (which is also true), but also because driving here feels like entering a warzone. Narrow roads and parking, drivers being extremely on the edge and leaving a few cm distance max between each car in traffic, constant honking, having to make very dangerous maneuvers on the daily just to get somewhere, and just the cutthroatness of the whole thing here.
I genuinely believe that NYC will end up being the final frontier for Waymo, after all the other places in the US (aside from those with extreme snow conditions).
NYC is far better than Miami.
Miami sucks because half the people on the roads here don't actually know how to drive.
They are immigrants that come from countries whose roads are effectively lawless, or come from countries that have a severely underdeveloped automobile infrastructure, or come from countries where all that's needed to get a driver's license is to pay someone.
Miami sucks because half the people on the roads here don't actually know how to drive.
They are immigrants that come from countries whose roads are effectively lawless, or come from countries that have a severely underdeveloped automobile infrastructure, or come from countries where all that's needed to get a driver's license is to pay someone.
NYC is unique in that you have no choice but to do extremely dangerous things to actually operate in traffic at all in most scenarios.
Streets, alleys, etc. are blocked or are narrowed by vehicles and a myriad of other possible obstructions, all of which could be concealing pedestrians.
Streets, alleys, etc. are blocked or are narrowed by vehicles and a myriad of other possible obstructions, all of which could be concealing pedestrians.
Warm yes but SF doesn’t have many thunderstorms and afternoon downpours.
Yeah, bad drivers are easy for self-driving to deal with. You just drive defensively and avoid the objects. It’s the snow and other sensor obstructions that make things difficult.
Big +1. Here using the turn signal is iffy because some drivers see that as a sign to speed up to try to overtake. I’ve had a few close calls where I check my mirrors, everything is safe for a lane change, turn on the blinker, and the guy in the left lane floors it from 5 car lengths back to cut me off. Sigh.
The Waymo driver is very passive and defensive so I imagine it will be quite slow compared to an Uber who is willing to fight to make turns etc.
The Waymo driver is very passive and defensive so I imagine it will be quite slow compared to an Uber who is willing to fight to make turns etc.
Miami car insurance fraud rings are going to have a fun trying to trick Waymo into rear-ending them. Wonder if it will work.
Would you want to commit insurance fraud against a vehicle that is covered in cameras?
Yes.
The game is that you start to pull out for a right turn, and then brake unexpectedly and get the person behind you to tap your bumper, while they are looking for oncoming traffic to the left. Then you take your car to a "friendly" repair shop that overcharges for a new bumper (or claims to replace it) and split the payout.
There's nothing illegal about braking suddenly, the collision is always the fault of the person behind you legally, so there's no personal risk.
The game is that you start to pull out for a right turn, and then brake unexpectedly and get the person behind you to tap your bumper, while they are looking for oncoming traffic to the left. Then you take your car to a "friendly" repair shop that overcharges for a new bumper (or claims to replace it) and split the payout.
There's nothing illegal about braking suddenly, the collision is always the fault of the person behind you legally, so there's no personal risk.
When I've been in Waymo, they've never drove so fast that they don't have time to brake if the car in front of them does. And they can multitask - while looking for oncoming traffic to the left they can still watch the car in front of them
[deleted]
[deleted]
Imagine if instead Miami built MetroRail extensions to the beach and everywhere else it should go, increased TriRail frequency and express services, built a real network of fully segregated greenways etc etc. It would turn transport nightmare into transport heaven. We don't need more cars on the streets of Miami or the I95...
Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing.
It would also take decades.
This will be happening next year.
Build all the transit you want. You need something for the next 30 years while you're doing that.
It would also take decades.
This will be happening next year.
Build all the transit you want. You need something for the next 30 years while you're doing that.
no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions
trirail frequency increases can be done overnight
a greenway network can also be built quickly and cheaply
metrorail extension would cost more but still less than it costs to build and maintain roads
but they are too busy spending billions building even more car infra which will only make traffic and congestion even worse
trirail frequency increases can be done overnight
a greenway network can also be built quickly and cheaply
metrorail extension would cost more but still less than it costs to build and maintain roads
but they are too busy spending billions building even more car infra which will only make traffic and congestion even worse
> trirail frequency increases can be done overnight
Increasing the frequency can't necessarily be done overnight, unless they actually have the spare rolling stock just sitting around along with all the workers needed to operate and maintain the increased usage and the spare budget to cover the increased operations costs. Otherwise, they need to find the money to procure the rolling stock, actually place the order, wait for the rolling stock to be built/delivered, hire the people to operate and maintain it, etc.
Increasing the frequency can't necessarily be done overnight, unless they actually have the spare rolling stock just sitting around along with all the workers needed to operate and maintain the increased usage and the spare budget to cover the increased operations costs. Otherwise, they need to find the money to procure the rolling stock, actually place the order, wait for the rolling stock to be built/delivered, hire the people to operate and maintain it, etc.
yeah, all of which can be done overnight
You can get expansions in funding approved, solicit bids from multiple firms to make the trains, analyze and approve the bid, get a factory to make potentially several to dozens more trains, ship them across the country (or potentially internationally), hire and train a lot of workers, in less than 24 hours?
you're just being obtuse
in the realm of infrastructure investment, all of that is overnight
vs eg the yet another additional bridge to nowhere they're currently building that is taking decades and costing billions
but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic
in the realm of infrastructure investment, all of that is overnight
vs eg the yet another additional bridge to nowhere they're currently building that is taking decades and costing billions
but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic
> but tell you and every other frothing at the mouth motorist what, enjoy sitting in traffic
You're being quite rude here about this for no reason and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. I'm generally pro public transit, but I'm also a realist and not suggesting it takes practically zero time to procure additional rolling stock and hire a lot more people. A lot of people think having a higher level of service is just run the trains/busses more, but chances are they're already running all the stuff they currently have the capacity to own and operate. It's not like most transit orgs have double the current capacity just sitting idle and nobody thought to run them.
