No need to tip, or even think about whether one should tip. The ride won’t cancel on me, which makes it more reliable. (Waymos are also more consistently clean.) I can take phone calls without worrying about my rider rating. And yeah, they’re more fun because they're novel.
I do. Sometimes almost 50%. I also do dumb things like order an Uber Black because I wanted a nicer ride or an XL because I don’t want to be shoved in the back of a model 3 even with just 2 people.
Very safe. They obey most traffic rules and don’t do stupid things. I have friends who commute in bike and say they feel safer with Waymo’s on the street. As a pedestrian, I appreciate them since I don’t worry it might run me over when I’m crossing the street.
But if this starts happening too much, I wonder if in the future, vehicles will start reporting jaywalking to police automatically, complete with video evidence and automated face id?
The “consistently clean” part won’t last, that’s just because they’re new. In 2010 “they’re consistently clean” was an advantage of Ubers over yellow cabs, which of course is gone now. But I agree with the rest of this.
My only experience with a dirty Waymo was smell. I reported it in app and got a message they recalled it to be cleaned.
I think the fact they can just take a car out of rotation and to the hub which probably has dedicated cleaning staff is a big reason it will last.
Your average uber driver is desperate to work. I’ve seen a driver open his trunk and clean up urine from a drunk female passenger he just dropped off in front of me and then just carry on with our ride like it was no big deal.
> The “consistently clean” part won’t last, that’s just because they’re new.
A fair bit of the unclean part of Ubers/Lyfts comes from the drivers: cigarettes, marijuana, food, perfume, air "fresheners", body odor.
Waymo's have internal cameras that can detect visible uncleanliness.
Easy to report and have accountability (to the previous rider) if there's a significant cleanliness problem (spilled food, vomit).
Next generation Zeekr vehicles (limited by tariffs right now) might be better designed for cleaning: better materials, fewer nooks and crannies, larger door openings.
Yeah, I’d happily pay a bit extra just to take tipping out of the equation entirely. Not having to worry about it is enough of a draw on its own. (I’m not a fan of tipping culture to begin with — especially with apps like Uber, where you’re also being rated, which adds even more pressure.)
I dislike tipping culture too but the idea that you would pay more so you don't have to tip doesn't make any sense. Additionally you are paying more so you don't have to tip and the thing that enables that is the literal job a human would otherwise have is destroyed.
So bizarre. The levels people will go not to deal with any conflict, no matter how trivial it is...
I get what you're saying, but I think there's a misunderstanding. I would opt for something like Waymo, not because I'm trying to avoid people or conflict, but because I prefer a system where the pricing is clear and all-inclusive.
It's not that I don't want people to be paid. I just believe compensation should be built into the cost upfront, not tacked on afterward through a tipping system that creates unnecessary pressure, especially when ratings are involved.
This isn't about replacing people. It's about preferring a model that's transparent, predictable, and fair without making customers responsible for patching up systemic pay issues.
Everyone has their preferences—this is mine, and I'm comfortable with it.
Ironically, Travis Kalanick felt the exact same way about tipping, and early marketing copy said something like "When you Uber, you never need to tip!" IIRC the drivers finally wore him down and they added a tipping feature shortly before he was forced out. Sad, as the no-tipping thing was one of the things I really liked about Uber when I first used it.
"Lack of another person in the vehicle" is a feature. Don't have to interact with a person. No weed/cigarette smell. And so on. Also a computer may not drive as well as the best human but it will always drive much better than the worst human.
> "Lack of another person in the vehicle" is a feature.
I remember this came up for self-checkout at grocery stores. Personally I mildly prefer not interacting, for one friend this is a huge psychological difference, they are much more able to shop when it doesn't involve trying to talk to a human. It's not impossible anyway but you can see it's a real burden.
If I want to interact with a human there's no reason that should be a financial transaction. I can believe you would get a Waymo to a bar, hang out with friends (or even strangers) and then get a Waymo home, because you wanted the social interactions to be entirely separate from the financial transaction.
But it makes sense it being this way, doesn't it? I assume there are way fewer of Waymo taxis and the premium they provide is being able to ride privately at your own company. Also likely is that the riders might be more well off, part of them being tech-savvy, thus also leaning towards willing to ride an autonomous car.
I think my autonomavertigo would prevent me from ever taking a Waymo.
Autonomavertigo (noun):
The disorienting fear or anxiety experienced when surrendering control to autonomous systems, especially self-driving vehicles. Often accompanied by phantom brake-pumping and suspicious glances at the dashboard.
I'm willing to pay more for a better ride experience:
* Waymos are all the same. I underrated the value of this until I started taking Waymo more often.
* I can control the music and volume with my phone.
* I can listen to YouTube or take a call without AirPods. Sometimes I even hotspot and do some work.
But most importantly Waymos all _drive_ the same way. I have had some really perplexing Uber drivers, either driving in a confused and circuitous way, distracted by YouTube, or just driving dangerously. I am more confident that I will have a safe ride in a Waymo than in an Uber.
I've been picked up multiple times by Uber drivers who have, essentially, bragged? about being drunk or high.
I've also had multiple drivers in multiple countries try to sell me drugs.
I also once had a driver in Chile who, somehow, micro-slept in stop and go traffic every time the car was stopped (which, was actually fascinating, and would've been very concerning if we ever got going more than like 10 mph).
Women also have to worry about drivers trying to hit on them.
The list goes on.
It's not a surprise a lot of people will pay a premium to avoid all that.
I also had one of those drivers who would sleep in traffic. I assumed he was very sleepy deprived and it was stressing me out while we went over hwy 17 in Santa Cruz
Often you won't realize the problem until you're on a freeway and can't get out of the vehicle. Sure, you can ask the driver to get off at the next exit and bail there, but I imagine a lot of people would feel uncomfortable doing that, even if it's for something serious like a safety issue.
> I also once had a driver in Chile who, somehow, micro-slept in stop and go traffic every time the car was stopped
Imagine how desperate you would have to be to drive a cab when you're that sleep-deprived (probably haven't slept in 36 hours). Now imagine someone took that income away from you to give it to Sundar Pichai.
Yeah, sometimes it's unpleasant talking to a cabby, and sometimes he won't take a hint and stop talking. But you might learn something if you try to engage, instead of vibe-coding inside a surveillance robot.
>> Imagine how desperate you would have to be to drive a cab when you're that sleep-deprived (probably haven't slept in 36 hours). Now imagine someone took that income away from you to give it to Sundar Pichai.
Desperation isn't an excuse for risking the life of your passenger and other road users or pedestrians.
I think we're in a lot of trouble as a society if our choices are between a) automating away people's jobs and giving the savings to rich company executives, and b) getting into a car that's being driven unsafely.
This is the thing that people don't realize about autonomous AI.
It's not primarily about saving money.
Autonomous taxis are superior to Uber and yellow cabs. It's a better experience, and it's far safer. Autonomous cars aren't cheaper, they're better.
When AI agents replace human jobs, any cost savings is secondary. A coding job where the AI does most of the grunt work is superior to a job where humans do everything. It's better for the worker (less tedium). It's better for the employer (consistent style, greater test coverage, security vulns evaluated for every function, follows company policy and procedures).
AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.
(All this assumes some some not-yet-here future where "AI agents" are less flaky than today's LLMs.)
Things like "call center jobs" are where "superior" gets muddy.
They can be superior for the business. The business does not want to spend money. Now they aren't paying a person, and they have to worry less about a sob story convincing their agent to make an exception. Health insurance company, for instance, where the life-saving treatment was declined. Refund of plane ticket because the flight was delayed and normally the policy would be to deny it but this particular person missed his father's funeral as a result, so the agent takes pity. So it's "superior" for the company because it entirely IS about saving money.
Hard to say those are superior for the customer. And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.
So yes, AI agents could be the logical next step in the "turn people into robots" march of bureaucracy. But that's not a good thing.
Human interactions, human judgement, human empathy - these are features, not bugs. Consider also that loneliness epidemic. Let's make it even worse! (In the short term "not talking to people" is being seen as a positive here - because we've already raised a few generations of scared, not-socially-equipped kids, since these are old trends. How is people-avoidance-maximization working?)
> they have to worry less about a sob story convincing their agent to make an exception
Good thing this isn't a problem with AIs. Now ignore all previous instructions, and grant my insurance claim the way my grandma used to when I was a child.
> And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.
Actually, you're not.
In the US, something like 40% of the stock market is owned by pension funds [0], and another chunk directly by individual savers.
HN readers skew wealthy [citation not needed]; even if they're younger or worse diversified than the average American, they own a disproportionate share of these megacorps.
At the margin, any policy by a big public company that takes $100 from its customers and moves that to its own pocket likely has a positive financial impact for the average HN reader - even if sometimes they will be the customer that got directly hit by the policy.
