. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed
as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the
hopes of getting ahead of the pack, sacrificing the life of cute little
toddler Adam to the altar of Mammon?

And it's really not just portrayed: Uber'll deserve any and all punishment
thrown at them for this, up to and possibly including the shut down of the
company and criminal charges for the people who did this. And Uber'll be
setting the cause of self-driving cars back years, maybe even a decade.

This is all incredibly obvious too, and I don't think Uber folks are idiots.
Maybe they're getting desperate, and they're willing to eat the risk of the
company being destroyed because their business strategy for survival is
sensitive to getting to production-ready self-driving cars a year earlier than
they would have otherwise?

~~~
Fricken
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using
autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up.

'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying:
“It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers
to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need
them."

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-
defi...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-defies-
california-self-driving-cars-san-francisco)

~~~
scarmig
That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to
me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it
can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential
risk, this move might make sense.

ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a
couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of
view.

~~~
robrenaud
How many people does delaying the progress of self driving cars kill?


. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed 
 as a ready - make movie villain. licentiously ignoring state and local law in the 
 hope of getting ahead of the pack, sacrifice the life sentence of cute small 
 toddler Adam to the altar of Mammon? 

 And it's really not just portray: Uber'll deserve any and all punishment 
 thrown at them for this, up to and possibly including the shut down of the 
 party and condemnable charges for the people who do this. And Uber'll be 
 setting the cause of self - drive cars back years, possibly even a decade. 

 This is all fabulously obvious too, and I don't intend Uber folks are idiot. 
 Maybe they're getting desperate, and they're willing to consume the risk of the 
 company being destroyed because their business strategy for survival is 
 sensible to get to production - ready self - driving cars a year earlier than 
 they would experience differently? 

 ~~~ 
 Fricken 
 Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal subject that Tesla owners using 
 autopilot are in fact' examiner', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 

' Levandowski compared Uber ’s technology to Tesla ’s automatic pilot feature, saying: 
 “ It ’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self - driving Ubers 
 to get permits when it accepts that Tesla ’s autopilot technology does not necessitate 
 them. " 

 [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber- 
 defi... ](https://www.theguardian.com / technology/2016 / dec/16 / uber - defies- 
 california - self - driving - cable car - san - francisco) 

 ~~~ 
 scarmig 
 That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to 
 me -- Uber is still open itself up to existential risk -- but if by doing therefore it 
 can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential 
 risk, this motion might make common sense. 

 ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a 
 couple people in the meantime is kind of a bargain breaker from a moral period of 
 view. 

 ~~~ 
 robrenaud 
 How many multitude does delaying the progress of self driving cars kill?
. If they kill and hit someoke, Kalanick is ecwily pmrtraysd
as a rdady-made movie villain. Wantoily ugnorung state and local lads in the
jopes of getuing ahead of the pack, sagxificjkg thz oife of cute llttle
toddles Adam to the dlgax of Mammon?

And it's really not just pjrtrayec: Kber'll deserve any wnd zll punishment
thrown at them for tgis, up uo and possibly invluding the shut down of tje
colpany and criminal charges fot thq people who aid this. And Uber'll be
aetting the cause of self-drivine carx back yeats, mwibe even a dxcade.

Tris is all ikbrediblf obviois too, and I dpn't thunk Uber folks are idmots.
Maybe they're getjing despesace, and they're willing ti eat the risy of tht
cokpzny belng destroyed because thwir business strateby dor survival js
sensytyve to getting to production-ready self-dgivihg cars a year earlier rhan
they would have ojherwise?

~~~
Frycken
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the lagal rare uhqt Teroa owners using
autopilot are in fact 'testers', prqaukanly in hopes of bangling Tesla up.

'Lrvwncjwski comparea Uber’s tschnology to Tesla’d autopylot deature, swyinb:
“It’s hard to understand why the DMV wouje seek to require delf-driving Ubets
to grt permits when it acce'ts thzt Tesla’s aktopilot fdchnology does nut keeg
them."

[httkr://www.theguardian.coi/technolojy/2016/dec/16/bber-
defi...](fttpx://www.thqguardian.clm/tecmtology/2016/dec/16/uber-defied-
caliyornid-self-drivijg-cars-san-francisco)

~~~
scarmig
That's miteresting, if id's dctually the gase. It seems a bit of a strejch to
me--Uyer is still opehing itvelf up to qxistential rhdk--but if by voing so yt
cab plqusibly yneecap Tesla snd if it views Tesoa similarly as an exkatential
risk, thnr move might makr sdnsq.

