264
submitted 9 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Where is that quote from? I didnt see it in the article

[-] ArtieShaw@kbin.social 33 points 9 months ago

This happened during street festivities for lunar new year, so a lot of people are connecting the dots. They don't mention that the car was aggressively trying to drive through a crowd, but it seems like it was trying to make its way through a crowd.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/why-did-a-san-francisco-crowd-light-waymos-driverless-vehicle-on-fire/

Multiple witnesses said Waymo’s navigation technology became confused by festivities and fireworks that were lit to celebrate the Lunar New Year. Witness Anirudh Koul said the driverless car “got stuck immediately in front.”

Another witness said the car’s presence in the middle of Chinatown’s celebrations triggered frustrations in the crowd. “You could feel the frustration when people were just trying to celebrate,” she told KRON4.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 15 points 9 months ago

So the car's presence was annoying them. That's not exactly a great justification for torching it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

The car shouldn't have been present in the first place. It wasn't a place for cars to be at that moment.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If you were to turn down the wrong street, maybe park in the wrong spot, you'd consider it reasonable if a mob torched it?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

I'm pretty sure I'm not a self-driving car. I'm also pretty sure if I saw a big crowd of people, I wouldn't keep driving forward.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

I didn't say they'd torch you. The scenario can include them graciously allowing you to depart your car before they burn it to the ground.

Seriously, you think it's reasonable for a mob to destroy a car because its presence "triggered frustrations in the crowd"? Bear in mind this isn't France we're talking about, where torching cars to express frustration is part of the common culture. This is San Francisco.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

I think it's reasonable for a mob to destroy one of the many self-driving cars that have been pissing off San Francisco residents for a very long time now when it tries to drive into them during a big celebration where cars weren't even supposed to be.

Who got hurt here? Waymo? Fuck Waymo.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Alright, so you're fine with mobs destroying the property of anyone that "pisses them off." I'd say that's a slippery slope, but you're already basically at the bottom.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

I'm fine with mobs destroying something that has been a public menace for years.

Why are you making personal attacks? I did not attack you. Are you able to carry out a conversation with someone you're disagreeing with and not make personal attacks?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

What personal attacks? I'm giving you ample opportunity to clarify your position on this matter, and it keeps ending up in support of mob violence and lawlessness. I think that's a terrible position to take, but that's an attack on the position, not the person.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

What personal attacks?

This one:

I’d say that’s a slippery slope, but you’re already basically at the bottom.

As for my position, I supported it very well. If a public menace is allowed on the streets, then I have no problem with people taking the law into their own hands.

Sorry, I'm not a legal absolutist. I don't believe that every law should be followed no matter what the situation or circumstance. And there are some laws which I refuse to follow entirely. Like the one here in Indiana which says that I can't use cannabis.

These cars are a public menace. They block traffic for no reason, they drive into people, they keep getting into accidents.

Bay area first responders also think they're a menace. So yes, people should listen to ambulance drivers and firefighters when they are telling them that the city is giving its blessings to something inherently unsafe and I do not have an issue when they take care of the problem themselves.

Maybe you would sit back and let the government-sanctioned orphan crusher keep crushing orphans and stand in the way of anyone who would pull the off switch because that would be lawlessness, but I would turn it off.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

I was describing your position on the slope. If you think that's an attack, perhaps your position isn't very good.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Is that really all you had to say to what I responded to you with? You wanted me to clarify my position, I clarified it, and you have nothing to say about that? Really?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

What more do you want me to say?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

I don't know, maybe respond to any of the five other paragraphs I wrote? You know, since you specifically wanted me to clarify my position?

For fuck's sake, at least thank me for clarifying my position like you wanted me to. You can't even do that?

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 6 points 9 months ago
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Does that make torching the car okay?

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 3 points 9 months ago
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Good luck arguing that in court.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 2 points 9 months ago

what is legal isn't synonymous with what is right

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

A court of law, I guess I should specify.

Don't think I have ever heard of a court of "rightness" before.

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 1 points 9 months ago

Thanks! I don't think I'll need any luck though, as I am not subject to such a court appearance.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Waymo's insurance company anyway. And Waymo's reputation.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago
[-] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Crap self-driving cars are now self aware, posting on the Internet, and think they are human. Everybody grab a torch

[-] youRFate@feddit.de 11 points 9 months ago

Was the road officially closed?

[-] alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago

A funny thing about life is a lot of things happen unofficially, and humans do fine at adjusting to such situations.

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Plenty of humans also accidently wander into places they're officially not allowed to be in, much less unofficially.

[-] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I only wander into places I am not allowed on purpose.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago

And were the "violators will be set on fire" signs posted?

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 points 9 months ago

What do you expect to happen if you park in the middle of a fireworks show?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

I didn't realize that a "fireworks show" meant "showing how fire works (by burning down any cars that happen to be present)."

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 points 9 months ago

They always have fireworks in Chinatown on Chinese New Year. No human would be dumb enough to park there.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

But if one did anyway, torching their car would be fine?

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. /s

[-] quirzle@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

No human would be dumb enough to park there.

There's at least 3 other cars parked there clearly visible in the videos.

[-] alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Do you need a sign for every decision you make?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

It was the Chinatown Lunar New Year's celebration. What do you think?

[-] quirzle@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

I don't believe it was, based on the other cars present in the videos.

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago
[-] Zorque@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago
[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Two driverless cars in one thread! As I live and breathe!

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Maybe the driverless cars were the friends we made along the way...

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Shut up, CarGPT.

[-] quirzle@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago

Seems like the witnesses saw it differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/12/waymo-set-on-fire-sf/72567647007/

"They were putting out some rage for really no reason at all. They just wanted to vandalize something, and they did," witness Edwin Carungay told KGO-TV.

The witness told the outlet the Waymo was vandalized and set on fire by a big group of people.

"One young man jumped on the hood, and on the windshield.," Carungay told KGO. "That kind of started the whole melee."

[-] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

From the original social media video.

Ask yourself, this is a Chinese new year celebration, a street party. Why is there a driverless car in the middle of a street party?

All the media reports start with a driverless car in the middle of a street party, surrounded by really angry people. Why was the car there? Why are they angry at it?

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
264 points (100.0% liked)

News

23301 readers
2974 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS