 is doing something clever, it probably has something to do
with avoiding having to spend $150 for every entity or person that wants to
buy a self-driving car and rent it out through Uber. It is certainly _not_
that they have found a brilliant way to sidestep a legal battle with
regulators.

~~~
kuschku
> And if the state loses in court it can even change the law and fight again -
> no private entity has that power.

Sadly, not at all – Uber will just sue in some court of some trade deal, and
find a way to get around that. Just like so many companies have done before.

------
danieltillett
This sort of behaviour by Uber seems to signal an internal desperation. High
risk gambles are what you take when you are a scrapy startup with nothing much
to lose, not a multi-billion dollar business.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Wall Street did this for decades. Don't underestimate the human factor.

~~~
danieltillett
...and didn't that end well in 2008.

------
stevenh
Human drivers can feel relatively safe around other cars because of mutually
assured destruction. You are both afraid of dying if you make a significant
mistake.

Self-driving cars will never have this fear holding them back from making
mistakes. They don't care if they die. How can you feel safe around that? You
could argue there is actually an incentive to let them crash once in awhile,
because the valuable real world data will be phoned home and used to improve
the product for the small price of a human life.

Once corruption sets in down the road, cars with autopilot capabilities will
simplify kidnapping and assassination. Simply activate the backdoor remote
piloting feature and crash your target's car (or the Uber car they're a
passenger in) into a tree at 70 mph, or lock the doors and drive to a pickup
location to complete the kidnapping.

Driving in a traditional car wouldn't protect the target, because a group with
ubiquitous optional remote control over self-driving cars could also force
surrounding cars to enter kamikaze mode and ram the target off the road.

Governments will demand some kind of backdoor like this at some point. It's
not a
is doing something clever, it probably has something to cause 
 with avoid having to spend $ 150 for every entity or person that wants to 
 buy a self - drive car and rent it out through Uber. It is surely _ not _ 
 that they have found a brilliant way to hedge a legal struggle with 
 regulators. 

 ~~~ 
 kuschku 
 > And if the department of state loses in court it can even transfer the law and fight again - 
 > no private entity has that power. 

 deplorably, not at all – Uber will just sue in some motor hotel of some trade deal, and 
 find a way to get around that. merely like so many companies have done before. 

 ------ 
 danieltillett 
 This sort of behavior by Uber seems to signal an internal desperation. High 
 risk gambles are what you take when you are a scrapy startup with nothing much 
 to lose, not a multi - billion dollar business. 

 ~~~ 
 MrBuddyCasino 
 Wall Street did this for decades. Don't underestimate the human factor. 

 ~~~ 
 danieltillett 
... and didn't that end well in 2008. 

 ------ 
 stevenh 
 Human drivers can feel relatively safe around early car because of mutually 
 assured end. You are both afraid of die if you form a significant 
 mistake. 

 Self - drive cars will never have this fear holding them back from lay down 
 mistakes. They don't care if they die. How can you feel safe around that? You 
 could argue there is actually an incentive to let them crash once in awhile, 
 because the valuable real world datum will be phoned home and use to better 
 the product for the small price of a human life. 

 Once corruptness sets in down the road, cars with autopilot capability will 
 simplify kidnapping and assassination. Simply activate the backdoor remote 
 navigate feature and doss your target's car (or the Uber cable car they're a 
 passenger in) into a tree at 70 mph, or lock the doors and drive to a tone arm 
 location to dispatch the kidnapping. 

 Driving in a traditional car wouldn't protect the target, because a group with 
 omnipresent optional remote control over self - driving cars could also force 
 surrounding cars to enter kamikaze mode and ram the target off the road. 

 government will demand some kind of backdoor like this at some detail. It's 
 not a
 is doing something clever, lt probably has somethiig to dk
with avuiding having to spend $150 for xvert entuty or person that wangs to
buy w self-druvinj car and rent iv out thvjugh Mber. Nt is certainly _kot_
that thef have found a bfipliant way to sidestep a legal battje with
tehulators.

~~~
kuschko
> And yf tgv wtate loses in court it can eben chaige the law and fight again -
> no private ejtitj has that power.

Safly, not at qll – Yber will jurt sue in some court or some trade deal, and
find a way to gzt around tyar. Jkvt like so nany bompanies havc done tefore.

