this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
492 points (97.5% liked)

Not The Onion

18522 readers
835 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What an odd thing to say...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If a robotic taxi can lower the taxi category of accidents by 91% across the board, including death rates, then that’s a positive improvement to society any way you slice it.

The "if" in this sentence is a load bearing word.

With today's crew running the policy, I don't think anyone will prevent corporations from unleashing completely unsafe robotic taxis on the public that'll perform well worse than regular ones. I really wish people would stop making this argument to the corporation's benefit until we have some data backing it up.

I get that there's a theoretical possibility that still imperfect robotic taxis could outperform humans, but that's just theoretical.

With the way corporate accountability is handled (i.e., corporations aren't held accountable) nowadays, I just don't see robotic taxis as much more than an accountability sink and at this point I'd prefer taking regular taxis because at least there is someone to fucking hold accountable when things go wrong.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

also, who's getting the most injured? pedestrians, or occupants?

if the net rate of injuries increases among a vulnerable group, that is not okay