They would have done that after slamming on the brakes in a vain attempt to avoid hitting the dog, possibly losing control of their vehicle, and possibly causing a collision with other cars or objects. If their reaction failed to cause a serious accident, then maybe they'd have sped away.

Until last month, Waymo only allowed their cars to drive on city streets, no freeway driving. Even now, freeway usage is limited, only for selected riders (I'm not sure what the selection criteria is).

So, basically all of Waymo's millions of miles are on streets that often have animals on them.

Sure, there would be concern, but unless you're dumb you will still pick the option with the 90% lower mortality/harm rate. Yeah, it's good to investigate and fix the problem (assuming fixing the problem doesn't increase the mortality rate), but you should still use the provably better option.

Also, why it didn't attempt to stop (if it didn't). If it didn't attempt to stop because it correctly determined that attempting to stop would risk causing a more serious accident with other vehicles on the road, that's not only good, it's better than the vast majority of human drivers.

HahaHAHAHhAHAHAHahhAHAHahHAHAHAhahAHHAHAHAHHA

*wheeze*

HahaHAHHAHAHAHAHHAhAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

False. That's not how anything works. You might have been ok there if instead of "completely" you used the word "most of" a little to the left of there.

This part is correct.

We often do have fences around the beach, especially in areas frequented by a lot of people. They can slow down a child enough for an attentive parent to notice and maybe catch up before they enter the surf or fall off a cliff.

What problems? You mean the ones that are way less risky than unvaccinated exposure? Whatever, antivaxxer.

The entire positive side to bureaucracies and committees and governments is that they have enough people in them to do multiple things at once.

Usually when someone says something like what you said and I quoted above here, they are trying to argue that human drivers shouldn't exist. Maybe this is true, for some particular set of truths, but there's always a number of ways you can look at a situation. For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are currently driving in, because cars are a terrible mode of transportation in the cities where most people live.

That's true, but that doesn't make what you said above correct. Left and right are very, very different things, and it very much does matter which you get.

First Street very likely doesn't have some magic model that can predict the future better than anyone else.

When you get a mortgage you have to pay for a flood survey. Even my house 700' above the village where the bank is.

Your flood risk is absolutely predicted by the flood history of your location. The bank writing the mortgage has the skin in the game which is why they make the buyer pay for the flood survey.

It sounds like First Street might be liable for damages based on pseudoscience if these Realtors bring a case. It would be interesting to see them present solid evidence that they prospectively beat the existing flood models and survive a cross-examination.

If they've published a peer-reviewed paper then I missed it.

Hostile design is often a sign of libido dominandi, not just laziness.

SmartTube has probably hundreds of settings you can tweak to improve usability and accessibility. The developer clearly has a user-first philosophy.

You have Revanced for Android but Apple doesn't allow such things.

It has some excellent accessibility improvements over stock.

Cheaper to just pay the bribes.

In America it's known as K-street. Or "donating" to an Inauguration Gala. Or hosting a high court judge in a European palace for a couple of weeks. Or giving decision makers absurd private sector salaries when they 'retire'. Or giving the Governor's wife a $200K no-show job. Pick your branch, there's a way.

In India the system is less formal.

Excellent:

"In the US, the two major parties are indistinguishable in intent, that is, to keep their jobs."

Attacks by President Trump cause many people in government to avoid saying what they actually think. They don't want to lose their jobs.