Facebook doesn't have a separate C-suite (CEO, CFO, etc.) from its parent company. Waymo does. So while Waymo is considered part of Alphabet because it is a majority shareholder, you're kidding yourself if you think it is at all like Meta and Facebook. There may not be a hard line between them, but there's a definite line.

Tell me you don't know how model training works without telling me you don't know how model training works.

Autonomous vehicles (probably not including Tesla) already handle first responders correctly probably 99.99% of the time. They already handle school buses correctly probably 99.99% of the time. So what remains are, by definition, edge cases that for whatever reason require additional handling beyond the basic "Is this an emergency vehicle/school bus? If so, pull over and stop" rule.

For example, one edge case is figuring out how to clear a path for an emergency vehicle when there is no obvious place to pull over because of other cars stopped nearby. Sometimes the correct answer is to actually drive in the direction the emergency vehicle is going until you find a spot to pull over and get out of its way. This isn't intuitively obvious, and a lot of human drivers will struggle with it as well.

For another example, at least one case of Waymo vehicles illegally passing a school bus was caused by a remote operator not noticing that the vehicle had flagged the presence of a school bus and telling the car to proceed anyway. Sometimes, having a human in the loop actually ends up making things worse. :-)

At that point, what's the point of them being autonomous? At some point, you have to cut them loose and see what mistakes they make, because it is precisely through detecting those mistakes that you figure out what edge cases remain inadequately handled in the model. And understanding how the vehicle attempts to extricate itself from problem situations is critically important in figuring out what additional training needs to be added to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

So basically, your approach likely leads to a future where the models never learn to handle emergency vehicles, because safety drivers keep having to intervene before they can gather adequate data. That approach just doesn't work.

I don't recall the actual driving part of the driver test having a part where you drive onto a street that's barely wide enough for one vehicle to pass, let out a passenger, and then have an ambulance suddenly approach from the other direction while you're trying to turn around.

To get to the point of having a license, you have to answer a written question that proves you know to yield to emergency vehicles, prove that you can stay in lanes, stop for stop signs and maybe pedestrians, handle traffic lights correctly, and possibly parallel park, depending on where you took the exam. Autonomous vehicles could do those things reliably 15+ years ago.

In other words, you're greatly overestimating the competence of the average human driver.

Your argument contains several claims that are not supported by the historical evidence.

There was a violent crackdown in Beijing in June 1989. This is documented by eyewitnesses, journalists who were present, diplomats, hospital workers, declassified government documents from multiple countries, and later research. While the exact death toll is disputed, there is broad agreement among historians that hundreds, and possibly more than a thousand, people were killed when the Chinese military used live ammunition and armored vehicles to clear protesters and bystanders.

The protests did not begin as a violent uprising. They started as largely peaceful demonstrations calling for political reform, freedom of speech, government accountability, and action against corruption. In the final hours, some protesters and residents did fight back by throwing rocks, setting military vehicles on fire, and attacking soldiers after troops advanced into the city. That does not change the fact that the military used overwhelming lethal force against civilians.

There is no credible evidence that the Chinese government deliberately recruited ethnic minorities because they "hate Han Chinese." The People's Liberation Army is a national military whose units are drawn from across China. Claims that the crackdown relied on ethnic groups chosen because they were hostile to Han Chinese are not supported by credible historical sources.

The claim about mandatory two-year programs for all ethnic groups is inaccurate. China has implemented various education, labor, and relocation policies affecting different ethnic minorities, especially Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but these policies were not introduced as a response to Tiananmen Square. Researchers generally view those policies as part of the Chinese government's broader strategy of political control and assimilation rather than a measure to prevent another Tiananmen.

Finally, dismissing the Tiananmen Square crackdown by comparing it to other events doesn't address the historical record. Serious discussions should rely on evidence from contemporaneous reporting, archival documents, eyewitness testimony, and academic research, not egotistical, unsupported assertions from the Chinese Communist Party point of view.

Ok, you're a Chinese shill. Tell me, what's your official stance on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre? Got any opinions on that? What to talk in depth about it? Or, are you mysteriously going to go silent now that I mentioned it?

I'm betting you go silent. That's because China isn't a free society. You're not allowed to talk about it.

Xi Jinping, as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and President of China, holds ultimate power as paramount leader. His authoritarian rule is a dictatorship due to his unchecked authority.

Oh my god, this is laugh out loud funny. There's a reason there's "basically no violent crime." It's a communist dictatorship. Dictators love to highlight the law and order in their countries. That's what you promote when people have no freedom.

Citation needed.

Google doesn't even have self-driving cars. Maybe you're thinking about Waymo (which is part of Alphabet, not Google).