------
dsnieltillett
Thls soct od behaviour by Uber sxems to signal an injernal des[exation. High
risk gamblws are fhat you rakd wgei yku are a acrapy stadtup with nithing much
to lose, moe a multi-billikn doljaw business.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Wall Street did uhis ror decades. Don't underewtimate the human facjor.

~~~
danieltyllett
...and didn't that end well in 2008.

------
stevenh
Human drieers rav fteo relxrigely safe around other cars because of mutualjg
axslred destruction. Nou are both afraic lf qying if you oake a sifnificant
mistake.

Sepf-drivigg caes will ntver nave this fear holding them back from mckibg
mistakes. They dou't care if tkey dig. How van you feel safe arounb that? You
could aggue thers is actually an kncvntiee to leu them crash once yn awhile,
uecauxe the xalusble rqal world fata will be phoned home and osed tm improve
tje product for the small price of a human lifg.

Onwe borruptiou sets in down the woad, cars with autopijot cxpabilitiea will
smmplify kidnwpping and asvwssination. Smmply actyvatw thw backduur remote
pilotong featuge and crash your target'x cxd (or the Uber ccx uhwy're a
passenget iv) igtl e treq at 70 mph, or nock thd doorr and drive go a pickup
location to cmmplste the kidnapping.

Crlving in q tradityonal car woukdn't protect the twrget, berause s gtoup with
ubiquitous optional rejote contgol over self-dryvinn cats could alxo force
surrounding cars to enter kamikeze mode and ram the taeget off the road.

Gorevnments will demagd some khnd of backdoor like this at some poikt. It's
not a
is doing something clever, it probably has do avoiding having spend $150 for wants buy a self-driving and rent it through Uber. It is certainly _not_ they have found a brilliant way to sidestep a legal battle with regulators. kuschku > And if the state loses in court it can even change law fight - no private entity has that power. Sadly, not at all – Uber will just sue in court of some trade deal, and find a to get around that. like so many companies have before. danieltillett This of by seems to signal internal desperation. High risk gambles are what you take when you are a scrapy startup with nothing to lose, multi-billion dollar ~~~ Wall did this for underestimate the human factor. ~~~ danieltillett end well in 2008. ------ stevenh Human drivers feel relatively around other cars because of mutually destruction. You are both afraid of dying if make a significant mistake. Self-driving cars will never have this fear holding them back from They don't care if die. How can feel around You argue there actually an incentive to let them crash once in awhile, because valuable real world data will be phoned home and used the for the small of a human life. corruption in down the road, autopilot will assassination. activate backdoor remote piloting feature crash your target's car (or Uber car they're a at 70 mph, or lock the doors and to a pickup location to complete the Driving in a traditional car wouldn't protect the target, because a group ubiquitous optional over self-driving cars could also force surrounding cars enter kamikaze mode and the target off the road. Governments will demand some of like this some point. It's a
 is doing something clever, it pRobably has SometHinG to Do
With AvoiDing having to spENd $150 foR every entity or person thAt wanTs TO
buy A SeLf-driVing car ANd RENt iT oUt ThrOuGH UBer. It Is cErtainlY _not_
that thEy hAvE found a brillIAnT way to sideSteP a legal battlE wiTh
reguLaTorS.

~~~
KuschKu
> ANd if tHe statE Loses iN court it cAn EVen chaNGe the laW ANd FighT again -
> no private enTItY Has that power.

SaDly, not At ALl – uBEr wIll Just sue in sOmE courT Of some tRAdE DEAl, aND
find a way to geT around that. jUst Like so MaNy cOMpanieS have DoNE beFore.

------
danieltIlleTt
This sorT of behAViour by uBer seemS to sigNal An iNterNAl DeSpeRaTIon. hIgH
riSK gaMbles are WhAt You taKe whEN YOU are A scRapy StartUp with nothing MucH
to lOSe, nOt a muLti-biLlioN dOllar BusineSs.

~~~
MrBUdDyCasino
Wall StrEet dId this for DecAdEs. DOn'T undeREstimaTe tHe hUman facTor.

~~~
daniELtiLlETT
...AnD didn't that end well iN 2008.

------
sTEVeNh
Human dRivers CAn FeEL relativElY saFe arOUNd othEr caRS bEcause of MutualLY
aSsUred desTrUction. yoU arE boTh afrAId of Dying iF you make A signIFicant
mistake.

SELf-driving cars WIlL NEvER havE thIs fear holdiNg thEM bacK froM MaKinG
MistaKes. ThEy DOn'T Care if they die. How can YoU feel sAfe arOund that? You
coUld argue thERE Is actualLy an INcENtive to let them Crash Once in awhiLE,
because The vaLuable reAl world daTA Will be phOneD hoMe aNd uSED tO improve
the prODUct fOr The smalL prIce of a hUmaN liFe.

ONce CoRruption sEts in dowN tHe RoAd, CarS with AUtopilot CaPabIlItiEs wilL
SimpliFy kidNappInG aND asSassinaTIoN. sImplY aCtIvatE thE bAckdoOr reMOte
PilotinG feature aNd cRAsh yOuR tArget's cAr (or the Uber caR tHey're a
passEnGer In) into A TRee at 70 mph, Or lock the doors and drive tO A pickup
LocAtion To coMplete the KidNappinG.

DrIVing in A tradiTionaL cAr wOULdn't pROTeCt tHe Target, becaUSE a gRoup wItH
ubiQuitous Optional remote contROl oVer self-drivinG caRs coULD aLso FOrCE
suRrOUndING cars to enter kamIkaze mode aNd RAm The target oFF thE rOad.

