dventimi

Did the SFPUC make a change to disallow that then, because point-to-point is how Waymo worked in SF as recently as a month or so ago? Perhaps they did, as a condition of allowing expansion.

Here's where I parachuted out of this article.

It's not a loaded question to ask what a person means when they introduce a term.

> The types of people are those who would assault others on some fashion.

That's a tautology. Nobody knows if a person fits the type of person who would assault someone, until after they've gone and assaulted someone.

Personally, I would prefer a SQLite database. Ok I'll show myself out.

Patents, copyrights, subsidies, ZIRP, foreign policy, etc., even without reporting to value judgments of "good" and "bad" and sticking safely with neutral terms, all these things involve trade-offs. They have consequences. They do tend to pick winners and losers.

The point is that the shape of society is a matter of choice not chance, technology, or divine providence.

Don't they? Allowing messier, older, and less pleasant cars would increase the supply of drivers, allowing Uber to place lower bids on those drivers, lower their prices, increase volume and revenue, and increase profit.

Now, we're talking. Often, there will be handwringing about low-wage jobs from people who wouldn't dream of working low-wage jobs and who benefit from the existence of low-wage jobs. Often, that will be invoked as a rebuke to automation. But, automation in general isn't a threat to workers or well-being. In fact it's productivity gain which benefits well-being by lowering costs and raising living standards. If a portion of those productivity gains aren't used to help the people they displace, that's a matter of policy not of technology.