LogFAQs > #952463468

darkknight109 posted...

I've already explained the difference numerous times.

For most retailers, staff salary is a relatively small expense; for transportation, staff salary is their largest expense. Being able to replace their drivers could feasibly more than double their profits in some industries, which is something that a retailer cannot claim. There is a big difference in cost drivers between those two industries.

It's not their largest expense by a long shot. Everything is more expensive in transportation. They have gas, which cost a lot. The vehicles cost a lot. And the parts for the vehicles cost a lot. Paying their staff is one of the cheapest expenses they have. I was working in transportation. I've asked my old boss about the numbers before. Payment of staff is nothing compared to literally everything else... So, it still stands that they won't do this for buses since this won't actually save them a lot... if you think that is the reason...

darkknight109 posted...

The accident rate of a self-driving vehicle is much lower than the average human driver.

Because the rate is already adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road (and the amount of kilometres those vehicles drive), this will not changed as self-driving cars become more widely adopted. If anything, widespread adoption will drop accident rates even farther, because self-driving cars can talk to one another (and to smart tech in and on the road itself) in ways that human-operated cars never could. A self-driving car could signal another self-driving car that it is experiencing a brake malfunction in order to avert an accident; a human-driven car cannot do the same.

You are trying to create a problem where none exists.

It probably will change as it's an estimate. But how they act will change as more are on the road. And human drivers could signal each other in certain cases. And there are certain things a human might not that a self-driving car might not, as well... And I think with more cars, there's also a higher chance of things happening if a miscommunication happens, which could cause a chain reaction. Or a pedestrian doing something dumb, causing a car to try to move out of the way, which causes a reaction with all of them, and could cause more of a mess... Because pedestrians will definitely do something dumb...

darkknight109 posted...

They don't need to be; they just need to be better than us.

And you know what? They already are. And they're getting better each year.

Yes. But even then, there will still be problems. And that's why I'm saying insurance can get very confusing, especially when a chain reaction happens...

darkknight109 posted...

Which is not the only one that exists.

Then show me the better ones, like I out in the rest of the quote you cut out...

Mead posted...

which I think people should get some money by default since automation is starting to replace some forms of labor

and automated systems dont need anywhere near the amount of capital they can produce

But even if we go with the UBI that they practice, $500 isn't enough. Especially if they do what Finland did, and stop giving out other assistances some people needed.

JigsawTDC posted...

This is the crux of LP's position in a nutshell. His arguments are just becoming increasingly more absurd. I legit feel bad for anyone this willfully stubborn. Like, I don't think it's so much an issue in this conversation, but if that carries over to other aspects of life, I can't imagine that being conducive to a healthy life.

I'm perfectly fine in my life. I just don't like automation taking people's job... Or being forced into a self-driving... Which is why I won't be getting in one (Though I also have reason why I don't trust them)...
---

Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.