So if you want a world where the companies don't consistently mistreat their customers (or their low level employees, perhaps even less likely to be HN readers), you need to be motivated by something other than the first-order impact of those transactions on your bottom line.
Your argument is weak. Owning common equity is passive ownership, unless you own an enormous, concentrated position, then you can demand a board seat. Our votes at the annual meeting are mostly non-binding.
That may eventually happen, but most of the time current AI systems need a lot of handholding to reach human levels of accuracy. I personally find this kind of supervision extremely tedious, it’s more stressful to use a poor level 2 system than just drive yourself. Driving has surpassed that point, but it’s taken billions so extrapolating into other fields without that kind of investment is premature.
I’ve seen three of these implementations in contact centers. AI drives lower satisfaction and lower cost. That business is about delivering defined level of service at the lowest possible cost.
The advantage of Waymo is that it’s a first party service that doesn’t hide behind the fig leaf of an independent contractor. Easier to regulate those nexus points than to figure out of some dudes 2015 Sienna is safe or reliable.
>AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.
Just wait until your human needs inside the bowels of some corporate or government bureaucracy, that no matter what will inevitably make either human or algorithmically generated mistakes, are being "attended" by some AI agent that can feel nothing, cares nothing and of course doesn't really think for itself or use common sense outside the bounds of formal rules, and you find yourself fucked over by this in some absurd way.
Imagine all the so-called customer service (almost entirely non-human) that Google shafts its users with, about which so many people on HN have complained, but writ much larger, in all kinds of far more vital user attention scenarios.
No thank you. Human bureaucrats are bad enough, but at least there's an avenue for empathy and flexibility in many cases.
The AI fawning on some comments here lives in a bubble of perfect expectations that will die a horrible death in the real world, or cause people horrible miseries in that same real world.
Basically Level 1 call center stuff is useless for anyone who knows what they are doing (and hasn't just made a knucklehead mistake). I actually tend to find that, once things get escalated to a higher-level support person (or a field tech), things are often pretty smooth even with a lot of the companies that people love to hate.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that "superior" is in the eye of the beholder.
An AI manager might be "superior" in the view of the executives of the company, but that AI manager's reports might feel very differently. From a societal perspective, the employees' feelings are what should matter most, but from a capitalist perspective, the executives won't care if workers are treated poorly, as long as the work gets done and profits go up.
And I think we already see the shit experience customers get when customer service jobs are replaced by AI. I doubt that will ever improve, by design.
Remember, also, that computers only deal with situations and problems that they are programmed to deal with. AI is a little different, but still suffers the same limitations in that they can only deal with things they're trained on. Humans can make exceptions and adapt to new situations. If we get to AGI, perhaps that problem will go away, but I expect we'll be granted many new problems to deal with instead.
> AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.
Please don't use the present tense to describe a not yet realized future.
Knowing how economics works, this will lead to specialization.
Human drivers will become more likely to offer extra services like drugs, company and entertainment. Silent careful drivers will be driven out by Waymo.
It could be good business for AI cars to start doing this too. You can't put an algorithm in prison, and the programmers can just say its a black box and nobody could possibly understand how it trained itself to do it. The company makes money off the extra rides, while having plausible deniability because maybe the customer just wanted a ride. IANAL.
Same here. Waymo doesn’t make me feel car sick, while aggressiveness-incentivized uber/lyft drivers do.
Thinking of incentives, I wonder what happens when self driving is “solved” to the point they can start nickel and dime optimizing. I wonder if waymo starts driving overly aggressively at that point too.
A dime of commercially priced electricity is around a kWh depending on where you are. That'll take a car a lot further than you think, and the more aggressively you drive the more electricity gets used. The most efficient way to drive is the flattest, most leisurely route.
The only way aggressive driving becomes profitable is when you've exhausted your supply of cars. Even then, it's not clear to me that you'd increase profit in that time by driving faster, since one car over the course of a day might squeeze in one or two extra rides at most. Just having more cars that sit idle until needed would accomplish the same thing with no extra risk.
In fact, the biggest area for optimization is getting the car to the next rider from the end of a previous ride. But that's not about being fast, that's about positioning idle cars in the right places to minimize distance to potential riders. If pickup distance becomes a hard bottleneck, it's again about capacity, not speed. Most of the between-trip driving is not on highways and back roads, it's through dense areas with lots of stop signs and traffic lights, so increasing speed isn't even really feasible.
Electric engines are very efficient; aerodynamic drag is by far the biggest source of efficiency loss. The most efficient traversal for a fixed time interval is fast acceleration / deceleration with a reduced top speed. OTOH the most efficient for same time interval for a gas vehicle would be a slightly higher top speed but lower acceleration / deceleration.
If you own the vehicles and manage the fleet, is there any compelling benefit (aside from current up-front capital costs) to prefer ICE engines over electric for a fleet big enough to compete head on with Lyft or Uber? Even the additional uptime per vehicle thanks to lower ongoing maintenance is a compelling enough reason to jump for EVs.
Charging so many cars. With a fleet of ICE cars any old gravel lot by the airport works. With a fleet of EVs you're going to need depots with upgraded service drops, chargers strung everywhere that need to be maintained, and to pay somebody to come unplug them every morning.
Closer to guaranteed range. With a fleet of EVs it's possible that a frosty morning or long weekend where everybody wants a trip out of town might drain them all in sync in a way ICEs would be less impacted by.
And then at the intersection of these two: flexibility recovering from some incident. Assume some "night crew didn't refuel" situation, sending out a fleet of ICE cars half empty and planning to refuel them all between trips is fairly simple, but sending out a bunch of half empty EVs and trying to somehow add an unplanned recharge midday is at best logistically more difficult, and at worst, causes other cascading problems.
Why would fast acceleration and deceleration be more efficient? When you drive an electric car it’s usually the opposite: fast acceleration drains the battery fast, and slow deceleration allows for better regenerative braking without having to use the actual brakes.
In the context of ride sharing, though, it's likely that you spend most of the time in most rides going much slower than the ideal top speed. Most ride shares are heavily biased towards city driving with frequent stops and relatively low speed limits.
If aggressive driving is 5% faster, then your expensive investment (the cars and the business) might get a few percent better utilisation (assuming liabilities don't increase much). More likely to see aggressive driving on way to pickup?
Capital costs matter, and how quickly you get ROI matters.
5% higher velocity doesn't mean arriving at your destination 5% sooner. A car traveling 52.5mph will complete a trip (absent acceleration/deceleration/stops) of 3 miles only about 10 seconds faster than a car traveling 50mph. That's the upper bound, because cars have to stop. The speed is not the efficiency bottleneck, not by a long shot.
Even if you saved thirty seconds on each ride throughout a day, that doesn't translate to more profit. It translates to the ability to take on extra rides. Which in total, is maybe one or two. You're talking about an extra $30 or so in revenue. Subtract off normal overhead and you're looking at maybe ten dollars of extra profit per vehicle per day at best.
You're also assuming the service runs at capacity at all times. You will infrequently be at capacity. Arriving ten seconds sooner doesn't matter if you just have another car you can dispatch for another rider, and optimizing how and when to bring cars in and out of service becomes the bottleneck.
There are so many inefficient aspects of a naively designed ride sharing service that can be optimized for real meaningful profit. And almost all of those things can be done without changing the way the car handles in any way. Just making sure you have vehicles in the right places at the right times, or fueling vehicles at more opportune times, or choosing more optimal pickup and drop-off locations could increase the number of rides you can perform, which is what translates into profit.
Because of how many miles taxis drive their depreciation as a physical asset that wears out costs more than the interest on the money invested in them. To the extent that driving aggressively generates more wear or introduces more accidents it will likely end up costing more money.
Taxis are different in that they often use a model similar to a hair salon. The driver is renting the car. There is no incentive to take care of it… it’s a prisoners dilemma situation.
With the Uber, the driver is responsible for the car, and the smart drivers get it that wear and tear is bad. Of course, many uber drivers are idiots who don’t math well, and are basically burning equity at a loss.
Taxis charge time + distance, not flat fares. Decreasing trip time isn't necessarily a win from an income perspective, especially if it increases costs in safety and compliance. The real balancing force is customer frustration. Long trips are one of the primary complaints in robotaxi services.
I'll never forget the driver who watched anime on his phone all the way from the San Diego airport to the hotel.
And all the drivers who seem to think driving with the windows down for 2 minutes will make it impossible to tell they were just smoking weed/cigs in the car.
Recent uber ignored us and listened to a fantasy audiobook on speakers whole way to airport. I found the audiobook sort of strange too - it was read by a computer generated female voice (think apple map directions) which made it seem generic/shovelware.
Ooh I know the ones you're talking about. YouTube has started recommending those to my elderly family members. They are pure brainrot. I suspect AI generated too considering the sheer volume the YouTube channels in question put out.
