We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
How did you make these legal and not put in place a process for this? Absolutely corrupt incompetence.
Doesn't the car have an owner? Because in Brazil, the ticket always goes to the owner, even when someone else is driving - something that has its share of problems
That's how a lot of US states do it for speed cameras.
Just realized I'm not sure if the same happens when you get pulled over or are driving a rental but in general the idea fixes more problems than it causes.
The entire reason they’re deploying AI in the battlefields is to avoid accountability for those firing. The lack of accountability is an intended feature, not a bug.
A troubling conclusion I hadn’t yet come to. God damn.
They’re not being subtle about it. The weapons companies are offering it as a selling point at the conventions.
Great RoboCop with better weapons.
Easy, Just impound it. When they have to deal with going to get them in person, they'll stop the illegal shit
Ticket the damn manufacturer. They need to be made to understand not to put substandard devices into public hands
I wonder, if they hinder the car enough, wouldn't that cause the remote operator to connect to it? Sounds like you've now identified a driver :-)
You know, we should re-assess many assumptions in light of emerging technologies. Even the conceptual value of labour is becoming more and more obsolete as AI and automation comes. We need a new Marx in relation to data as leverage to demand social equity, as in advocate for universal basic income/utility. Tech barons stole our data to train AI and automation, it's only right we bear fruit from our personal information.
Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they're trying to take.
The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.
There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.
Well if my choices are
A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all
Or
B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all but I have money for food…
Man that’s a tough choice. I’ll go with B
I don't think there is any reason to think that those are the choices we will actually end up with. Those are just the choices being presented. I believe there are are other choices available that don't involve me having to trust a band of thieves that have done nothing but show me they can't be trusted at every opportunity, but they don't want to present those choices because they would result in them having a lower concentration of wealth and power.
For example, in the USA where I am from, we once had a hybrid capitalist model with a graduated taxation system that essentially limited the maximum individual wealth by taxing all earnings over a certain amount at near 100%, making it functionally impossible to accumulate much more wealth than that. This resulted in wealthy individuals and businesses reinvesting their excess profits in themselves, their people, and their communities because they would not get to keep those profits anyway. That then created one of the most robust economies and largest per-capita middle classes in the planet's history.
This is something that we already know for a fact will work because we have already tested it, and it is but one of probably thousands of possible economic models not being presented to the public.
Reimplementing that system or many of the other ones that don't involve giving the thieves all the money and trusting them to divvy it up fairly are less likely to go wrong. We then need to make sure they are more resistant to being dismantled than previous systems were, so they don't get destroyed like those were.
And that worked extremely well exclusively for white men in that great society you mentioned. It leaves out “lessers” living in that society. The ones who struggled to scrape by because their homes were redlined and valueless and they just took down your neighborhood to build another toll road.
The fact is that perfect time was only perfect for those in the chosen class. Boo.
I think we can do better than that.
Go read “the power broker” good book.
The people that were societally oppressed in the USA during the middle class boom were in their bad situation due to other societal ills, not the taxation structure.
I'm not saying that the entirety of US policy was good then. Clearly there were many societal ills, including widespread gender and racial discrimination in housing and hiring, terrible literacy rates and targeted violence against ethnic minorities in the rural south that persist to this day, and religious bigotry was widely accepted. The economic structure, though, successfully allowed for personal wealth while limiting it, and created an undeniably huge middle class. The fact that many citizens didn't get to participate in it was due to those other non-economic social problems freezing them out.
Also, mid-20th century USA is a single example of a system that was brought up to illustrate the point that there were more than the false dichotomy of choices presented. Surely there are way more ideas out there than status quo or status quo + UBI.
UBI has no precedent for working, and I, some rando online, have already identified a potentially disastrous problem that undermines it that I've never heard any convincing solutions for.
I love gaming out problems and solutions, but it is important not to fall in love with our ideas. Getting upset when holes are poked in them or ignoring these weaknesses aren't going to prevent our opponents from exploiting them. If a plan has intractable problems, there is no shame in making new plans that may avoid those problems.
That sounds concerning, but how is it different from regular taxes to collect & distribute the funds?
I mean, besides the obvious push from them to reduce taxes to 0% as they already do in the States.
Taxes are redistribution of the capital of the general populace of the governed area. UBI is different in that it proposes a special tax only on the capital class where wealth is concentrated, which is then used to supplement the incomes of the general populace, with the most future-utopian thinkers envisioning UBI replacing income and work entirely some day in a super-automated future.
The point of great concern to me is that people bought in to the idea will not resist the ownership class' attempts to consolidate resources and capital into fewer and fewer hands, because they believe those are stepping stones on the path to UBI. Then, when the capital class has got all the resources and control all the production, what force on Earth can make sure they follow through on the redistribution?