It took them three years after finding the funding and getting all the approvals and signing the contracts to add rolling stock last time. So probably more like four or five years at least to add some additional trains. And that was replacing existing trains, not expanding the fleet, so its not like they had to considerably expand their existing workforce. I imagine most people would consider four or five years not "overnight".
The bus service near me is usually every 20 minutes. That's terrible. I'd absolutely love it to cut that in half. It also means it would cost significantly more to operate. Getting everyone to agree to pay that (a massive task at the start), getting all the proposals put together, soliciting bids, signing the contracts, getting the new busses, hiring the new drivers, and actually increasing the service isn't something that is going to happen in 2025. Probably also not 2026.
You're being quite rude here about this for no reason and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. I'm generally pro public transit, but I'm also a realist and not suggesting it takes practically zero time to procure additional rolling stock and hire a lot more people. A lot of people think having a higher level of service is just run the trains/busses more, but chances are they're already running all the stuff they currently have the capacity to own and operate. It's not like most transit orgs have double the current capacity just sitting idle and nobody thought to run them.
It took them three years after finding the funding and getting all the approvals and signing the contracts to add rolling stock last time. So probably more like four or five years at least to add some additional trains. And that was replacing existing trains, not expanding the fleet, so its not like they had to considerably expand their existing workforce. I imagine most people would consider four or five years not "overnight".
The bus service near me is usually every 20 minutes. That's terrible. I'd absolutely love it to cut that in half. It also means it would cost significantly more to operate. Getting everyone to agree to pay that (a massive task at the start), getting all the proposals put together, soliciting bids, signing the contracts, getting the new busses, hiring the new drivers, and actually increasing the service isn't something that is going to happen in 2025. Probably also not 2026.
the disconnect here is you have a status quo biased thinking
the current state of things is, roads get all the money and transit and bike infra get scraps and are poorly run (so are FDOT road projects too btw)
no one disputes that?
what is being advocated is increasing trirail frequency, implementing an actual network of segregated greenways and expanding metrorail
you're saying "oh we can't do that"
but like, yes, we can? I promise you, if you send out construction crews to apply green paint and put down curbs for greenways, there's no natural law of the universe that would make the paint not come out
and once it's in place, there's nothing preventing millions of Miami residents from using them the same way they're being used in NYC, Montreal, Barcelona etc etc instead of having to get in the car for literally every single trip and errand
likewise if you procure trains there's no magic wall that prevents them from crossing into the state of Florida etc etc
these things are trivially achievable, but misinformed policymakers and voters alike think adding more roads is somehow not costing any money (it costs way more) and will fix traffic (it won't)
the current state of things is, roads get all the money and transit and bike infra get scraps and are poorly run (so are FDOT road projects too btw)
no one disputes that?
what is being advocated is increasing trirail frequency, implementing an actual network of segregated greenways and expanding metrorail
you're saying "oh we can't do that"
but like, yes, we can? I promise you, if you send out construction crews to apply green paint and put down curbs for greenways, there's no natural law of the universe that would make the paint not come out
and once it's in place, there's nothing preventing millions of Miami residents from using them the same way they're being used in NYC, Montreal, Barcelona etc etc instead of having to get in the car for literally every single trip and errand
likewise if you procure trains there's no magic wall that prevents them from crossing into the state of Florida etc etc
these things are trivially achievable, but misinformed policymakers and voters alike think adding more roads is somehow not costing any money (it costs way more) and will fix traffic (it won't)
> the disconnect here is you have a status quo biased thinking
No, the disconnect here is you're being quite rude here about this and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. And now you're even putting words in my mouth.
> you're saying "oh we can't do that"
I never once made the claim. I just argued it wouldn't be "overnight".
None of my statements were about greenways or even about expanding the Metrorail. Just that adding additional capacity can and often does take a while to be approved, acquired, and put into service. Stating it can be done overnight is ignoring reality just as much as someone arguing the paint somehow wouldn't come out to paint a greenway.
I'm for them adding more trains and expanding the existing lines. I'm for the bus service outside my house being a lot better than it currently is. I'm also looking at the fact the cities around me are talking about slashing the funding instead of increasing it and seeing the people around me cheering for such an idea. Me thinking it can be improved overnight is a delusional thought given the realities of today. Thinking Tri-Rail can just snap their fingers and magically get approvals and sign contracts and get trains delivered overnight is also delusional.
Even if we somehow changed people's minds "overnight" to want to increase train service, it'll still take a few years to actually do all the process for acquiring and implementing the additional capacity. Governments almost always move slowly. Even when talking car infrastructure, something which generally is popular, it takes forever to put together the budget proposals, get the funding approved, get the bids together, purchase the materials, and actually get to work. They're still working on doing projects related to a road bond package in my city passed several years ago, and that's once again ignoring all the planning that went into it just to get the proposal together and get it passed.
None of this happens "overnight". Even just getting everything together to officially change the traffic patterns and put the paint down will take many months at the fastest. And that's assuming it's a popular decision.
No, the disconnect here is you're being quite rude here about this and projecting an identity on me that's not warranted. And now you're even putting words in my mouth.
> you're saying "oh we can't do that"
I never once made the claim. I just argued it wouldn't be "overnight".
None of my statements were about greenways or even about expanding the Metrorail. Just that adding additional capacity can and often does take a while to be approved, acquired, and put into service. Stating it can be done overnight is ignoring reality just as much as someone arguing the paint somehow wouldn't come out to paint a greenway.
I'm for them adding more trains and expanding the existing lines. I'm for the bus service outside my house being a lot better than it currently is. I'm also looking at the fact the cities around me are talking about slashing the funding instead of increasing it and seeing the people around me cheering for such an idea. Me thinking it can be improved overnight is a delusional thought given the realities of today. Thinking Tri-Rail can just snap their fingers and magically get approvals and sign contracts and get trains delivered overnight is also delusional.