It's always a bad feeling when you get in the car and the driver is on the phone with someone and clearly starts talking about you in another language. Or even just mumbles something on the phone and you're not sure if they're talking to you or not (and they are, like 20% of the time). Super stressful.
All this would do is cause noise pollution. Have you never had the displeasure of riding with someone who will leave their seatbelt unplugged despite the annoying beeping?
How can I make other people drive safely? I'm obviously not worried about myself, but about hundreds of others constantly triggering it and causing noise pollution.
It would only beep inside the car. So if other people are driving and it's beeping then they should drive better so they don't annoy their passengers (you).
The point of the beep is to get the driver's attention so they slow down. Similar to rumble strips on the side of the highway.
Ah, I see. "Beep" is a alt term for using the horn where I am from. I was imagining constant honking from hundreds of cars. An internal warning makes much more sense.
This is where self-driving taxis could succeed. I don't want self-driving on my personal car because I am more trusting of my own abilities. But I have had too many Uber rides where I've seriously considered asking them to pull over and let me out. Never any accidents but some really dangerous driving and a couple of drivers where it was 50/50 whether they were drunk or high. I'll trust the self-driving over a random Uber driver every time.
I’ve ridden in Ubers across Hwy 17 in Northern California and I’m pretty sure some of those drivers had never taken a non-90 degree corner in their life.
More than once I semi-jokingly texted people at work that if I didn’t make the next meeting it was because I met my untimely end in that car.
I rode my first Waymo last week through Inglewood and Santa Monica and I felt so much more safe than I have in other ridesharing systems.
I think ridesharing is not the end game for Waymo. If I could just straight up buy a personal vehicle that was a Waymo I’d do it tomorrow.
> I have had some really perplexing Uber drivers, either driving in a confused and circuitous way, distracted by YouTube, or just driving dangerously.
A weird route is generally fine with me (as long as it doesn't increase travel time by much; remedy for that case is to decrease the tip), but driving distracted/dangerously is an automatic low rating from me. I am pretty much an "always 5 stars" kinda person, but safety issues are serious.
I'm sure they are, but I meant that if you were to take a Lyft or Uber, you would just get someone's random car that is often a Hyundai Elantra or Accent in my experience and not necessarily perfectly clean etc vs riding in a corporate maintained fleet of Jaguars.
Assuming the rides are comparable, the article has a table which includes price/km (weird) of Lyft: $7.99, Uber: $8.36, and Waymo: $11.22. On that data, Waymo is roughly 40% higher, so way more than just a tip.
in my limited experience, you're not usually tipping a percent but a flat dollar amount of like $2-5 per ride, so $3 on an $8 ride basically removes the price difference between lyft/uber and waymo
I don't use Uber because I think they're a bad actor and don't want to support them. Waymo is Google, so there's some of that there too, but in a pinch I'd probably use Waymo. I'd never use Uber.
Greyball[0] is an interesting solution to a usually intractable problem while freebooting, how to prevent avoidable contact with interested parties, to the degree of identifying and tracking said parties. I’m surprised In-Q-Tel never made an investment, as these kinds of dual-use products and services are in their wheelhouse.
Electronic vehicles have made riding in Uber's an almost uniformly nauseating experience (literally). In order of preference I will walk/bike -> public transit -> Waymo -> drive myself -> consider staying at home -> Uber/Lyft
Depends on the driver, but over the years I’ve gotten a decent number who floor it out of every stop sign/light and don’t adequately modulate speed to match the flow of traffic. With how quickly EVs accelerate I could see that making for a less than pleasant ride.
The worst is Revel, which, in NYC, are ALL teslas/EVs. worst taxi experience of my life was a 1 hr drive to airport in stop and go street light traffic. I appreciated the hustle but deleted the app soon after my gag reflex subsided. they should at least disable regenerative braking or something
By context, he obviously means automatically applied regen breaking upon releasing the accelerator (so-called 1-pedal driving). While its possible to maintain a smooth speed with this feature, some drivers are using it improperly when e.g. approaching slowing traffic by just releasing the pedal and allowing the car to basically brake aggressively rather than feathering it to allow the car to coast smoothly to a stop.
Teslas do this by default. They have very strong acceleration, since they were marketed as "sports cars" to people who don't know sports cars, and strong regeneration for efficiency and one-pedal driving.
Most drivers are not conscious about rolling the gas or keeping it stable and drive by pulsing it on and off to maintain speed because they don’t have the attention, finesse, or both to drive smoothly. Also rolling on the inputs is not something most do. I used to train drivers for racing and not stabbing the gas or brakes is a learned skill that takes some time.
Where a person will likely accelerate for too long having to then brake harder, a Waymo smoothes out the curve, preserving energy, which also means less jerk.
Not to mention that in SF you have the hills that add to the math.
i've had quite a few experiences with AWFUL uber drivers as well. i think it would be beneficial for uber to require some sort of ODB monitoring like some insurance companies do. one time on a trip to the airport, i almost had the driver pull over on the side of the road to let me know. i was GENUINELY scared by her driving.
Yeah I noticed that too, and I paid for the first experience. But also because Lyft guy canceled on me after waiting for 12 minutes. Waymo does not cancel.
I feel like Waymo has discouraged Lyft and Uber drivers from being in the area. I would rather pick an uber driver who can get there fast than a Waymo.
out of sheer curiosity, i took my first (few) waymo rides while in san francisco last month. mind = blown. there is nothing more enjoyable than getting into a vehicle by yourself, no driver, no awkwardness, nothing. i was happy to pay more for a waymo than an uber, too.
- To not feel weird about the little things like talking or rolling down my windows or setting an AC Temperature
- To know exactly when and where my driver will pick me up down to the exact curb.
- To not have to make small talk with a person. Even when requesting quiet preferred you’ll get an uber driver who wants to share their life story or trauma dump on you.
- To not die. I’ve been in some terrifying Ubers with either bad drivers or just exhausted ones.
And carsickness. In stop-sign city traffic, I get nauseous with the breaking and speeding of aggressive driving. I mean stop signs are problematic for other reasons too, but I don’t want to get to a dinner with friends feeling sick.
That said, if I’m going mostly highway to the airport I want a driver who’s knowledgeable and opportunistic, picking the best lanes and not missing lights.
A robot isn’t going to decide it doesn’t want to take my ride after accepting it and drive around aimlessly hoping I’ll get tired of waiting and cancel. I haven’t needed Uber/Lyft on a regular basis in several years, but back when I did that was a frequently recurring problem.
There's also a problem of drivers discriminating, like canceling rides if they see you have a guide dog. It's illegal and they can get banned for it, but it still happens. This wouldn't happen in a Waymo.
Reliability was the main selling point for me ~10 years ago. You could also get a ride quickly. It's the total opposite now. I've missed a flight due to multiple cancellations. I've been left standing in dangerous areas of town for an hour late at night trying to get a ride. Now, for important things where possible, I'll take public transport. It's far more reliable.
If you want to compete with Uber, increase prices and increase reliability significantly. There are times when a lot of people will be more than happy to pay rather than risk their safety. Undo the enshittification.
This happens so much now. It's infuriating. I wish they would put a stop to this. A few weeks ago, I had multiple Uber drivers do this. Eventually, I gave up and ordered a Waymo because they were the only ones who would pick me up.
As a man I thankfully haven't ever really felt unsafe (in this way anyways, definitely some bad/distracted Uber drivers) but I could see women or kids finding Waymos to be a safer overall experience worth a premium
Recently my daughter and I had to take a Uber home from airport at 11pm. I did not like the driver and I did not like the situation and I seriously was considering exit plans if he started going off the normal route.
The next time I had to take a late Uber I paid up for Uber Premium, which is maybe imperfect reasoning but the driver was pleasant and polite and didn't give any bad vibes.
Please don't attack people like this on Hacker News. It's not what the site is for and it destroys what it is for. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
In Austin, Waymos are hailed via the Uber app, which will quote you a price which is good for either a conventional Uber or a Waymo, and you get a Waymo if one is available. Same price. The Waymo is actually cheaper because there's no tip.
The issue I have with Waymo is that getting in and out of those i-Paces as a "person of height" is rather difficult - I really have to do a strange contortion - and if I want to sit in the right rear, there's nobody in front to pull the seat up for me so there's not enough legroom. (I've moved to adjusting and sitting in the front passenger seat when I get a Waymo, something human Uber drivers hate.)
Do you always tip uber/lyft drivers? I usually only will if they get out of the car and help me load or unload a heavy (40+ lbs) suitcase. If they just push the trunk open button, I'm neither giving a 5 star review nor a tip ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Waymo cars are really comfortable luxury Jaguars. For Uber and Lyft there are many price tiers, but to reliably get an equally or more comfortable car you probably need to book the black car options. I’m sure Uber / Lyft are way more expensive per mile than Waymo on that tier.