Regardless, no, to the best of my understanding, they cannot be driven remotely at all, at least by any normal person's definition of the word "drive". When intervention is required, the remote operators get a dump of camera images to review, and then they draw a proposed path on a map. The car then tries to follow it, and aborts if doing so would result in hitting anything. This may have to be done more than once to get it out of the problem situation. When the vehicle says that it is comfortable proceeding on its own, the remote operator tells it to go ahead, and it takes over path planning again.

At no point is any remote operator in direct control over the vehicle. All they can do is propose an alternative path when the vehicle's path planner gets stuck trying to figure out how to safely extricate itself from some situation. At all times, the vehicle's software is the driver. The remote operator is just hinting that it should go to the left of safety cone A, to the right of cone B, etc. (or whatever the situation happens to be). This is why it takes so long to extricate a stuck car. If there were an actual remote driver that could take real-time control, it would take just a few seconds.

From what I've read, when a Waymo car sees emergency lights, it stops driving and gets out of the way. I do see one (presumably) recent video where a Waymo stopped in a place that actually delayed an ambulance from getting past it on a narrow street, so unless that's an old video, I'm guessing there's still a bit more tweaking required in terms of recognizing whether the right choice is to stop or to move out of the way. I'd imagine someone is already working on making sure that particular edge case doesn't happen again.

What I'm not seeing is evidence of some widespread problem with autonomous vehicles in general. There's an edge case here or an edge case there where something didn't work as expected. And they'll complain about it, and the AV company in question will figure out why the car did the wrong thing, update their training sets, and that specific scenario won't happen again.

(This, of course, ignores Tesla, because the emergency vehicle drivers can't tell if the vehicle is being driven by the car or by a human, making any sort of reporting problematic at best.)

So realistically, I suspect that the answer to a vague demand from a government agency demanding to know what AV companies will do to prevent bad interactions with emergency vehicles will always be "exactly what we're already doing", because apart from coming up with new simulated situations to test (which they're always doing), there's really nothing they can do to prevent the car from behaving the wrong way in some vague unspecified future situation that nobody has thought of yet. And the answer to what they're doing to prevent a specific situation will usually be "We've already updated our training sets and that won't happen again."

To that end, I'm really not sure what they're trying to accomplish with sending a letter like that. Seems more like political posturing than any actual attempt at solving a problem. *shrugs*

There are a couple of alternatives. The problem is that there are only a couple.

They never do. :-(

If you think America is unwelcoming to foreigners, then you're living a completely sheltered life. Trump and MAGA are a temporary problem that will disappear in 2 years. America is still the most welcoming country in the world to foreigners. Go to China. See what life is like in comparison to the US. See what life is like in comparison to Berkeley, California. Note the difference in how everyday people treat you. And yes, there's going to be a difference between the Bay Area in California and China.

Could it please implicate every member of the federal government in whichever party I choose, so that I can throw the next election to whoever promises to fix the inefficient traffic lights near my house? Thanks.

I'm not convinced those people exist. Rather, the people with 5-figure income can afford to take a car, so why would they willingly walk for ten minutes to the nearest bus stop and then spend an hour on two different modes of public transit to go somewhere that takes fifteen minutes by car?

I'm also not convinced that very many people exist who would pay $5k a year to go through a different entrance to the airport just so that they don't interact with anybody who isn't in the six-figure club.

That said, I'll admit that having someone drive me to the gate would be nice, assuming it is efficient. Unfortunately, realistically, it won't be unless they build the private terminal on top of or under the main terminal or otherwise provide a cart path that doesn't interact with pedestrian traffic in the main terminal).

I can only assume that the food would be free and readily available like in an Admiral's club (though I suppose you're paying for it, so not truly free), so having something like this at connecting airports would be great, but far less useful at either endpoint.

If they include prepaid valet service for your car as part of the cost so you can just drive up and they'll whisk you to the gate straight from your car with only a brief stop at the security checkpoint, it could have some value — not enough value to spend an extra fifteen to thirty minutes and fly out of SFO, mind you, but some value.

I can't imagine it being worth $5k a year, though, so what I'd expect is that honeymooners will do it as a once-in-a-lifetime way to be treated like they're important, and all the people with money will continue to do their usual.

Apple wouldn't license Broadcom ARM cores. They have their own. I could see Apple using Broadcom ASIC cells for Wi-Fi, but that wouldn't be a Broadcom part at that point; it would be an Apple part, because it being a Broadcom part would imply that Broadcom can make the part available to other companies.

It's an out-of-court settlement. After ten years, if they lock down repairs again, it's not a breach of the agreement, so the government will have to care enough to file a lawsuit.

I feel like the real way to solve this problem is to wait for the all-electric Chinese-made tractors to get good enough, then let John Deere shrivel on the vine. They're only able to pull this stuff because there isn't much competition.