Even if we somehow changed people's minds "overnight" to want to increase train service, it'll still take a few years to actually do all the process for acquiring and implementing the additional capacity. Governments almost always move slowly. Even when talking car infrastructure, something which generally is popular, it takes forever to put together the budget proposals, get the funding approved, get the bids together, purchase the materials, and actually get to work. They're still working on doing projects related to a road bond package in my city passed several years ago, and that's once again ignoring all the planning that went into it just to get the proposal together and get it passed.
None of this happens "overnight". Even just getting everything together to officially change the traffic patterns and put the paint down will take many months at the fastest. And that's assuming it's a popular decision.
> no it would save miami and the state and the federal government billions
Have you ever looked at the local budget of a US transit authority?
They typically lose $2+ per passenger trip, and get bailed out by the federal government.
Mass transit is not going to save Miami any money for decades until ridership approaches Hong Kong levels.
Unless you count passing on expenses to the Federal government as savings, and even then, it's still decades out.
Have you ever looked at the local budget of a US transit authority?
They typically lose $2+ per passenger trip, and get bailed out by the federal government.
Mass transit is not going to save Miami any money for decades until ridership approaches Hong Kong levels.
Unless you count passing on expenses to the Federal government as savings, and even then, it's still decades out.
With car usage on most roads free of charge at use and maintenance also footed largely by the Federal Government, it probably comes out cheaper long term to invest in rail.
And every car off the toad makes driving more pleasant for everyone who stays.
And every car off the toad makes driving more pleasant for everyone who stays.
lol the idea isn't to make money off transit, it's to save money on roads
roads cost more than transit - a LOT more, and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer
traffic also destroys productivity, public health, life expectancy etc etc so costs money in many more ways than motorists not paying for them
roads cost more than transit - a LOT more, and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer
traffic also destroys productivity, public health, life expectancy etc etc so costs money in many more ways than motorists not paying for them
> and motorists aren't paying anywhere near the cost of road construction and maintenance, they're (quite literally) free-riding subsidized trips on the taxpayer
So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point?
We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight and force everyone to ride them?
By the way, I'm a fan of mass transit, and live somewhere in the US - specifically - where that's a viable option.
It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US, and even if those areas start doing everything right to be mass transit viable (no indication of that), it still takes decades.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point?
We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight and force everyone to ride them?
By the way, I'm a fan of mass transit, and live somewhere in the US - specifically - where that's a viable option.
It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US, and even if those areas start doing everything right to be mass transit viable (no indication of that), it still takes decades.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
> So are public transit riders. And to a worse degree. What's your point?
that this is wildly incorrect. roads cost more than transit. a lot more. and road users are wildly more subsidized than transit users.
> We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight
yes
> and force everyone to ride them?
you won't have to when the choice is between sitting hours in traffic vs a fraction of the time on efficient transit and greenways. people are not stupid.
> It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US
this is Miami, not middle of nowhere Iowa
> Rome wasn't built in a day
so it's correct of Miami to continue to "invest" in even more roads to nowhere, like yet another new highway bridge across the bay? that will take decades to complete and cost billions, and cause MORE traffic?
like no lol just build the effing transit and greenways and traffic will go down and the government and people alike will save billions instead (and their time, and lives)
that this is wildly incorrect. roads cost more than transit. a lot more. and road users are wildly more subsidized than transit users.
> We should magically spawn mass transit systems overnight
yes
> and force everyone to ride them?
you won't have to when the choice is between sitting hours in traffic vs a fraction of the time on efficient transit and greenways. people are not stupid.
> It just isn't a viable option in ~80% of the US
this is Miami, not middle of nowhere Iowa
> Rome wasn't built in a day
so it's correct of Miami to continue to "invest" in even more roads to nowhere, like yet another new highway bridge across the bay? that will take decades to complete and cost billions, and cause MORE traffic?
like no lol just build the effing transit and greenways and traffic will go down and the government and people alike will save billions instead (and their time, and lives)
>Well that would cost Miami taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and this costs Miami taxpayers nothing. It would also take decades.
Ironically enough, the county approved and passed a tax back in 2000 to expand the MetroMover. Not a single inch of rail has been built since. Wonder where all the tax revenue went?
Ironically enough, the county approved and passed a tax back in 2000 to expand the MetroMover. Not a single inch of rail has been built since. Wonder where all the tax revenue went?
point to point transport is nice. trains are ridiculously expensive nowadays. US governments largely can't do large infra projects anymore
they can, they just malinvest in roads that only increase traffic and make things worse and cost even more
instead of transit which saves money
instead of transit which saves money
> that only increase traffic
Increase traffic of people successfully getting from point a to point b, that is what induced demand is.
> instead of transit which saves money
Oh yeah, I'm sure saving on that California HSR project that has been in design since 2008.
Increase traffic of people successfully getting from point a to point b, that is what induced demand is.
> instead of transit which saves money
Oh yeah, I'm sure saving on that California HSR project that has been in design since 2008.
But then a rich person might have to share a ride with a poor person and we can't have that
That doesn't follow. Nobody has said we will force the rich out of their limos.
Some of the rich will chose to use transit though. There is a group of rich people who got that way by being cheap and that group will use transit if possible just because it is cheaper. They don't care about sharing rides with poor people at all.
There is a group of people who appear rich - they live in mansions, drive limos. They are also in dept up to their eyes and one wrong move will put them out on the streets.
Some of the rich will chose to use transit though. There is a group of rich people who got that way by being cheap and that group will use transit if possible just because it is cheaper. They don't care about sharing rides with poor people at all.
There is a group of people who appear rich - they live in mansions, drive limos. They are also in dept up to their eyes and one wrong move will put them out on the streets.