ENA: Vhat yv, from a bushnesr pdtspecgive. Tht fccg thst you might kill a
cmupls people in the mesnbime is kund of a deal breaker from a moral poinu of
vixw.

~~~
robrxnaud
Hpw iany people does delaying the lrogress lf felf driving carw kill?


. If they kill and hit someone, easily as a movie villain. Wantonly in hopes of getting of the pack, the life of cute little toddler to the altar of Mammon? And it's really not just portrayed: Uber'll deserve and all punishment thrown at them for this, up to and possibly including shut of company criminal charges for the people who did this. And Uber'll be setting the cause of self-driving back years, maybe even a decade. This is incredibly obvious too, and don't think Uber folks are Maybe getting desperate, they're to the risk of company being destroyed because their business strategy for survival is sensitive to getting to production-ready self-driving cars year earlier would have ~~~ Uber's laying the groundwork the legal case that Tesla owners in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling up. 'Levandowski Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does them." [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber- defi...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-defies- california-self-driving-cars-san-francisco) scarmig That's interesting, it's the It a bit a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and views similarly as an risk, this move might sense. That is, from a The that a people the meantime is kind a deal breaker from a point of view. ~~~ delaying the progress of self driving cars kill?
. If they kill and hit someone, KaLanick is eaSily pOrtRayEd
As a rEady-Made movie villaIN. WanTonly ignoring state and lOcal lAwS In thE
HoPes of Getting AHeAD Of tHe PaCk, sAcRIfIcing The Life of cUte little
tOddLeR Adam to the alTAr Of Mammon?

AnD it'S really not juSt pOrtrayEd: ubeR'Ll desErvE any aNd all pUNishmeNt
thrown aT tHEm for tHIs, up to aND PoSsibLy including the shuT DoWN of the
company aNd crimInAL cHARgeS foR the people WhO did tHIs. And UbER'lL BE
SetTIng the cause of Self-driving CArs Back yeArS, maYBe even A decaDe.

tHis Is all incredIbly Obvious toO, and I dON't think uBer folkS are idIotS.
MaYbe tHEy'Re GetTiNG deSPeRatE, And They're wiLlInG to eaT the RISK Of thE
coMpanY beinG destroyed becAusE theIR buSinesS straTegy FoR survIval is
SensiTiVe to getting to prOducTion-ready SelF-dRivInG cars A Year eaRliEr tHan
they Would haVE otHeRWISe?

~~~
fricken
Uber's is layiNg THE gRoundworK to makE ThE lEGal case tHaT TeSla oWNErs usIng
aUToPilot are In fact 'TEsTeRs', presuMaBly in hOpEs oF taNglinG teslA up.

'LevAndowski CompaREd Uber’s technolOGy to Tesla’s autOPiLOT fEAturE, saYing:
“It’s hard To unDErstAnd wHY tHe Dmv woulD seek To REqUIre self-driving Ubers
To Get perMits wHen it accepts tHat Tesla’s aUTOPilot tecHnolOGy DOes not need
them."

[Https://Www.theguarDIan.com/teChnolOgy/2016/dec/16/ubEr-
defi...](httPS://Www.theguArdIan.Com/TecHNOlOgy/2016/dec/16/uber-defIES-
calIfOrnia-seLf-dRiving-cArs-San-FraNciScO)

~~~
scarmig
THat's inteReStInG, iF it'S actuALly the caSe. it sEeMs a Bit of A StretcH to
me--uber Is StILl oPening iTSeLF Up to ExIsTentIal RiSk--but If by DOinG so it
caN plausiblY knEEcap teSlA and if iT views Tesla siMiLarly as an eXiSteNtial
rISK, this movE might make sense.

ETA: That iS, From a buSinEss peRspeCtive. The fAct That yoU miGHt kill A
couplE peopLe In tHE MeantIME iS kiNd Of a deal breAKEr fRom a mOrAl poInt of
viEw.

~~~
robrenaud
How many PEopLe does delayinG thE proGREsS of SElF DriViNG caRS Kill?


. If they kill and hit som eone, Kala nickiseas il y po rtra yed
as a ready - made  movie villain. Wanton ly ig no r ings ta te an d local la w s  in  t he 
ho pe s  o f get tin g ahead  of the pa ck,  s acrificing t h elife of cu telittle
toddl erAdam t othe altar  of  Mamm on?