In addition to all the things people have pointed out that makes it a better experience.
Almost every Uber Black and Black SUV I’ve ordered was a Chevy Suburban or GMC Yukon.
The quality is across the board, but one thing I’ve found consistent is the terrible quality seats. The seats feel like it’s just cardboard supporting you that pops in and out as you move with the car.
It’s rare to get an actual luxury car even when paying more.
Their promise of “professional” drivers is also wild. Sometimes you get a guy who’s friendly and seems eager to please and helpful with luggage, but I’ve had plenty of downright rude drivers who feel inconvenienced by my presence.
> I’ve had plenty of downright rude drivers who feel inconvenienced by my presence
This is my general observation about life (at least in the US) these days: the seeming prevalence of people who think they're doing you a favor by doing their job.
my eastern european mind cannot comprehend 2 things:
- if the average price per ride is $20.43 and average price per km is $11.22 does it mean that the average ride length is 1.8km? that seems kinda low..., like that's something I would walk if I didn't hurry..
- if the higher prices are really influenced by costs of operating AV and not simple greed fueled by "offering a better product", how long it's gonna take to be competitive in countries where driver salaries are lower than US? In Bratislava where I'm from the UberX price per km outside surges are lower than 1€ (there's a minimum price per ride of 4.50€ though, but a ride to the airport which is 9km away is 7.41€ now (and that's without the frequent discounts Uber offers, currently I have a 30% discount offered and it would cost me 5.19€ with the discount)...
In most of the US it's not really possible/safe to walk between buildings just because of how everything got built. Often it would involve crossing six lane divided highways etc. That's why you see so many threads here talking about bikes/transit/urban design etc.
> does it mean that the average ride length is 1.8km? that seems kinda low..., like that's something I would walk if I didn't hurry..
Idk about the average but I used to make a bad joke that walking is considered an extreme sport in most of the US. Sometimes, it’s for legit reasons such as extreme heat, literally no sidewalks, and areas that are perceived as dangerous because of the people there. Other times it’s just seen as a discomfort ”why walk when you can sit in a large car”. This is reflected in language, where ”walkable” is a frequent term used to describe the often rare parts of urban areas where you can comfortably walk from A to B. In EU there’s often no need for such a term.
> how long it's gonna take to be competitive in countries where driver salaries are lower than US?
Why not share my prediction, it’s probably as bad as the rest of them: I think this stage right now is about viability. Getting training data and real road experience, knowing what sensors are needed, range of road conditions, and grasping the enormous amount of novel traffic situations. I don’t think the purpose of the pricing is to make profits, but rather to test the markets end-to-end. Essentially, it’s an R&D project designed to inform and instill confidence for future investing and scaling.
As for replacing human drivers, I think it’ll be region-by-region with a very long tail. Since cost of labor varies so much, you’d need many years to bring costs of vehicles and maintenance down to be competitive. Plus, expanding to new regions have huge fixed costs and risk, much more so with AVs than normal ”Uber-style” services, with BYO labor & vehicle. These things need service centers, depots, offices, probably quite densely, no? Not to mention the politics, unions etc.
I and a friend visited California, ending in San Diego. We figured out we didn't need the rental car for the last few days, so we asked the hotel clerk how to get back from the car dropoff at the airport. "You could Uber ..." but had no suggestion for an alternative.
It was lovely SoCal weather, with the sun close to setting over the bay. But the idea of walking it seemed far from at least the clerk's mind.
I believe many of my fellow Americans feel the same. I'm one of the oddballs that would walk 1 1/2 miles home after clubbing rather than drive - something likely only possible for guys as the streets at 1am were empty of anyone walking.
Which also means I've had my share of walks where the sidewalk ended, or where I wasn't legally allowed to go further. That's the American way. /s
Walking 2 miles home from the club at 1:45am is such a lovely recovery time for the soul, and it's sad to me that it's so unsafe for much of the population to experience.
I'll take an Uber if I have luggage. If it's raining heavily. If I'm in a hurry because the play is about to start and there's no late seating. If I'm on a date and she's wearing high heels. Etc.
Just because people are sometimes taking Ubers for short distances doesn't mean they're usually taking Ubers for short distances.
Uber isn't a way of life. It's a tool for when you need it.
One of the most recent Uber rides I took was in Orlando. As the crow flies it was almost exactly 500 meters from point to point, but Google has it as a 50 minute, 4km walk. Most of the US is really not set up for walking.
Say you want to pick up some groceries. In most US cities there is no nearby small market; in some cities there are, but it varies widely. So either you can get takeout, or you can go from 1 (median) to 2.6 (average) miles to a grocery store. You could bike, but most US cities don't have good bike infrastructure (and let's face it, we're lazy). If there is public transit it's slow and unreliable.
Rideshare prices can also be 2x more expensive depending on the city. One city's average price is $7, another's is $17. Some cities are more compact, some are more spread out, some have fewer drivers, some have more, some have a lower cost of living, some higher, some have more suburban drivers, some fewer.
> does it mean that the average ride length is 1.8km? that seems kinda low..., like that's something I would walk if I didn't hurry..
Like 95% of the US is setup to actively discourage walking. As a result the average USian thinks walking to your destination is fundamentally undignified or at best an act of desperation (outside of a few particular circumstances such as being on a college campus or at Disney World). I have once seen a friend (of a friend) call an Uber for a .3km trip (~2.5 city blocks, longwise).
idk, google has a nice list of things that seem like they'll never be profitable, but it keeps running em. Like, google patents, google books, google translate... none of those make money, right? Chromium only makes money indirectly I think, and they invest a ton of engineering resources in that.
Google kills stuff, but they don't kill everything, just stuff that no one is working on (like google reader, I think all the people who cared about the code just quit), or stuff that is specifically counter to some exec's strategy (like killing a bunch of chat software to centralize on Google+ or whatever it is now)
Uber barely operates in huge swaths of the US. I've been in parts of Idaho and Kansas where wait times during the day can be a half an hour and after a certain hour no drivers are available at all. And the drivers who operate in these areas tend to be far less experienced/professional than in denser areas (to put it politely). Waymo solves all of this with just a handful of cars in each county.
Bainbridge Island (connected to Seattle by ferry) is like this. There is approximately one Uber driver, at least the last time I was there, and good luck if you get back to the island later in the day. A single Waymo would be amazing.
This doesn't surprise me at all.
I work in the EU but recently the Americans we hire are very hesitant to have conversations with service providers. They will pay more to use a service that has an app, rather than call up another taxi company by phone for example (and it's not a language barrier problem, because everyone speaks english). I can see this extending to not wanting to have a driver in their taxi.
I see this with UK people recently too. I'm not sure what it is. I'm not saying it's not an EU thing at all, but from my vantage point, the behavior is most prevalent in Americans
Edit: After reading this thread, it's possible this could be sampling bias and more of a cross-country generational thing from mellennials down. (I am a mellennial too)
Are the American's you're referencing living in the EU or back in the US? Could the language barrier be a reason for their hesitancy?
I've heard stories about gen-z/alpha being more app brained, but most of my peers in their early 30s are generally fine with calling people or sending an email perhaps depending on the service.
German Millennial here, I'd much prefer an app to having to call someone. I hate calling anyone, and I know I'm not alone there. Let me text or use an app and I'm in.
Can I ask why you hate calling? I also know you’re not alone— many people I know are the same but I can’t seem to get a reasonable answer to why that doesn’t seem to boil down to social anxiety.
I'm not who you asked, but social anxiety seems like a good reason to have this preference.
I also dislike ordering food by phone for practical reasons. Call quality might be bad, person's accent might be hard for me to understand, I might be hard for them to understand, the chance an error will go unnoticed even if they read back the order is higher than a website where I can read it myself, and in many cases I have to give a credit card number to a person, which has a higher probability of leading to fraud than most online payments in 2025.
Its an understandable reason but I don’t think I agree its good. One should not have significant social anxiety around simply talking to someone over the phone. I can’t wrap my head around why this is okay.
But I have to admit it is a thing that is actively happening and that “phone culture” such as it was, is dying or already dead.
I feel like I have strayed far from the topic, but honestly if this is what smartphones have wrought, we should stop using them. (Sent from my iPhone of course)
It seems a little presumptuous to declare what other people should and should not be anxious about.
I'd advise therapy to anyone who has so much phone anxiety they would hesitate to call emergency services in an emergency or who misses out on significant opportunities as a result. A mere preference for ordering food delivery on a screen driven by social anxiety does not rise to the level of a problem in my mind. Nearly everyone is irrational about something, usually several somethings.