Reminder that cars reshaped urban environments and generally for the worse, and self driving cars have a very solid chance to do the same thing:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
If you have an hour, highly recommended video. A bit too doomerist but the threat is there.
Keep in mind that it's not just about tech (which can be amazing), but also about social aspects, money and politics (which can be atrocious and generally override morality and technology).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
If you have an hour, highly recommended video. A bit too doomerist but the threat is there.
Keep in mind that it's not just about tech (which can be amazing), but also about social aspects, money and politics (which can be atrocious and generally override morality and technology).
I feel like at this point someone needs to take a step back and think about the general vision and overall goals of this whole fully automated ride-hailing service thing.
I mean, what is the exact problem that's being solved here? I don't mean "problem" like "solving the technical problem of making a car move autonomously in a chaotic city" sense. I mean what is the need that's being addressed here, exactly?
Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage. They were also handling most of the maintenance and customer relations aspects of the work, for basically free. Are these sexy cutting edge tech firms with eye-watering budgets and even more eye-watering valuations really going after whatever these people were making?
If the problem is efficiently moving people around in a city; well to be honest I find this premise a bit ridiculous. Call me a European, but I find the idea that moving 1-2 people in private vehicles on roads being superior than public transit -preferably on rail- simply absurd.
Is the idea of living and moving around in a city full of autonomous vehicles actually appealing to anyone? I personally find the whole idea completely disgusting for a number of reasons.
What is the goal here? Am I missing a grand vision? What is there to get excited for? Sorry if this post has been a rant-y one. I feel like I am really missing the point of most of these things.
I mean, what is the exact problem that's being solved here? I don't mean "problem" like "solving the technical problem of making a car move autonomously in a chaotic city" sense. I mean what is the need that's being addressed here, exactly?
Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage. They were also handling most of the maintenance and customer relations aspects of the work, for basically free. Are these sexy cutting edge tech firms with eye-watering budgets and even more eye-watering valuations really going after whatever these people were making?
If the problem is efficiently moving people around in a city; well to be honest I find this premise a bit ridiculous. Call me a European, but I find the idea that moving 1-2 people in private vehicles on roads being superior than public transit -preferably on rail- simply absurd.
Is the idea of living and moving around in a city full of autonomous vehicles actually appealing to anyone? I personally find the whole idea completely disgusting for a number of reasons.
What is the goal here? Am I missing a grand vision? What is there to get excited for? Sorry if this post has been a rant-y one. I feel like I am really missing the point of most of these things.
> If the problem is efficiently moving people around in a city; well to be honest I find this premise a bit ridiculous. Call me a European, but I find the idea that moving 1-2 people in private vehicles on roads being superior than public transit -preferably on rail- simply absurd.
Much of the US like Huston and Miami is extremely lacking in public transit, and will likely never build the infrastructure.
> Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage.
~50% of your fare goes to the driver.
Much of the US like Huston and Miami is extremely lacking in public transit, and will likely never build the infrastructure.
> Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage.
~50% of your fare goes to the driver.
> Much of the US like Huston and Miami is extremely lacking in public transit, and will likely never build the infrastructure.
I am not trying to be a contrarian here, but I fail to see how that is an answer. I feel like what you say boils down to "since we are not solving the problem at hand in a good way, we decided to solve it in a worse way".
> ~50% of your fare goes to the driver.
Yet these ride-hailing companies who receive whatever is remaining after the meager pay of the rider and other costs only recently started to make actual profits. And even though it feels like the prices for customers increased a lot over the years, these companies are not exactly printing money.
I am not trying to be a contrarian here, but I fail to see how that is an answer. I feel like what you say boils down to "since we are not solving the problem at hand in a good way, we decided to solve it in a worse way".
> ~50% of your fare goes to the driver.
Yet these ride-hailing companies who receive whatever is remaining after the meager pay of the rider and other costs only recently started to make actual profits. And even though it feels like the prices for customers increased a lot over the years, these companies are not exactly printing money.
> since we are not solving the problem at hand in a good way, we decided to solve it in a worse way
It's a different "we". Rephrased:
since Houston's government is not solving the problem at hand in a good way, Waymo decided to solve it in a worse way
It's a different "we". Rephrased:
since Houston's government is not solving the problem at hand in a good way, Waymo decided to solve it in a worse way
Forget Houston. Half this country is suburban-to-rural with development patterns that are profoundly ill-suited to mass transit. Yet, all of those areas have a fantastic road system already fully built out. Provide cheap rideshares (by removing most of the labor cost, which are the vast majority of the per-ride costs) and you've solved the previously unsolvable problem of moving Americans from point A to point B without each person needing to own and pilot a car.
Huston is in fact building transit. They have a large spread out city which makes it a hard problem, but if you carefully choose where you look you will find people living there who don't have a car and just rely on transit and don't notice any loss of lifestyle.
Houston is adding bus routes, and even those are hotly contested in city hall. The city tried to expand the very limited light rail we have but the vote for that failed.
We live in a super walkable part of Houston and still need cars to go to many places outside of (and even within) the Inner Loop. A 10-min journey in a car takes 45+ mins by bus, and that's assuming peak schedules and buses that arrive on time.
I actually tried to do the no-car thing for a few weeks. It definitely impacted my lifestyle for the worst. The gym I go to is 10 mins away by car. It's a 45 minute journey by bus.
I needed to walk 15 minutes to the nearest bus stop (despite being next to two well-trafficked cross streets). When the bus finally arrived, I needed to pay with cash because METRO didn't have Apple Pay set up at the time (early 2024) and while you could use the Q Ticketing app, it doesn't have a Watch app and I didn't bring my phone.
The bus didn't show on two occasions. The next buses were 45 minutes away.
All of this is, again, in the most walkable, public transit covered part of Houston.