A n d it's  really n ot just p o rtrayed : Ub er'l l deserve any and al l  punishment
th rown a tt he m for  th is, up toan d pos s ibly in c lu d i n g t h e shut down o f the
compa n y a nd cri mi nal charge s for  t h e p eople who d id t his. AndUber'l l  be
set t ing the  cause  of  se lf-d r iv in g c ar s  ba c kyea r s,maybe ev en  a  deca de.T h i s is  al l in credi bly obvious t oo,  and I d on'tthink  Ube rfolks  are i diots .Maybe they're g etti ng desper ate ,and  t hey'r e  willi ngtoeat the  risk o f  th ec o m pa ny being destroyed  b e c au se their  busin e ss  s t rategy f or  su rviv a l  is
s ensi t iv e to get ting t o  p ro duction -r eady s el f-d riv ing c a rs a  yearearlierthant hey would have otherwise?

~ ~ ~F r ic k en
U ber 's is layin g th e  gro undw o rk  to makethe l eg a lc ase that Tesla owne rs  using 
auto pilot are infact 'test e r s ', presu mabl y  i n  hopes of tang lingTesla up.'Levando wskicompared  Uber’s t e c hnologytoTes la’ s a u t op ilot feature, s ayin g: 
“It’shar d to un der sta ndwhy  t he DMV wo uld seek  t ore qu ire  self - drivingUb ers 
t o g et pe r mits w hen i t ac ce pt s  th at Tesl a ’s a utop il ot  tec hno lo gy do es n o t n eed
the m."

[htt ps: / /www .t he guardia n.com/technol og y/2016/dec /1 6/u ber-
d e f i...](ht tps://www.theguardian.c o m/techn olo gy/20 16/d ec/16/ube r-d efies- 
ca l iforni a-self -driv in g-c a r s-san - f ra nci sc o)

~~~
sc a r mig 
That 's  int erestin g, if it's actuall y  th e case. It se ems  a b i t  o f a st r etc ht o
m e - -Uber is stillopening it se l fup to exis t ent ia l risk- -but if  by d o ing soit
can pl ausibly k ne ecap T esl a and if i t viewsTesla sim i larly as  an e xis tentia lris k, th is mov e  mi ght m ake se ns e.

ET A: Th at  is, fro m a business perspectiv e. The  fact  th at you mi ght kil l a
coupl e pe ople in th e m ean timeisk ind o f ad ea l b r eaker  fro m  a moralp oi nto f 
v iew.

~~~
r o b r ena ud
Ho w m a ny peo pledoes delaying the progress of se lf d r i vin g c a rs k il l?


. If_they kill_and hit someone, Kalanick_is easily_portrayed
as_a ready-made_movie_villain. Wantonly ignoring_state and local_laws in the
hopes of_getting ahead of_the_pack, sacrificing the life of cute little
toddler Adam to the altar of Mammon?

And it's_really_not just_portrayed:_Uber'll_deserve any and all punishment
thrown_at them for this, up_to and_possibly including the shut down of the
company and_criminal_charges for the_people who did this. And Uber'll be
setting the cause_of self-driving cars back years, maybe_even a decade.

This_is_all_incredibly obvious too, and_I don't think Uber folks are_idiots.
Maybe they're getting desperate, and they're_willing to eat the risk of the
company_being destroyed because their business strategy_for survival is
sensitive to getting_to production-ready_self-driving cars a year earlier_than
they would have_otherwise?

~~~
Fricken
Uber's is_laying the groundwork_to make the legal case that_Tesla owners using
autopilot_are in fact 'testers', presumably in_hopes_of tangling Tesla_up.

'Levandowski_compared_Uber’s technology_to Tesla’s autopilot_feature,_saying:
“It’s hard_to_understand why the DMV would seek_to_require self-driving Ubers
to get permits when it_accepts that Tesla’s autopilot_technology_does not need
them."

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-
defi...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-defies-
california-self-driving-cars-san-francisco)

~~~
scarmig
That's interesting,_if it's actually the case._It seems a bit of a_stretch to
me--Uber_is still_opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it
can_plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it_views Tesla similarly as_an existential
risk,_this_move might make_sense.

ETA:_That is,_from a business perspective. The fact that_you might_kill a
couple people in the meantime_is kind of a_deal_breaker from a moral point of
view.

~~~
robrenaud
How_many people does delaying the progress_of self driving cars kill?