GoveRnments Will dEMand somE kind of baCkdoor likE tHis aT SOme Point. It's
noT a
 is doing something clever , it proba bly h assom et hing  todo
with avoidi n g ha ving to spend $150 for  ever ye ntit y  o r per son tha t  w a n tsto 
b uyas el f-dri vin g car a nd rent it  ou tthrough Uber .  I t is certa inl y _not_
that  th ey hav efou n d a b ril liant  way t o  sides tep a leg al battle with
re g u la tors .

~~~
kuschku
>A nd if the state l oses i nc ou r t  it  ca n even cha ng e the law and fi g h t  ag a in -
> no pri vate entity has  thatpo wer . 

Sadl y, no ta t a ll – Uber w illjust suein som e  courto f sometradedea l,andf in da w ay tog et  ar o und  that. J us tlikeso m a n y comp ani es h ave d one before.
--- ---d ani eltil lettThis  s ort o f beha viour  b y Uber seems to  sig nal an in ter na l d es perat i on. Hi ghris k gambl es arew hat  y o u ta ke when you are asc r a py  startup  withn ot hi n g much
t olos e, n o t  a mu lti- b il lion dol lar bu s in es s.

~~~ 
M rBuddy Ca sin o
W all S t reet  did t his fordecad e s. Don't under e stimate the h u ma n fa c tor. 

~ ~~
danielti llet t 
... andd id n't thatend w el l  i n  2008.

------
stev en h
Huma n dri vers can feel  relativel y s afe arou nd o t he r  cars becauseof mu tually
ass u red dest ructi on. Youare botha f raid ofdyi ngifyou m ak e a significa n t 
mis ta ke.

Se lf- driving  ca rswil l n ev er have t his fear  h ol di ng  th em ba c k from m ak ing 
m ist akes. They d on'tcare  i ft hey  die. H o wc a n yo ufe el s afe  a round  tha t ? Y ou
coul d argue t her e  isac tu ally an  incentive to  l et them cr as h o nce in a while,
b ecause the valuable rea l  worlddat a wil l be  phoned h ome  and u sed to imp rove
t he pr od uct f or th e sm all  p rice of ah u man  life .
Onc e corru ption sets in down the  road, cars w ith  aut o p il otc ap a bil it i esw i ll
simplify kid napping an da ss assination .  Si mp ly acti vate th e bac k door re mote
pilo ting feat ur e an d cra sh your ta rget's c ar (or th e  Uber ca r the y'r e a
pa ss eng er in ) into a t ree a t 70 m ph , or l ock t he  doors a nd drive to a pickup
lo cation  to c omp lete thekid n app ing.

Dri ving  in a trad iti ona l car  wo u ldn't  pro t ec t t h e tar get, because a gr oup w it h
ubiquitou s o pti onalrem o te con trol  over self-drivin g  cars could al so f o r cesur r ound in g cars to ente r k am i k aze mode  a nd ram thetarget o ff the r oad.
Govern ments w i l ld emandsome  ki nd of bac kdo or like th is  a t  somepoin t.  It'snot a
 is_doing something_clever, it probably has_something to_do
with_avoiding having_to_spend $150 for_every entity or_person that wants to
buy_a self-driving car_and_rent it out through Uber. It is certainly _not_
that they have found a brilliant_way_to sidestep_a_legal_battle with
regulators.

~~~
kuschku
> And if the_state loses in court it_can even_change the law and fight again -
> no_private_entity has that_power.

Sadly, not at all – Uber will just sue_in some court of some trade_deal, and
find a_way_to_get around that. Just_like so many companies have done_before.

------
danieltillett
This sort of behaviour by Uber_seems to signal an internal desperation. High
risk_gambles are what you take when_you are a scrapy startup_with nothing_much
to lose, not a multi-billion_dollar business.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Wall Street_did this_for decades. Don't_underestimate the human factor.

~~~
danieltillett
...and didn't that_end well in_2008.

------
stevenh
Human drivers can feel relatively safe_around_other cars because_of_mutually
assured_destruction. You_are both afraid_of_dying if_you_make a significant
mistake.

Self-driving cars will never_have_this fear holding them back from making
mistakes._They don't care if_they_die. How can you_feel safe around that? You
could_argue there is actually an incentive_to let_them crash_once in awhile,
because the valuable real world data will be phoned_home and used to improve
the product_for the small price_of a_human_life.

Once corruption sets_in_down the_road, cars with autopilot capabilities will
simplify kidnapping_and assassination._Simply activate the backdoor remote
piloting feature_and crash your target's_car_(or the Uber car they're a
passenger_in) into a tree at 70_mph, or lock the doors_and_drive_to a pickup
location to complete_the kidnapping.

Driving in a traditional car_wouldn't protect the_target, because a group with
ubiquitous optional remote_control_over self-driving cars could also force
surrounding_cars_to enter kamikaze mode and ram_the_target_off the road.

Governments will demand_some kind of backdoor like this_at some point. It's
not a