I also lived in NYC for a long time. There, getting anywhere was a 10 min walk to a train station, swiping you MetroCard (Apple Pay these days), taking the train and walking a bit to your destination. The only places that were inconvenient to get to by train alone were deep in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx; for those, you'd take the bus, which usually ran every 10 mins.
We live in a super walkable part of Houston and still need cars to go to many places outside of (and even within) the Inner Loop. A 10-min journey in a car takes 45+ mins by bus, and that's assuming peak schedules and buses that arrive on time.
I actually tried to do the no-car thing for a few weeks. It definitely impacted my lifestyle for the worst. The gym I go to is 10 mins away by car. It's a 45 minute journey by bus.
I needed to walk 15 minutes to the nearest bus stop (despite being next to two well-trafficked cross streets). When the bus finally arrived, I needed to pay with cash because METRO didn't have Apple Pay set up at the time (early 2024) and while you could use the Q Ticketing app, it doesn't have a Watch app and I didn't bring my phone.
The bus didn't show on two occasions. The next buses were 45 minutes away.
All of this is, again, in the most walkable, public transit covered part of Houston.
I also lived in NYC for a long time. There, getting anywhere was a 10 min walk to a train station, swiping you MetroCard (Apple Pay these days), taking the train and walking a bit to your destination. The only places that were inconvenient to get to by train alone were deep in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx; for those, you'd take the bus, which usually ran every 10 mins.
I didn't say many were no car. Jus that it isn't as bad as the reputation by a bit. Your experience proves that I think
*50% of your fare goes to the driver, as well as paying for fuel, vehicle maintenance and depreciation, insurance, etc.
Without a driver those other costs don’t go away.
Without a driver those other costs don’t go away.
It's ~75% going to the driver if you count the driver's expenses as money that goes to the driver: https://www.hyrecar.com/blog/how-much-does-uber-take-from-dr...
Not to mention tips. I feel an obligation to tip drivers, in part because I know the economics of their job is rough. I don't tip robots.
> Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage.
That's the problem. People want taxis. Taxi drivers are both underpaid and also expensive. Removing the driver is a very expensive research process, but once you've done it and rolled out the solution nationally, you're saving a lot of money.
And you're also creating a huge moat against competition. Say Google "finishes" self-driving cars, stops needing to spend nearly as much money on researching/developing the software, and mostly has figured out scaling. It's now far cheaper for Google to drive around than Uber. They can easily charge less than basically everyone who isn't willing to spend billions developing self-driving cars.
That's the problem. People want taxis. Taxi drivers are both underpaid and also expensive. Removing the driver is a very expensive research process, but once you've done it and rolled out the solution nationally, you're saving a lot of money.
And you're also creating a huge moat against competition. Say Google "finishes" self-driving cars, stops needing to spend nearly as much money on researching/developing the software, and mostly has figured out scaling. It's now far cheaper for Google to drive around than Uber. They can easily charge less than basically everyone who isn't willing to spend billions developing self-driving cars.
The grand vision is to erode the middle class entirely, have undocumented immigrants work in agriculture and automate the rest.
Who can afford a Waymo ride in that scenario is an open question, but perhaps the tech overlords dream of having a tiny "elite" and a robot army that subjugates the farm workers, in which case Waymo will no longer be required.
Who can afford a Waymo ride in that scenario is an open question, but perhaps the tech overlords dream of having a tiny "elite" and a robot army that subjugates the farm workers, in which case Waymo will no longer be required.
uber drivers deserve to be eroded entirely if their occupation literally costs lives compared to an autonomous vehicle
1. The global Taxi market is one that does a quarter trillion dollar revenue per year.
2. the biggest cost component is labour. The biggest safety component is labour. The biggest service component is related to labour.
3. if you cut down cost of labour, make it more safe than before, and provide a quiet and private ride allowing private calls, conversations, music, you can beat other market participants
So yes it's commercially interesting and that's all it needs to be.
As for efficient and sustainable transport, there are certainly criticisms to be had. But these must be addressed via regulation, in my view. You can't expect taxi companies to disappear. You can add a tax to fuel to encourage a transition to electric. You can put a tax on noisy cars to encourage silent ones. You can put a tax on size, to encourage 1-person taxi pods for 1 person which will be 80% of the self-driving taxi fleet, and encourage 100% utilisation of self-driving busses for a small portion of the fleet. But you can't expect companies to simply not do business in the taxi industry because cars are imperfect from a sustainability/transport point of view.
I'm not sure what's disgusting to you.
2. the biggest cost component is labour. The biggest safety component is labour. The biggest service component is related to labour.
3. if you cut down cost of labour, make it more safe than before, and provide a quiet and private ride allowing private calls, conversations, music, you can beat other market participants
So yes it's commercially interesting and that's all it needs to be.
As for efficient and sustainable transport, there are certainly criticisms to be had. But these must be addressed via regulation, in my view. You can't expect taxi companies to disappear. You can add a tax to fuel to encourage a transition to electric. You can put a tax on noisy cars to encourage silent ones. You can put a tax on size, to encourage 1-person taxi pods for 1 person which will be 80% of the self-driving taxi fleet, and encourage 100% utilisation of self-driving busses for a small portion of the fleet. But you can't expect companies to simply not do business in the taxi industry because cars are imperfect from a sustainability/transport point of view.
I'm not sure what's disgusting to you.
It also expands the market. Currently bus riders can’t afford to take Ubers but would prefer to. People that would rather take Ubers than walk or bike, and people who would rather give up their car and do uber full time.
This will all be possible with low cost autonomous transport
This will all be possible with low cost autonomous transport
Here are some benefits:
- Lower costs in the long-term. In the future it should be cheaper than owning a car.
- Lot of space that is currently being used for parking will be freed up.
- Convenience. It's a better experience than Uber and it will be a better experience than a manually-driven car. One example is when I want to drive to place A, take a 3 hour hike to place B and then drive home.
- Lower costs in the long-term. In the future it should be cheaper than owning a car.