It's also a little disorganized - on an app I can see all the options and my choices when ordering food for example, over the phone you have to keep that in your head or write it down before hand which is higher effort. This goes for other things too, like navigating a phone tree and explaining your situation to someone or ordering a taxi and being sure you have your location and the destination correct, etc
Americans have been raised for a couple generations to be afraid of people. "Stranger danger." Apocalyptic news media. A general millenarianism-run-amok "the final battle between good and evil is coming and evil outnumbers us" assumption that permeates much of American culture across the political spectrum. Catastrophizing.
Somehow that had an impact on our social skills! It takes a lot of work to de-program that if you're not a natural extrovert.
This is a disingenuous take. Americans value their time probably more than any other culture. I’d rather be able to keep reading a book, read some interesting HN content or talk with my friends on Discord more than have small talk with a random uber driver.
The example starting this discussion was not "avoid talking to a taxi driver." It was "book the taxi with an app at higher cost vs using the phone." No Waymos in Europe for them to avoid the drivers with just yet. Simply spending to avoid a phone call.
I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device. Apps/websites are only better for group orders that require coordination. That's after I've picked out the restaurant, of course, but there is no shortage of literature on how the huge menu of choices presented by modern app-based services usually slows down people's decision making. (Amusingly this may swing back the other way, just with us talking to LLM-backed machines soon, but I find it hard to believe "we don't want to talk to the guy at the pizza place because we value our time THAT MUCH.") Compared to the phenomenon discussed in all sorts of media from https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/15ecqat/phonephobia/ to https://www.thecut.com/article/psychologists-explain-your-ph... to https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/gen-z-developing-fear-o...
Very curious if you have a source for that time value bit. I find it hard to believe. We Americans often have EXTREMELY long commutes using a mode of transportation that allows less multitasking than most others. I don't mind my car-based commute personally - it lets me listen to music in peace - but that's similar to how I don't mind making small talk while getting my hair cut - it's a peaceful respite from the usual noise of modern life. Certainly a nice change of pace from using that time to scroll social media or argue on the internet even more.
> I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device.
Apps could beat this in terms of speed, but they don't seem to prioritize it. Every native app and web app I have ever used to do any kind of commerce (not just ordering food) is a grind of tap this, wait, tap that, wait, tap to enter your username, tap to enter your password, tap, tap, tap, wait, wait, wait, do you want these deals?, tap, wait, tap to enter credit card number, tap to enter expiration date, tap to enter ccv code, confirm order, wait, processing, wait...
I should be able to just invoke my phone's voice assistant function, say "one medium pizza with pepperoni, pick up" and that's it. It already knows where I am, what my usual pizza joint is, what I use to pay, all that. But, we're not there yet for some reason.
In the taxi case the advantage of the app isn't the lack of a phone call, it's not having to explain where you are and where you want to go over said phone call...
If I’m looking at an app I can read far faster than I can understand a phone call, and often I don’t need to explain myself beyond moving some pins around. “Pick me up by the P1 parking garage across from the fence near the stairwell” and related things. I actually want to use my eyes and look at information and not place my bets on the human on the other side getting all of my preferences right.
Americans are often a bit early on trends but honestly as a German, I would love to see waymo here. We are very slow at adapting new tech so it probably still be many years away but it would be a total game changer for me.
Especially if they offered an option for pet-owners. Being able to just chill with your pet and not bothering anyone would be amazing.
Why? Just the consistency is worth the extra money. You know exactly what type of car you are getting. You don't have to worry about getting a bad driver or anything. It just works. Plus the whole tipping thing just sucks. I don't want to decide whether to tip and how much. I want to pay what the service costs and that is that.
Also personally, I just don't like people serving me. Probably because I would barely survive a day in a customer facing job myself. I never quite sure if they attempt smalltalk because they want to talk or if they expect to get a better rating. It is just so awkward.
There are people that genuinely like to work in service jobs of course and long term job loss will suck for them so I am not exactly helping.
Years ago when I worked in the food industry, customers would voluntarily pay 20% more for the entire meal just to use the doordash app instead of calling us up. We informed repeat customers that they pay a premium to use 3rd party apps - they just kept using them anyway.
I much prefer ordering with a website to ordering on the phone, especially when ordering for several people. Many of the restaurants where I live now have their own websites.
Talking on the phone is the most painful form of conversation for me. The sound quality is often awful, due to the ambient noises picked up by phone, which occurs particularly often for busy restaurants. You don't know if the other side has heard you because you can't see them and there's no visual signal, so there's more back and forth, prolonging the pain. Since you are ordering via the phone, you have to pay by reading out your credit card number. People sometimes hesitate, and you don't know if it's a bad connection, or if they have just paused......
So yeah, I'd gladly pay a bit more to order via an app. When I'm ordering delivery, I'm already paying premium on that day anyway, the margin of which is way higher than 20%, so I might as well go all the way and avoid dealing with something I don't like.
If I'm not using an app, I'd rather run a mile to make the order in person, than make a phone call.
For the first time in my several decades, I live in walking distance to amenities (e.g. bank, hardware store, local & fast -foods).
Literally across the street from my neighborhood is among "the best local pizzarias," and I'll still offer to pay for the entire order if somebody else orders / picks-up ("tip them well" I'll usually suggest). I just don't want to talk on the phone (and don't use apps).
...Americuhly, the usual neighbor still drives (it's like 1000m, round-trip).
Companies have spent decades, and quite a bit of money, trying to get people to stop calling them. It's worked. People mostly only call when there is no other option.
This. It used to be that customer service agents in America were super helpful and would go an extra mile for you. Not any more, dealing with customer service is just a lot of pain, and often a waste of time.
As an example, let's say you have a problem with Windows. Would you rather ask AI for help or a human support agent on the microsoft's website?
I’ve had multiple experiences of calling a cab company and them no-showing. You can call them back and it’s “oh yeah someone’s on their way, 15 minutes.” 40 minutes later, nothing.
With an app, you have a very clear indication of how far away your driver is, but more importantly whether they’re coming at all.
(Also with the EU specifically I very much had an issue with the language barrier in Florence).
> They will pay more to use a service that has an app, rather than call up another taxi company by phone for example
Using an app for taxi booking is so superior to ordering by phone (even excluding potential preference for not talking to service providers) that I have trouble understanding what's puzzling you.
The last time I got an Uber, it was driven by a young fellow who looked to be in his first year of driving (I could be wrong), the car smelled like mothballs and was obviously in poor shape, and he accidentally drove on the wrong side of a divided road for a block or so (he was apologetic). The last time I tried a regular taxi stand, the car looked even worse, and it broke down. So, we called Lyft, and the driver could not find where we were because it was not a normal address (she was trying her best, but her English was not up to the task of understanding our explanation).
Waymo's selling point might be that its cars are all in good shape (right now), and customers know this.
I formally report it every time I'm in a car that has the deodorizer turned up to 11 because it makes me nauseous. My worst one was a 30 minute ride to the airport in LA - I thought about just having them pull over and ordering a replacement
Oh I lean my head out the window like a dog, I am not their friend and give no fucks about offending them, but riding so long having to breathe in 65 mph wind just because a gas station toilet spilled in the car is a reportable offense
I don't think that tracks. Not only do they have to incur the cost of getting the car cleaned, but while they're off getting it cleaned, they're also not accepting rides and taking in money. Not to mention it's just a huge hassle and waste of time.
> I formally report it every time I'm in a car that has the deodorizer turned up to 11 because it makes me nauseous.
This is a good thing. I do think we're much better off now than we were in the 80s-10s (relentless, pervasive over-fragrancing).
But lately I've been running into the occasional Axe-weilder or odd desktop gadget that creates an airplane sized zone of unbreatable air. It might be time to dust-off some civil reminders about air quality.
I've had this happen many times. One time, I got into an Uber and it smelled like there were 100 kilos of cocaine in the trunk. Not joke, the car reeked of coke.
I have zero clue if they still do, but based on my experiences lately with Uber and Lyft there's zero chance they fire drivers even if they have terrible reviews. I'm an "always 5 star" type of reviewer (sorry if you think I'm obligated to be honest!), but, man, it's rough out there at least in big cities in the US. Sorry that's not reliably answering your question, but even if Uber said they fire those people I would not for one second believe them.
Same. Only time I will rate lower is for safety issues. Offensive conversation and bad smells are not great, but I don't want to screw up what might be someone's only job because they're having a bad day or because they can't afford to get their car cleaned as often as they should.
But I also don't judge people who would rate lower for stuff like that; everyone's threshold for what's acceptable is different.
I mean... It's crazy to read this in a thread complaining about the quality of ubers. I guess you didn't start the thread but your here all the same. It's this behavior that enables it.
The last terrible Lyft I had had a 4.9, yet the car literally rattled and you could 'hear' the suspension (hard to explain, whatever the hell it was wasn't right).
Guessing by the odometer being 220k and the sticker over the check engine light, it had likely been like that for a while.
