D.M. Ridley

@Lib_Development I agree with all of this, but "tens of thousands of people will die" still seems like a pretty good argument against the Luddism. One of the main justifications, in general, for banning things is safety; this ban does the opposite.

If Waymo opposition were really about safety then it should have crumbled over two years ago when the evidence made that clear. But that did not happen. The only conclusion you can draw from the Waymo saga is that opposition to Waymo is not about safety. Intuitively, that should make sense. Most people are not scared of riding in taxis or getting hit by one. Human drivers are less safe than autonomous ones but they’re safe enough that their danger is a fairly fringe concern. Even if cars were a *lot* more dangerous, they still would have widespread use; we know this because cars used to be much more dangerous and were still adopted en masse as the future. So of course safer-still Waymos are fundamentally not very persuasive. That poses a pretty big problem to liberals trying to use safety as an adoption argument. It’s just not very good. Red states are not adopting Waymos because they’re safer than humans. (Think about this; when was the last time red states pioneered a policy in the name of safety?). No, the reason that red states adopt AVs is because AVs are the future; a short way of saying that they’re substantially more useful to consumers. Unlike regular cars, the occupant is free to devote their attention to things other than driving. They can deliver items without human accompaniment. AVs don’t need to be parked, certainly not near the user’s destination at a minimum. Self driving cars are simply more useful. Driving a car is itself safer than riding on a horse. But with hindsight, promoting self-propelled cars on the basis of their safety would be downright moronic; I can only imagine our descendants will say the same about self-driving cars. Implicit in the point about consumer utility is cost. You can get most of the benefits of a Gen 1* self driving car by just paying someone else to drive the car. Ubers don’t need to park and they also free up your attention. But not everyone can afford perpetual Uber, in the same way that not everyone can afford a maid or a personal assistant. On the other hand, roombas and claude subscriptions are accessible to the masses. We should view self driving cars as better because they make expensive services (in this case, a chauffeur) cheaper. I’ll say it again because it’s so important: self driving cars are better because they are cheaper. That also poses a challenge for advocates, because *Waymo*, in particular, isn’t cheaper than Uber. That’s alright; pre-model-T cars weren’t cheaper than horses either. But it makes the case for optimal (read: deregulatory) AVs harder. Waymo has arrived, but the Waymo-Robotaxi-Zoox-Cruise competitive AV future has not. But make no mistake, “the autonomous” future is not about safety nor is that where red states are aiming. It’s important to make the positive case for low cost AVs, because regulations tend to close off unintended benefits. If regulations are made to promote safety rather than cost, blue states could end up making it unnecessary difficult to deploy AVs and lock in present Waymo prices forever. That would be disastrous for cost of living in blue vs red states, and for their economic vitality. But that does also clarify the thoughts of Waymo opponents. They’re not concerned about safety, they’re just luddites. Their concern about safety is as farcical and procedural as NIMBY concern about endangered species or new traffic. Their intellectual case against AVs is most analogous to actual luddite concerns about weaving frames replacing artisan-made clothing. The sooner liberals recognize that, the sooner society can address them as what they are. *In contrast to Gen 2+ AVs, where the interior layout is altered to take advantage of the lack of a driver.

@GhostPepper007 @sgodofsk Huh? You seem to have limped together a bunch of generally left-wing policies you dislike with abundance and declared them to be part of a package.

@sgodofsk not possible. these “abundance” retards want open borders, deny genetics, want yimby without natural sorting and harsh law enforcement, and most now want to pause ai.

In order for "abundance" to work out the democrats have to break cleanly with organized labor, especially government organized labor, and they've shown no willingness whatsoever to do that anywhere.

@Notabotlol7 @sgodofsk The majority of Americans aren't in either of those categories, though.

@sgodofsk The future of American politics will basically be between a rent-seeking/cheap-goods seeking retiree class + finance and a more or less united front of downwardly mobile employeed people looking for right/left-wing populism and abundance has no prospect of preventing that

@ninaturner Yes.

Did he empathize with Palestinians?

@statesdj @Nowooski @sdamico They didn't ask men either.

@Nowooski @sdamico Did the progressives ever ask women, would you rather take a Waymo or get in a car with a ride share driver?