- Lot of space that is currently being used for parking will be freed up.
- Convenience. It's a better experience than Uber and it will be a better experience than a manually-driven car. One example is when I want to drive to place A, take a 3 hour hike to place B and then drive home.
Living in SF as a family of four with both adults working from home... Owning 1 car and using Waymo/uber/lyft/e-Bike is already significantly cheaper than owning 2 cars.
> I mean, what is the exact problem that's being solved here?
There are people that will pay you to give them a ride from point A to point B; Google has developed a cheaper and more scalable way to give people a ride from point A to point B.
> Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage.
And now Google made them way more productive, what leads to some combination of higher wages, lower prices, and higher profits. The government there has a moderate amount of control over the proportion, it's not clear to me what values it will pick.
> If the problem is efficiently moving people around in a city
Nah, it's certainly not. But if you solve that one, Google will be forced to pivot into efficiently moving people into and out of a city, and they can add a lot of value there.
There are people that will pay you to give them a ride from point A to point B; Google has developed a cheaper and more scalable way to give people a ride from point A to point B.
> Ride-hailing workers were already often working for less than minimum wage.
And now Google made them way more productive, what leads to some combination of higher wages, lower prices, and higher profits. The government there has a moderate amount of control over the proportion, it's not clear to me what values it will pick.
> If the problem is efficiently moving people around in a city
Nah, it's certainly not. But if you solve that one, Google will be forced to pivot into efficiently moving people into and out of a city, and they can add a lot of value there.
> moving 1-2 people in private vehicles
Eliminating the driver opens up so many options:
1. Vehicles designed expressly for 1 or 2 people, so they take up less space 2. Dynamic mini bus routes that can run all hours of the day 3. Dynamic car pooling
Eliminating the driver opens up so many options:
1. Vehicles designed expressly for 1 or 2 people, so they take up less space 2. Dynamic mini bus routes that can run all hours of the day 3. Dynamic car pooling
The grand vision, the problem being solved, is that humans suck at driving, especially when drunk and texting. If no human ever drove drunk again, it would literally save lives. You can be cynical about the profit motive, because there is one, but fundamentally, reducing traffic fatalities, which is over a million a year, was Sebastian Thrun, one of the original researcher's, stated goal. That it changes the rest of society and makes him a ton of money along the way is just a nice side benefit.
> Is the idea of living and moving around in a city full of autonomous vehicles actually appealing to anyone? I personally find the whole idea completely disgusting for a number of reasons.
Assuming they're safe and cheaper than current Ubers/taxis? Yeah I'd be fairly okay with it. I don't think it's necessarily ideal, but I definitely can't relate with "completely disgusting", personally.
Public transit is nice and all but walking to and then waiting around at bus stops (especially in bad weather), squeezing into a crowded bus or train, stopping at intermediate stops, making transfers... there's definitely downsides. I don't use Uber/Lyft/Waymo often but I have to admit walking outside and having a climate-controlled, comfortable ride right there, which takes you straight to where you're going, is pretty nice. If it cost less and was more eco-friendly I'd probably use it more; we'll see if they can tackle that.
Assuming they're safe and cheaper than current Ubers/taxis? Yeah I'd be fairly okay with it. I don't think it's necessarily ideal, but I definitely can't relate with "completely disgusting", personally.
Public transit is nice and all but walking to and then waiting around at bus stops (especially in bad weather), squeezing into a crowded bus or train, stopping at intermediate stops, making transfers... there's definitely downsides. I don't use Uber/Lyft/Waymo often but I have to admit walking outside and having a climate-controlled, comfortable ride right there, which takes you straight to where you're going, is pretty nice. If it cost less and was more eco-friendly I'd probably use it more; we'll see if they can tackle that.
As I see it, the biggest goal is safety - self-driving cars seem to reduce accidents per distance driven by at least one order of magnitude.
Citation needed. I've seen claims like that, but none of them from a source that stands up to scrutiny. Most such claims come from the people promoting self driving cars and so they have reason to "lie with statistics". Those who have unbiased data (ie governments) are not talking about it from what I can see.
I personally am significnatly safer than the average driver. This comes solely down to me not drinking alcohol and thus I never drive while drunk. The typical driver also isn't under the influence and thus is significantly better than the average. (I also try to follow other safety practices, but I'm not sure if I'm really better - I'm aware of and pay attention to one thing which makes me better - but what am I not aware of that others are doing?)
I personally am significnatly safer than the average driver. This comes solely down to me not drinking alcohol and thus I never drive while drunk. The typical driver also isn't under the influence and thus is significantly better than the average. (I also try to follow other safety practices, but I'm not sure if I'm really better - I'm aware of and pay attention to one thing which makes me better - but what am I not aware of that others are doing?)
Most people are safer than average most of the time. Risk is a heavily bimodal. The issue is that people keep driving even when it's risky. Maybe they have to get to work even though they didn't sleep much, or they need to get home from the bar, or they're road raging, or they don't have someone with them to drive instead.
People driving home from bars is the biggest issue of the ones you mentioned. People drink alcohol at bars, which impairs their judgement, and they then use this impaired judgement to then decide that it's a good idea to get behind the wheel.
They're all big issues. We have an entire set of federal regulations specifically to address fatigued driving for commercial haulers called Hours of Service.
"I feel like at this point someone needs to take a step back and think about the general vision and overall goals of this whole fully automated ride-hailing service thing."
The goal is to make money for the owners and managers of those companies.
The goal is to make money for the owners and managers of those companies.
At least for me the goal is to have me seated, heated/cooled, separated from smelly hobos and showtimes, not breathing in crack smoke, not breathing in brake dust in subway tunnels, not breathing in other peoples diseases. Anyone who tells me my individual wants are disgusting will not get my vote.
For society, building rail infrastructure in the US is so eye watering expensive and time consuming that transporting everyone by electric AV might actually be an easier way to decarbonize transport.