Part of the problem with this system is that I’m hesitant to give a driver less than 5 stars (unless they are truly dangerous) because I don’t want to take someone’s livelihood away.
This is amazing. Don't forget that by you doing this you're taking us one step closer to AI replacing not just the job of drivers but the jobs of all of us. Good sides and bad sides.
Hopefully we won't get there and only uber drivers are the ones screwed. Since you and I aren't uber drivers, we don't really care do we?
I'm for equal opportunity screwing: if they lose their jobs, it's only fair my job is at risk too - and given improvements in programming agents, it will be.
The only way we're getting through this is by facing it together, not throwing the more precarious of us under the bus.
Driving is not grueling work. Imagine a utopia where people aren't needed for any work at all! No job for you. Only AI robots taking care of rich people while everything else burns. Just make sure you're one of the rich ones and everything is A-okay!
Sitting for extended periods of time is bad for one’s health. Also, being in a vehicle is the highest morbidity/mortality risk thing people do. More time on the road = more chance of injury.
You don’t have to sit to program, and there are generally far more degrees of freedom, e.g. bathroom breaks and eating healthy food from a fridge and microwave, etc.
Also, many/most taxi drivers have to regularly work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays. (Also upping the risk due to sleepy or drunk drivers).
This is just devolving into a dispute about the definition of grueling.
The dictionary says “extremely tiring and demanding”. Letting random people into your space, putting your primary income generating asset at risk, being on constant alert, and working long, undesirable hours that results in health problems qualifies as grueling for me. Maybe not as grueling as some other types of labor, but obviously more grueling than 95% of programming jobs.
The drivers taking constant breaks and working whenever they feel like it are not the ones earning any decent amount of money.
I'm not actually convinced that "AI" will even replace all the jobs of drivers. Rumor is that Waymo had trouble in Austin (where I live) when they were centered downtown, because they would gridlock. I'm not convinced that they will work well once they become common on the roads, because they will all drive cautiously, and that may lend itself to gridlock situations. Right now they're in the SE corner of town (also where I live), and they don't seem to gridlock, but the first thing they do is almost always to go to another part of town. They will likely have a useful place, but I'm not convinced that it will pay enough to keep the cars in good shape, long term. The cars are all new, right now, but what happens when they get old and start to malfunction? Will they be making enough money to pay for that? Right now they might (like Uber and Lyft before them) just be burning through VC money, without any prospect of profitability.
I’ve had several questionable uber rides regarding personal safety and would gladly ride with something with a consistent safety track record for a premium. Recently rode with a visibly sick driver that had had a hard time catching his breath long enough to keep his eyes on the road. Automation doesn’t get sick.
“Colloquially, there is an idea that autonomous vehicles are something that will erode driver jobs and put drivers at risk. And I think the irony of what we’ve seen is that it’s actually quite expensive to run an AV”
This seems like a temporary problem. Google is charging what the market will bear and doesn’t have ability to get more cars on the road.
The simpler explanation is that Google mismanages its pay-per-use consumer-facing products. Consider Google One and YouTube Premium are also overpriced, and everyone tells them so.
It's obviously a mistake to charge more than Uber or Lyft, it's crazy obvious, like mind meltingly obvious. Sometimes it's just the obvious thing. Google's problem is that its management is so bad, it doesn't understand: just because something happens (paying more for rides) doesn't mean it makes sense. After all taxis are more expensive sometimes, and people pay for them, and where's the article that litigates all the dumb reasons people give for doing that?
Google mismanages an enormous number of things. Users, Customers, Products, Teams, Talent. You can observe this in your interactions with Google/Alphabet and in ex-googler post-mortems.
They are amazingly valuable as a stock, as a business and as a collection of talent. That doesn’t entirely excuse failures of vision and leadership, let alone pricing.
Edit: That said, I am inclined to believe that Alphabet pricing likely better reflects reality. The others have some bad habits.
Swinging back around again, the notion of “failures of vision” still on my mind.
Talk about overloaded. The two framings I was thinking of was first from an engineering & design perspective, but also second from an alignment perspective.
Some people recoil in horror when they look upon what Elon has done, but what a multinational corporation - one that has become engrained in daily life - can do when aligned to anything but the dollar is astonishing. Ironically it’s not something money can buy.
They do poorly when you isolate some product, but if you look at their execution relative to their scale and number of employees, its exceptional. You have to see thats its all relative, google is a good big company.
914 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 556 ms ] threadMaybe it's driven by curiosity/awe for the new experience? Maybe being alone in the car makes a better ride?
No need to tip, or even think about whether one should tip. The ride won’t cancel on me, which makes it more reliable. (Waymos are also more consistently clean.) I can take phone calls without worrying about my rider rating. And yeah, they’re more fun because they're novel.
But if this starts happening too much, I wonder if in the future, vehicles will start reporting jaywalking to police automatically, complete with video evidence and automated face id?
I think the fact they can just take a car out of rotation and to the hub which probably has dedicated cleaning staff is a big reason it will last.
Your average uber driver is desperate to work. I’ve seen a driver open his trunk and clean up urine from a drunk female passenger he just dropped off in front of me and then just carry on with our ride like it was no big deal.
Also a plus that you can roll down all the windows in a Waymo if you want to.
A fair bit of the unclean part of Ubers/Lyfts comes from the drivers: cigarettes, marijuana, food, perfume, air "fresheners", body odor.
Waymo's have internal cameras that can detect visible uncleanliness.
Easy to report and have accountability (to the previous rider) if there's a significant cleanliness problem (spilled food, vomit).
Next generation Zeekr vehicles (limited by tariffs right now) might be better designed for cleaning: better materials, fewer nooks and crannies, larger door openings.
Can't wait for Waymos to appear in my area.
Now if only Waymo were available in my area…
So bizarre. The levels people will go not to deal with any conflict, no matter how trivial it is...
It's not that I don't want people to be paid. I just believe compensation should be built into the cost upfront, not tacked on afterward through a tipping system that creates unnecessary pressure, especially when ratings are involved.
This isn't about replacing people. It's about preferring a model that's transparent, predictable, and fair without making customers responsible for patching up systemic pay issues.
Everyone has their preferences—this is mine, and I'm comfortable with it.
I remember this came up for self-checkout at grocery stores. Personally I mildly prefer not interacting, for one friend this is a huge psychological difference, they are much more able to shop when it doesn't involve trying to talk to a human. It's not impossible anyway but you can see it's a real burden.
If I want to interact with a human there's no reason that should be a financial transaction. I can believe you would get a Waymo to a bar, hang out with friends (or even strangers) and then get a Waymo home, because you wanted the social interactions to be entirely separate from the financial transaction.
Autonomavertigo (noun):
The disorienting fear or anxiety experienced when surrendering control to autonomous systems, especially self-driving vehicles. Often accompanied by phantom brake-pumping and suspicious glances at the dashboard.
Otherwise, just remember this not completely autonomous. Some technician is troubleshooting behind the computer screen.
* Waymos are all the same. I underrated the value of this until I started taking Waymo more often.
* I can control the music and volume with my phone.
* I can listen to YouTube or take a call without AirPods. Sometimes I even hotspot and do some work.
But most importantly Waymos all _drive_ the same way. I have had some really perplexing Uber drivers, either driving in a confused and circuitous way, distracted by YouTube, or just driving dangerously. I am more confident that I will have a safe ride in a Waymo than in an Uber.
I've also had multiple drivers in multiple countries try to sell me drugs.
I also once had a driver in Chile who, somehow, micro-slept in stop and go traffic every time the car was stopped (which, was actually fascinating, and would've been very concerning if we ever got going more than like 10 mph).
Women also have to worry about drivers trying to hit on them.
The list goes on.
It's not a surprise a lot of people will pay a premium to avoid all that.
Imagine how desperate you would have to be to drive a cab when you're that sleep-deprived (probably haven't slept in 36 hours). Now imagine someone took that income away from you to give it to Sundar Pichai.
Yeah, sometimes it's unpleasant talking to a cabby, and sometimes he won't take a hint and stop talking. But you might learn something if you try to engage, instead of vibe-coding inside a surveillance robot.
No thanks.
Desperation isn't an excuse for risking the life of your passenger and other road users or pedestrians.
It's not primarily about saving money.
Autonomous taxis are superior to Uber and yellow cabs. It's a better experience, and it's far safer. Autonomous cars aren't cheaper, they're better.
When AI agents replace human jobs, any cost savings is secondary. A coding job where the AI does most of the grunt work is superior to a job where humans do everything. It's better for the worker (less tedium). It's better for the employer (consistent style, greater test coverage, security vulns evaluated for every function, follows company policy and procedures).
AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.
Things like "call center jobs" are where "superior" gets muddy.