That last question is rhetorical. If someone's got all the money, food, and weapons, there is no such force on Earth.
Edit to add another note: Observe how the capital class already actively seeks to avoid taxation at every turn, and are typically successful. I believe a government to successfully implement UBI, it would have to be somehow completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying.
Not sure it's even possible to achieve being "completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying", but at least getting to a system where the legislature or whoever has the power and the will (if not absolute mandate) to continually evaluate the situation and combat corruption (sanctioning, suspending, or expelling violators; penalizing lobbyists who don't follow the rules; amending the rules as needed to keep ahead of the problems).
There's just not enough real consequences for any of these people failing to live up to the standards we should expect of them.
It's an understandable concern but IMO if people are made aware of the value of their personal information being used to advance information age, like people learned the value of their labour during the Industrial age, then we can leverage to demand UBI. We need to be compensated for eventually losing jobs to robots, and using our information that trained the AI doing the jobs they would replace us with.
And even if it's not compensation by UBI, there is universal basic services in which people are provided housing and utilities unconditionally. Carbon dividend could also be a source of income to fund UBI or UBS until we achieve net zero greenhouse emissions.
I can see rego plates in the picture, are they not linked to anyone? Ticket the owner, it's not rocket science.
Law says the driver is ticketed for driving infractions.
So if your car gets ticketed by a speed camera without the driver being identified, who do they send the ticket to?
They send it to the registered owner and treat it as a parking violation, which does not go on your driving record. The ticket also has a "it wasn't me" box you can tick to get the fine removed when you mail it in.
And boot it to prevent repeat offense.
What is this "Airbud" rules.
Cant give it a ticket cause my ticket book doesn't say anything about "robots" breaking laws.
It really doesn't take much intelligence to figure out who needs to get the ticket for that.
It's not a question of what feels right, it's a question of what the law actually says. I'm pretty sure most of us are actually not all that fond of the idea of cops making up or creatively reinterpreting the law to suit their own whims, so I don't see why we should suddenly be cheering for it now.
If the law isn't written in such a way as to be able to apply to driverless vehicles, that's a problem that lawmakers need to correct.
Lawmakers are too busy focusing on irrelevant distractions to be addressing gaps in the law.
And, just so we're clear, you're saying you're cool with the alternative being proposed here, which is that the police just make up the law as they see fit?
I don't believe I said that, nor implied it ?
Spoken like someone who hasn't had to interact with American law enforcement much.
Being intelligent is quite literally a disqualifying characteristic.
“Since there was no human driver, a ticket couldn’t be issued (our citation books don’t have a box for “robot”),” reads the post.
The department said that it had alerted Waymo of the glitch
That's not how it fucking works
How have you guys not bothered to prepare for this? It's not the cop's fault, but it is not a secret that there are Waymo cars in San Francisco. How is this something that nobody thought of?
Last year, California governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that allows police officers to issue a “notice of noncompliance” if a driverless car breaks traffic laws. The law goes into effect in July 2026.
Oh, pardon me. So you're on top of it.
The bill was introduced by assemblymember Phil Ting of San Francisco amid several incidents in the city, including driverless cars blocking traffic, dragging a pedestrian, interfering with firetrucks, and entering active crime scenes.
And your plan was to call up Waymo and ask them politely to improve their tech please? Or, that becomes the plan as of 2026?
With the new law, first responders can order a company to move autonomous vehicles out of an area, and the company has two minutes to direct its cars to leave or avoid that area.
The San Bruno police department, in response to people who believed officers were being lenient, reaffirmed: “There is legislation in the works that will allow officers to issue the company notices.”
My guy these cars went on the road EIGHT FUCKING YEARS AGO
The big invasion of Ukraine was years in the future, Covid hadn't happened and wasn't going to any time soon, Obama had just stepped down, CALIFORNIA EXPLAIN
Dude, you can't just penalize a corporation. That would be commiesocialism or something.
Just impound the vehicle when the driver refuses to sign, or rip the axle out.
You know, like if it had a human owner.
Corporations are people right. So why aren’t they sent all these tickets.
I mean, you're supposed to take the ticket when you're pulled over, and I don't believe we should make it easier for people who aren't in the vehicle when driving it.
Write the ticket, hold it out at the car window, when no one takes it write "Refused", make everyone exit, disable the vehicle until it can be towed to impound, and keep it at impound until some responsible person comes to claim it, sign the ticket, and pay the fees.
Honestly, should just impound all of the fleet immediately.
If the goal of the ticket is to stop the danger and enforce compliance, it has to be to the company via the entire fleet, and it must hurt them financially enough to immediately change the behavior.
Aircraft must have pilots in command.
Radio stations must have control operators.
Pedestrian manglers can just roam free!