For society, building rail infrastructure in the US is so eye watering expensive and time consuming that transporting everyone by electric AV might actually be an easier way to decarbonize transport.
This is terrible. Driving Uber is an important source of income for recent immigrants from LatAM countries.
We should have cut things off back when we had the chance and never let the stocking frame do this to us.
[deleted]
Jaguar discontinued the I-PACE and presumably does not manufacture them anymore. It must be the case that Waymo is cannibalizing their fleet capacity from other markets for every new city launch.
Waymo has a zillion I-PACE vehicles in storage/prep and 2 new models in the pipeline.
Jaguar did not manufacture the I-Pace at all. It was made by Steyr, who also built a ton of them for Waymo.
TIL Magna Steyr is the largest contract manufacturer of automobiles worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr)
Waymo is changing to a Hundai iqonic 5, especially made for them. In the meantime they have brought up all Jaguar they could.
I can’t imagine that they would have any major difficulties installing their equipment on any other vehicle.
And they also probably have every little default finding I-PACE vehicles that have gone unsold or are unwanted.
And they also probably have every little default finding I-PACE vehicles that have gone unsold or are unwanted.
Waymo is cool, but I have no idea how it is going to compete with the tsunami coming that is CyberCab. Tesla will be mass producing this smaller, cheaper vehicle like nothing else. Covering the entire country with self driving vehicles.
I don’t know how Waymo can possibly compete with that. Their deployment by city is slow, their hardware is expensive, slown to produce, and not purpose built for self driving.
I don’t know how Waymo can possibly compete with that. Their deployment by city is slow, their hardware is expensive, slown to produce, and not purpose built for self driving.
The bigger question is, how can Tesla with it's non-working "full self driving" compete with Waymo's working actual self-driving.
That’s a non issue. FSD is quickly approaching self driving in all scenarios. Waymo is limited specific cities and surface streets.
In a way Waymo is behind, they can’t scale fast enough. Their vehicles are far from optimal and expensive. When CyberCab comes around it will blow past Waymo with ease.
In a way Waymo is behind, they can’t scale fast enough. Their vehicles are far from optimal and expensive. When CyberCab comes around it will blow past Waymo with ease.
Not if CyberCab doesn’t have working software. FSD has a disengagement rate in the doubt digits according to community trackers. They are a long way away from reliability needed to remove the driver. They won’t be “blowing past” anyone for the foreseeable future.
I’ve seen teslas full self driving drive me on surface roads, on the highway, and even navigate the lot, find parking, and park the car. In what way is it non working at this point? Waymo doesn’t even do highway.
But not with a sufficient reliability and safety. You need that to do what Waymo does. Waymo could do highways 15 years ago, right now they use highways in autonomous mode but only with employees or empty, so they will presumably launch soon.
Imagine 2 drivers, one does something dangerous every hour, the other every 1000 hours. If you observe them for one hour, they may appear identical to you. Yet, one is 1000x better.
Imagine 2 drivers, one does something dangerous every hour, the other every 1000 hours. If you observe them for one hour, they may appear identical to you. Yet, one is 1000x better.
> In what way is it non working at this point?
Because you're in the driver's seat supervising at all times? If it worked fully autonomously, you would be in the backseat.
Because you're in the driver's seat supervising at all times? If it worked fully autonomously, you would be in the backseat.
It does work fully autonomously. The fact that you are "supervising it" is a lie to regulators. No one has the reaction time to take the wheel and get in control of the car in the event of a situation where the autopilot fails. people don't even have the reaction time to do that when they are already in control of a car and something unfolds in front of them.
It's not "full" self driving despite their advertisements (which shouldn't even be legal to use). It can't handle basic weather or bad drivers or confusing road markings.
Granted, neither can many humans. But the bar should be many times higher if the operators are relieved of liability.
Granted, neither can many humans. But the bar should be many times higher if the operators are relieved of liability.
Anecdotally speaking it drives around LA county better than waymo. Maybe the weather isn't bad but the road markings especially on cement roads are often pretty shit compared to other parts of the country and hard for me to even see at night with my own human eyes.
> I’ve seen teslas full self driving drive me ...
> In what way is it non working at this point?
It's killing people:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/18/24273418/nhtsa-tesla-ful...
> In what way is it non working at this point?
It's killing people:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/18/24273418/nhtsa-tesla-ful...
What like other drivers too?
How about this?
Tesla’s latest FSD beat Waymo by 30 minutes. Same route and same time of day.
https://youtu.be/CfX8Lu9MHa0?si=cOYWNXjPiYP9R6L_
Tesla’s latest FSD beat Waymo by 30 minutes. Same route and same time of day.
https://youtu.be/CfX8Lu9MHa0?si=cOYWNXjPiYP9R6L_
This is literally just a video of getting somewhere midday in LA via highway vs surface streets? Waymos don't drive on highways in LA yet (just in the bay area, I think?)
> Same route and same time of day.
Just a small difference: one of them did it without a driver.
Just a small difference: one of them did it without a driver.
I don't see a taxi service from Tesla yet, while I've rode in a waymo in SF, so it is hard for me to see how Tesla is winning in the auto-taxi segment yet. Maybe their bet pays off and they dominate, or maybe waymo keeps expanding while Tesla keeps talking about vaporware, who knows?
Relative to Tesla Waymo cannot scale. Waymo vehicles are more expensive, plus the bolted on technology is expensive. Waymo can’t scale up production like Tesla. There is literally no way for them to compete. The field is tilted towards Tesla in every direction.
Do you believe Musk's timeline estimates?
I don’t even know what the timeline is, but you see it coming fast plain as day. Both CyberCab and FSD are very far along. I’d say 2 years to build that factory and initial production line. With half the part count, they’re going to be pumping these out fast.