Progressives on ride share. 2012-2024: Gig economy jobs are fake and the firms that provide them should be regulated out of existence, even if it means job losses. 2025 >: We must protect ride share jobs from the threat of robo taxis, even if it means more traffic deaths.

@JeffreyHRedfern @KelseyTuoc The most salient question is how they compare to the mean Uber/Lyft driver.

@KelseyTuoc I love Waymos and this data is convincing, but I am curious how Waymos compare to the median driver. I suspect that a relatively small percentage of human drivers are responsible for a huge portion of the risk.

Cool project: the DC Waymo delay dashboard tracks how many DC residents are dead because the mayor and city council keep demanding studies instead of allowing Waymo: tbhochman.github.io/dc-waymo-dashb…

@StatisticUrban @nikicaga 0%.

What percent of young straight guys do you think agree with this take? 5%, generously?

@plzbepatient If we have teleportation, we probably also don't have borders, and so no one cares.

The year is 2060. Teleportation has been invented. Every Chinese woman 8 months and 28 days pregnant instantly moves from Beijing to Boston to have a child, collect their citizenship documents, and travel back. A 2026 SCOTUS decision said “actually, yes, this is completely fine”

@jason_finazzo @ChiefTeef8 @SeanMcCarthyCom Because even in a post demanding impeachment all he does is complain about Democrats. "Democrats are bad" appears to be his one and only political belief. He wanted this.

@ChiefTeef8 @SeanMcCarthyCom Why is everyone SO outraged he had a “slight preference for Trump” on the campaign trail? He ran on peace. He lied. Do you have the same hated for someone that voted for Joe Biden after getting us into a war and a genocide?

25th amendment. Impeach. Military coup. End this. I don't care how. Every worthless democrat is walking us off a fucking cliff into the apocalypse.

@caldodge @mirandamelendy @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst It probably won't be built, fortunately.

@RidleyDM @mirandamelendy @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst LOL. Good luck with that.

Once again: it cannot be true that every executive action requires the unanimous consent of the entire judicial branch.

@AngelaBelcamino We aren't in Europe?

Zero European countries currently grant fully automatic (unconditional/unrestricted) birthright citizenship. Why are we the exception?

@char5191 @TwittaUser22 @bennetthaselton @greg_price11 Nothing in the amendment says "allegiance." You made that up, or, more likely, parroted it from someone who did.

@TwittaUser22 @bennetthaselton @greg_price11 What about a border jumper or birth tourist says allegiance to you?

It just feels so painfully obvious that the 14th amendment does not mean that a 9-months pregnant woman from Mexico can cross the Rio Grande illegally, give birth, and be allowed to stay because her child is now a natural born citizen.

@greg_price11 It seems obvious that you lack any such allegiance. Shut up and leave our country alone.

@JenniferStrby @AngelaGraceLOU @greg_price11 No they haven't.

@AngelaGraceLOU @greg_price11 Historically, the courts have interpreted jurisdiction as being a form of allegiance.

@mirandamelendy @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge The plans are hideous. If it's built without authorization, it absolutely ought to be torn down. I and tens of millions or other Americans will demand it.

@RidleyDM @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge That would be ridiculous although I agree people will want to do it.

@mirandamelendy @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge That's also true, though; he can't. And there will be tremendous pressure to tear it down if it's built.

@RidleyDM @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge Of course. I was responding to OP's last sentence, "He can't take it with him."

@signulll Depends on the coffee shop and what you are trying to do.

i tried working from a coffee shop today instead of my office & it was impossible to get anything done. i was constantly distracted by one thing or another, from sounds to ppl moving around etc. it’s unclear to me how anyone is able to be productive working from a coffee shop.

@mirandamelendy @RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge Whether building a ballroom is good policy has precisely nothing to do with the question of whether the President can do it unilaterally.

@RudyGHanky @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst @caldodge Future presidents will be grateful to not have to host guests on the WH lawn and future guests will feel the same. But I don't expect most of them, or you, to be honest about that.

@caldodge @SamanthaPfaff @upstatefederlst It was obviously a typo.

"He bypassed Congress, statues, planning processes and oversight." Actually, part of that statement is a lie. I'll leave it up to you to find out which part. And I didn't know that statues controlled White House buildings. As far as I know they simply send people into the past. youtube.com/watch?v=ik659h…