You can take a nap in the backseat of Waymo. There isn't even a remote driver, just a remote advisor for cases where the car can't make a decision on its own,because latency and connection issues would make remote driving inherently unsafe. It has to actually work otherwise it wouldn't work at all.

In other words, there is no responsible human. That's not an excuse for Tesla. The opposite really.

Good point. I don't know how liability works in the Waymo case.

My university admissions interview took place next to an old tech nerd's model train layout. Today, the same kind of person would be up all night posting about trans people on X. I blame a lot of our current problems on the decline of model trains and stamp collecting. You are spot on about social media addiction among the olds.

He built a hell of a machine for buying political/cultural influence or filling your sales funnel, no matter the dubiousness of your product, with pinpoint precision. Doing that takes vision and talent, and extremely flexible ethics.

And what were they wearing? Did they provoke the drivers? Why didn't they have flashing lights clipped to their belts?

I know you’re not taking this seriously. But yes, wandering on to a freeway at night is provocation.

Anything with a hood that's so high primarily because it's gender affirming care is paid for with the deaths and injuries of innocents. Regulate the shape of the front end of any vehicle, as I'm sure any honest regulator would.

It's quite sad, the old 1997 F-150 (the first year of the quite-ugly-but-practical "bubble" aesthetic) specifically advertised its low front hood as an intentional measure to improve visibility. And that thing had better visibility than nearly any modern car. It was incredibly despite still being a relatively large truck.

You can thank the CAFE standards for setting emission limits of small vehicles below what was technically possible, driving manufacturers to the larger sizes.

Well maybe we'll get small cars again because the fine for violating CAFE is now... $0.

https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08...

I would like that. I drive a smaller size hatchback, I dislike that I am surrounded by larger vehicles but also don't want to give in to the trend.

But to move back, the best thing would be to loosen regulation on the smaller class and tighten + enforce for the larger class. Too much time has passed with everyone getting in the larger vehicle arms race for it just to flip back. The manufacturing would also have to gear back up and as we are discovering with the attempt to re-shore, it take time and isn't easy.

Also an additional thought for some of the comments that are talking about the selfishness of those who drive larger vehicles. On one hand it is personally selfish and makes it less safe for pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. On the other hand, those people have families and friends. My wife wants me to get a larger car because she is worried I will be killed if there is a traffic accident. I have a duty to help provide for my family and I certainly don't want to die, so doing so would not be an irrational choice.

Similarly to the choice of driving a pickup truck, often it is not needed most of the time. I have a family member who doesn't own a car, which is great! They always talk about the options available (Uber, Rental, etc) but anytime they have to travel to the airport for a business trip, they borrow a car from us or another family member to get there and use the airport parking. Which is fine because collectively we have it available but it can also be a slight inconvenience as well but it is less then them having to deal with Uber/Rental/Public Transit.

It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced from the road and the outside world a new truck is compared to even the late 00's pre financial crash trucks, especially as any additional utility they provide is unchanged at best, and frankly so far as I can tell grossly net negative (i.e. how many 8 foot beds have you see recently? How many flatbeds have you seen that weren't on obvious fleet trucks? The Suburban is also frankly grossly less utilitarian now).

> It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks.

The Ford Maverick exists!

It's about the same size as an old f150 though

Sure, if you go back far enough, but this was in response to the older Ford Ranger being no longer available - the Maverick is fairly comparable in size to a 90's Ranger.

It's quad cab only though, unlike the S10 or O.G. Ranger.

Yeah, that's true, regular cab not available in anything other than a full size in North America now.

Though the Tacoma does come in extended cab.

And the Maverick has a clever bed that fits 4x8 sheets with the tailgate halfway.

this is part of the subsidy to American car companies.

American Big Three cannot compete with Asian/European cars, so they gave up and erected a regulatory barriers to protect their market:

1. chicken tax 2. Section 179 Deduction - allows writeoff of Vehicles Over 6000 lbs for people non-W2 people (self-employed and small business owners) 3. CAFE footpring and "light truck" loophole and CAFE exemtpions for US trucks

everything designed to protect Big Three's highest margin products at cost of human lives

I suppose you'd have to sell it, possibly at a loss, just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection.

> just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection. reply

Oh my sweet summer child...

At the absolute most they might get shut down for a shift or two.

If there was a big market for launch, why would 75% or more of SpaceX's mass to orbit be its own satellites?

What does it tell us that current leadership in Washington lacks the credibility to make that argument? The tariffs and threats to sovereignty of our erstwhile allies have already damaged international norms at least as much as closing the straight of Hormuz.

So you think replacing humans on the battlefield with human shaped robots...why? It makes no sense in the same way that humans on a car production line are not replaced by human shaped robots, instead by far stronger, far more capable, far faster robots designed for purpose, not mimicry. There's nothing about a battlefield that makes it a good use case for human shaped robots.

Except they did pick and choose SPCX and did special favors by giving them a multiplier on the float and an exceedingly short interval before including it in indices.

The only index that I know that float multiplied is Nasdaq which no one should even be investing in via their 401k anyway. Shitty index. Most consumers are utilizing some type of fund that tracks the CSRP, which float adjusts with no multiplier.

It's not even the Nasdaq Composite, It's the Nasdaq 100. And yes, the Nasdaq 100 is a shitty index because Nasdaq vs. NYSE is a bit of an arbitrary, tradition-based way to get tech exposure. It's missing NYSE tech companies (Oracle, Dell, Spotify, Uber) but gets some non-tech like Costco and Pepsi. It'd be like only dating iPhone users. It's sort of a rough proxy for something, but you're better off choosing what you actually care about.