> Waymo is cool, but I have no idea how it is going to compete with the tsunami coming that is CyberCab. Tesla will be mass producing this smaller, cheaper vehicle like nothing else. Covering the entire country with self driving vehicles.
Don't fall for the hype.
Don't fall for the hype.
This is fundamental. Waymo doesn’t make cars. They can’t scale like Tesla can. Waymo vehicles are way more expensive and not optimized at all for FSD, it’s all bolt on.
If nothing changes, when CyberCab comes around Waymo will be screwed.
If nothing changes, when CyberCab comes around Waymo will be screwed.
It's not fundamental. We know how to make cars. Other companies are also adding sensors to their existing cars.
Waymo is partnering with existing car companies and those have a lot more production capacity than Tesla.
I had also hoped you Teslabros would chill with the Tesla hype when Model 3 was supposed to cost 35k but the cheapest model is about 45k, the cheapest Cybertruck was supposed to also be about 35k but instead it's about 100k, the Semi isn't doing much, the Roadster is still vaporware, FSD is nowhere near FSD...
Waymo is partnering with existing car companies and those have a lot more production capacity than Tesla.
I had also hoped you Teslabros would chill with the Tesla hype when Model 3 was supposed to cost 35k but the cheapest model is about 45k, the cheapest Cybertruck was supposed to also be about 35k but instead it's about 100k, the Semi isn't doing much, the Roadster is still vaporware, FSD is nowhere near FSD...
Again, Waymo sensors are expensive. Waymo cars are also expensive, 4 seaters with lots of other parts included for manual driving.
Unless Waymo is working to design their own car for self driving they’re not going to be able to compete with a much cheaper self driving vehicle. Tesla will flood the market.
Also ‘partnering’ you think legacy auto is going to let a middle man like Waymo ‘use’ their cars once self driving taxi services are here. They will cut out Waymo middle man fast. People will be buying subscriptions to Honda and Ford taxi services, not Waymo.
I think you forgot to factor in 10 years of inflation into your prices. A factory for Semi is being built in Nevada as we speak. And FSD is incredibly good, it can drive today in far more places than a Waymo can. Personally it drives me 90% of the time, and the next update with auto parking support it’ll be up to 99%.
Unless Waymo is working to design their own car for self driving they’re not going to be able to compete with a much cheaper self driving vehicle. Tesla will flood the market.
Also ‘partnering’ you think legacy auto is going to let a middle man like Waymo ‘use’ their cars once self driving taxi services are here. They will cut out Waymo middle man fast. People will be buying subscriptions to Honda and Ford taxi services, not Waymo.
I think you forgot to factor in 10 years of inflation into your prices. A factory for Semi is being built in Nevada as we speak. And FSD is incredibly good, it can drive today in far more places than a Waymo can. Personally it drives me 90% of the time, and the next update with auto parking support it’ll be up to 99%.
A car with no steering wheel, such as the Cybertaxi, is a very far cry from the current FSD. I don't want to die or kill others with a car.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Waymo doesn't make the cars. Geely does.
And they make the same number of cars each year that Tesla does.
Also deployment by city exists because each state will have different regulations.
And they make the same number of cars each year that Tesla does.
Also deployment by city exists because each state will have different regulations.
The problem is the vehicles are expensive, it doesn’t scale. CyberCab is designed for mass mass production.
If you need a clue, look at CyberTruck already out producing both Rivian and Lightning in less than a year.
If you need a clue, look at CyberTruck already out producing both Rivian and Lightning in less than a year.
Sure, right, it should be operational by 2017 at the latest, according to the Tesla CEO.
Get ready. You guys didn’t think CyberTruck would happen, but now it’s already out producing Rivian and Lightning.
I can’t tell you when it will happen, just that it will happen and when it does Waymo is screwed.
I can’t tell you when it will happen, just that it will happen and when it does Waymo is screwed.
You are exactly right. Look at how you’re getting downvoted.
It’s so disappointing that this so-called tech community is so deranged because of their hatred of Musk so much that they’re not willing to look at the facts.
If it was any other company doing what Tesla is doing with their self driving, the comments here would be completely different.
It’s so disappointing that this so-called tech community is so deranged because of their hatred of Musk so much that they’re not willing to look at the facts.
If it was any other company doing what Tesla is doing with their self driving, the comments here would be completely different.
> they’re not willing to look at the facts.
Quite the opposite.
The facts are that Elon Musk is notorious for overselling and missing deadlines.
RoboTaxi has supposed to have come out how long ago? How much did Cybertruck get delayed? Roadster was supposed to be out 4 years ago, and there's now basically not a peep about it. Elon has taken who knows how much money from people for reservations, and 4 years later they've got nothing to show for it.
I would bet my life savings that we will not see RoboTaxi or CyberCab by the end of 2026.
Quite the opposite.
The facts are that Elon Musk is notorious for overselling and missing deadlines.
RoboTaxi has supposed to have come out how long ago? How much did Cybertruck get delayed? Roadster was supposed to be out 4 years ago, and there's now basically not a peep about it. Elon has taken who knows how much money from people for reservations, and 4 years later they've got nothing to show for it.
I would bet my life savings that we will not see RoboTaxi or CyberCab by the end of 2026.
Meh they got Bitcoin wrong as well and after 15 years still think it’s a scam.
Very true, the only reason I didn’t buy bitcoin at $1 was because of hackernews comments, I thought these people were smart about technology.
Thankfully I got my bearings right and bought at $250 and still holding.
HN commenters are notorious for being wrong, almost every successful unicorn, if you go look at the early comments about them, HN top comment is usually dead wrong about them
Thankfully I got my bearings right and bought at $250 and still holding.
HN commenters are notorious for being wrong, almost every successful unicorn, if you go look at the early comments about them, HN top comment is usually dead wrong about them
Miami: 57 in. (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset...
SF: 25 in. (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset...)
Phoenix: 7 in. (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset...)