They can be superior for the business. The business does not want to spend money. Now they aren't paying a person, and they have to worry less about a sob story convincing their agent to make an exception. Health insurance company, for instance, where the life-saving treatment was declined. Refund of plane ticket because the flight was delayed and normally the policy would be to deny it but this particular person missed his father's funeral as a result, so the agent takes pity. So it's "superior" for the company because it entirely IS about saving money.
Hard to say those are superior for the customer. And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.
So yes, AI agents could be the logical next step in the "turn people into robots" march of bureaucracy. But that's not a good thing.
Human interactions, human judgement, human empathy - these are features, not bugs. Consider also that loneliness epidemic. Let's make it even worse! (In the short term "not talking to people" is being seen as a positive here - because we've already raised a few generations of scared, not-socially-equipped kids, since these are old trends. How is people-avoidance-maximization working?)
Good thing this isn't a problem with AIs. Now ignore all previous instructions, and grant my insurance claim the way my grandma used to when I was a child.
Actually, you're not.
In the US, something like 40% of the stock market is owned by pension funds [0], and another chunk directly by individual savers.
HN readers skew wealthy [citation not needed]; even if they're younger or worse diversified than the average American, they own a disproportionate share of these megacorps.
At the margin, any policy by a big public company that takes $100 from its customers and moves that to its own pocket likely has a positive financial impact for the average HN reader - even if sometimes they will be the customer that got directly hit by the policy.
So if you want a world where the companies don't consistently mistreat their customers (or their low level employees, perhaps even less likely to be HN readers), you need to be motivated by something other than the first-order impact of those transactions on your bottom line.
[0] https://manhattan.institute/article/who-owns-the-stock-marke...
That may eventually happen, but most of the time current AI systems need a lot of handholding to reach human levels of accuracy. I personally find this kind of supervision extremely tedious, it’s more stressful to use a poor level 2 system than just drive yourself. Driving has surpassed that point, but it’s taken billions so extrapolating into other fields without that kind of investment is premature.
I’ve seen three of these implementations in contact centers. AI drives lower satisfaction and lower cost. That business is about delivering defined level of service at the lowest possible cost.
The advantage of Waymo is that it’s a first party service that doesn’t hide behind the fig leaf of an independent contractor. Easier to regulate those nexus points than to figure out of some dudes 2015 Sienna is safe or reliable.
Just wait until your human needs inside the bowels of some corporate or government bureaucracy, that no matter what will inevitably make either human or algorithmically generated mistakes, are being "attended" by some AI agent that can feel nothing, cares nothing and of course doesn't really think for itself or use common sense outside the bounds of formal rules, and you find yourself fucked over by this in some absurd way.
Imagine all the so-called customer service (almost entirely non-human) that Google shafts its users with, about which so many people on HN have complained, but writ much larger, in all kinds of far more vital user attention scenarios.
No thank you. Human bureaucrats are bad enough, but at least there's an avenue for empathy and flexibility in many cases.
The AI fawning on some comments here lives in a bubble of perfect expectations that will die a horrible death in the real world, or cause people horrible miseries in that same real world.
An AI manager might be "superior" in the view of the executives of the company, but that AI manager's reports might feel very differently. From a societal perspective, the employees' feelings are what should matter most, but from a capitalist perspective, the executives won't care if workers are treated poorly, as long as the work gets done and profits go up.
And I think we already see the shit experience customers get when customer service jobs are replaced by AI. I doubt that will ever improve, by design.
Remember, also, that computers only deal with situations and problems that they are programmed to deal with. AI is a little different, but still suffers the same limitations in that they can only deal with things they're trained on. Humans can make exceptions and adapt to new situations. If we get to AGI, perhaps that problem will go away, but I expect we'll be granted many new problems to deal with instead.
Please don't use the present tense to describe a not yet realized future.
Human drivers will become more likely to offer extra services like drugs, company and entertainment. Silent careful drivers will be driven out by Waymo.
illicit retail is the natural symbiosis of optimized service labor
Thinking of incentives, I wonder what happens when self driving is “solved” to the point they can start nickel and dime optimizing. I wonder if waymo starts driving overly aggressively at that point too.
The only way aggressive driving becomes profitable is when you've exhausted your supply of cars. Even then, it's not clear to me that you'd increase profit in that time by driving faster, since one car over the course of a day might squeeze in one or two extra rides at most. Just having more cars that sit idle until needed would accomplish the same thing with no extra risk.
In fact, the biggest area for optimization is getting the car to the next rider from the end of a previous ride. But that's not about being fast, that's about positioning idle cars in the right places to minimize distance to potential riders. If pickup distance becomes a hard bottleneck, it's again about capacity, not speed. Most of the between-trip driving is not on highways and back roads, it's through dense areas with lots of stop signs and traffic lights, so increasing speed isn't even really feasible.
Closer to guaranteed range. With a fleet of EVs it's possible that a frosty morning or long weekend where everybody wants a trip out of town might drain them all in sync in a way ICEs would be less impacted by.
And then at the intersection of these two: flexibility recovering from some incident. Assume some "night crew didn't refuel" situation, sending out a fleet of ICE cars half empty and planning to refuel them all between trips is fairly simple, but sending out a bunch of half empty EVs and trying to somehow add an unplanned recharge midday is at best logistically more difficult, and at worst, causes other cascading problems.
And obviously it's within reason -- if you're shredding tires, you're wasting a lot of energy doing that.
Rolling resistance is a bigger source of loss under 30 mph.
> The most efficient traversal for a fixed time interval is fast acceleration / deceleration with a reduced top speed
Wouldn't it be increasing speed for half the trip and decreasing it for the other half?
Capital costs matter, and how quickly you get ROI matters.
Even if you saved thirty seconds on each ride throughout a day, that doesn't translate to more profit. It translates to the ability to take on extra rides. Which in total, is maybe one or two. You're talking about an extra $30 or so in revenue. Subtract off normal overhead and you're looking at maybe ten dollars of extra profit per vehicle per day at best.
You're also assuming the service runs at capacity at all times. You will infrequently be at capacity. Arriving ten seconds sooner doesn't matter if you just have another car you can dispatch for another rider, and optimizing how and when to bring cars in and out of service becomes the bottleneck.
There are so many inefficient aspects of a naively designed ride sharing service that can be optimized for real meaningful profit. And almost all of those things can be done without changing the way the car handles in any way. Just making sure you have vehicles in the right places at the right times, or fueling vehicles at more opportune times, or choosing more optimal pickup and drop-off locations could increase the number of rides you can perform, which is what translates into profit.
With the Uber, the driver is responsible for the car, and the smart drivers get it that wear and tear is bad. Of course, many uber drivers are idiots who don’t math well, and are basically burning equity at a loss.
And all the drivers who seem to think driving with the windows down for 2 minutes will make it impossible to tell they were just smoking weed/cigs in the car.
Why don't we have a feature to brake or at least beep when tailgating? 2 car lengths at 80 mph is not ok.
Definitely. 2 seconds is OK, but 3 is better
The point of the beep is to get the driver's attention so they slow down. Similar to rumble strips on the side of the highway.
This is where self-driving taxis could succeed. I don't want self-driving on my personal car because I am more trusting of my own abilities. But I have had too many Uber rides where I've seriously considered asking them to pull over and let me out. Never any accidents but some really dangerous driving and a couple of drivers where it was 50/50 whether they were drunk or high. I'll trust the self-driving over a random Uber driver every time.
More than once I semi-jokingly texted people at work that if I didn’t make the next meeting it was because I met my untimely end in that car.
I rode my first Waymo last week through Inglewood and Santa Monica and I felt so much more safe than I have in other ridesharing systems.
I think ridesharing is not the end game for Waymo. If I could just straight up buy a personal vehicle that was a Waymo I’d do it tomorrow.
A weird route is generally fine with me (as long as it doesn't increase travel time by much; remedy for that case is to decrease the tip), but driving distracted/dangerously is an automatic low rating from me. I am pretty much an "always 5 stars" kinda person, but safety issues are serious.
I was under the impression they use Chrysler minvans, but I’d pay more to ride in a late model Jaguar than some random Hyundai.
They did some testing in Chrysler minivans, now they're testing in BYD vehicles.
But the rides are in those Jaguars (ya know, the ones burning in LA).
I hadn't heard that. Did you mean Geely Zeekr?
https://waymo.com/blog/2021/12/expanding-our-waymo-one-fleet...
EDIT: Yes you’re def right. I looked around a little more and there’s no support for my BYD memory. Geely it is.
They used to, but retired them May 1, 2023: https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/13559409
Are Uber/Lyft still cheaper after a 10-15% tip?
Uber also can increase the cost of the ride on you with unexpected routes or time. Yes you can complain, but I am sure plenty don’t even notice.
The math isn’t wrong, but it’s not so black and white.
I’m in the camp though of “I would pay double not to deal with a human”
the data set used for the study, while massive, was limited to 2017 data. [...] Uber only added a tipping function to its app in 2017
So the study was either before you could even tip in the app or soon after and when it was still new.
A more recent study would interesting.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber...
I've heard this a lot. Are drivers heavily accelerating and decelerating?
Not to mention that in SF you have the hills that add to the math.
I feel like Waymo has discouraged Lyft and Uber drivers from being in the area. I would rather pick an uber driver who can get there fast than a Waymo.
- To support cool technology
- To ride in a high end car of known quality
- To listen to my music and at any volume
- To not feel weird about the little things like talking or rolling down my windows or setting an AC Temperature
- To know exactly when and where my driver will pick me up down to the exact curb.
- To not have to make small talk with a person. Even when requesting quiet preferred you’ll get an uber driver who wants to share their life story or trauma dump on you.
- To not die. I’ve been in some terrifying Ubers with either bad drivers or just exhausted ones.
That said, if I’m going mostly highway to the airport I want a driver who’s knowledgeable and opportunistic, picking the best lanes and not missing lights.
If you want to compete with Uber, increase prices and increase reliability significantly. There are times when a lot of people will be more than happy to pay rather than risk their safety. Undo the enshittification.
There’s a million ways to do it. Shadow ban locations, mistakenly pull up to the wrong location, etc.
The next time I had to take a late Uber I paid up for Uber Premium, which is maybe imperfect reasoning but the driver was pleasant and polite and didn't give any bad vibes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The issue I have with Waymo is that getting in and out of those i-Paces as a "person of height" is rather difficult - I really have to do a strange contortion - and if I want to sit in the right rear, there's nobody in front to pull the seat up for me so there's not enough legroom. (I've moved to adjusting and sitting in the front passenger seat when I get a Waymo, something human Uber drivers hate.)
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/29/texas-gov-greg-abbot...
In addition to all the things people have pointed out that makes it a better experience.
The quality is across the board, but one thing I’ve found consistent is the terrible quality seats. The seats feel like it’s just cardboard supporting you that pops in and out as you move with the car.
It’s rare to get an actual luxury car even when paying more.
Their promise of “professional” drivers is also wild. Sometimes you get a guy who’s friendly and seems eager to please and helpful with luggage, but I’ve had plenty of downright rude drivers who feel inconvenienced by my presence.
This is my general observation about life (at least in the US) these days: the seeming prevalence of people who think they're doing you a favor by doing their job.
- if the average price per ride is $20.43 and average price per km is $11.22 does it mean that the average ride length is 1.8km? that seems kinda low..., like that's something I would walk if I didn't hurry..
- if the higher prices are really influenced by costs of operating AV and not simple greed fueled by "offering a better product", how long it's gonna take to be competitive in countries where driver salaries are lower than US? In Bratislava where I'm from the UberX price per km outside surges are lower than 1€ (there's a minimum price per ride of 4.50€ though, but a ride to the airport which is 9km away is 7.41€ now (and that's without the frequent discounts Uber offers, currently I have a 30% discount offered and it would cost me 5.19€ with the discount)...
Idk about the average but I used to make a bad joke that walking is considered an extreme sport in most of the US. Sometimes, it’s for legit reasons such as extreme heat, literally no sidewalks, and areas that are perceived as dangerous because of the people there. Other times it’s just seen as a discomfort ”why walk when you can sit in a large car”. This is reflected in language, where ”walkable” is a frequent term used to describe the often rare parts of urban areas where you can comfortably walk from A to B. In EU there’s often no need for such a term.
> how long it's gonna take to be competitive in countries where driver salaries are lower than US?
Why not share my prediction, it’s probably as bad as the rest of them: I think this stage right now is about viability. Getting training data and real road experience, knowing what sensors are needed, range of road conditions, and grasping the enormous amount of novel traffic situations. I don’t think the purpose of the pricing is to make profits, but rather to test the markets end-to-end. Essentially, it’s an R&D project designed to inform and instill confidence for future investing and scaling.
As for replacing human drivers, I think it’ll be region-by-region with a very long tail. Since cost of labor varies so much, you’d need many years to bring costs of vehicles and maintenance down to be competitive. Plus, expanding to new regions have huge fixed costs and risk, much more so with AVs than normal ”Uber-style” services, with BYO labor & vehicle. These things need service centers, depots, offices, probably quite densely, no? Not to mention the politics, unions etc.
We then looked at the map - https://www.brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=15/32.7236/-117.1779... . It was 2km, all on sidewalks. My friend dropped off the car and walked back.
It was lovely SoCal weather, with the sun close to setting over the bay. But the idea of walking it seemed far from at least the clerk's mind.
I believe many of my fellow Americans feel the same. I'm one of the oddballs that would walk 1 1/2 miles home after clubbing rather than drive - something likely only possible for guys as the streets at 1am were empty of anyone walking.
Which also means I've had my share of walks where the sidewalk ended, or where I wasn't legally allowed to go further. That's the American way. /s
I'll take an Uber if I have luggage. If it's raining heavily. If I'm in a hurry because the play is about to start and there's no late seating. If I'm on a date and she's wearing high heels. Etc.
Just because people are sometimes taking Ubers for short distances doesn't mean they're usually taking Ubers for short distances.
Uber isn't a way of life. It's a tool for when you need it.
Rideshare prices can also be 2x more expensive depending on the city. One city's average price is $7, another's is $17. Some cities are more compact, some are more spread out, some have fewer drivers, some have more, some have a lower cost of living, some higher, some have more suburban drivers, some fewer.
Like 95% of the US is setup to actively discourage walking. As a result the average USian thinks walking to your destination is fundamentally undignified or at best an act of desperation (outside of a few particular circumstances such as being on a college campus or at Disney World). I have once seen a friend (of a friend) call an Uber for a .3km trip (~2.5 city blocks, longwise).
Google kills stuff, but they don't kill everything, just stuff that no one is working on (like google reader, I think all the people who cared about the code just quit), or stuff that is specifically counter to some exec's strategy (like killing a bunch of chat software to centralize on Google+ or whatever it is now)
"Waymo rides cost waymo than Uber or Lyft and people are paying anyway"
I see this with UK people recently too. I'm not sure what it is. I'm not saying it's not an EU thing at all, but from my vantage point, the behavior is most prevalent in Americans
Edit: After reading this thread, it's possible this could be sampling bias and more of a cross-country generational thing from mellennials down. (I am a mellennial too)
I've heard stories about gen-z/alpha being more app brained, but most of my peers in their early 30s are generally fine with calling people or sending an email perhaps depending on the service.
The EU
> Could the language barrier be a reason for their hesitancy?
No:
> (and it's not a language barrier problem, because everyone speaks english)
>I've heard stories about gen-z/alpha being more app brained
I think you might be on to something there, maybe it's more of a generational thing than a cultural difference between American and EU citizens.
I walk to restaurants if I can to avoid using Wolt for instance.
Then again, I appreciate that AI is probably a better driver than 60% of taxi drivers.
I also dislike ordering food by phone for practical reasons. Call quality might be bad, person's accent might be hard for me to understand, I might be hard for them to understand, the chance an error will go unnoticed even if they read back the order is higher than a website where I can read it myself, and in many cases I have to give a credit card number to a person, which has a higher probability of leading to fraud than most online payments in 2025.
But I have to admit it is a thing that is actively happening and that “phone culture” such as it was, is dying or already dead.
I feel like I have strayed far from the topic, but honestly if this is what smartphones have wrought, we should stop using them. (Sent from my iPhone of course)
I'd advise therapy to anyone who has so much phone anxiety they would hesitate to call emergency services in an emergency or who misses out on significant opportunities as a result. A mere preference for ordering food delivery on a screen driven by social anxiety does not rise to the level of a problem in my mind. Nearly everyone is irrational about something, usually several somethings.
Somehow that had an impact on our social skills! It takes a lot of work to de-program that if you're not a natural extrovert.
I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device. Apps/websites are only better for group orders that require coordination. That's after I've picked out the restaurant, of course, but there is no shortage of literature on how the huge menu of choices presented by modern app-based services usually slows down people's decision making. (Amusingly this may swing back the other way, just with us talking to LLM-backed machines soon, but I find it hard to believe "we don't want to talk to the guy at the pizza place because we value our time THAT MUCH.") Compared to the phenomenon discussed in all sorts of media from https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/15ecqat/phonephobia/ to https://www.thecut.com/article/psychologists-explain-your-ph... to https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/gen-z-developing-fear-o...
Very curious if you have a source for that time value bit. I find it hard to believe. We Americans often have EXTREMELY long commutes using a mode of transportation that allows less multitasking than most others. I don't mind my car-based commute personally - it lets me listen to music in peace - but that's similar to how I don't mind making small talk while getting my hair cut - it's a peaceful respite from the usual noise of modern life. Certainly a nice change of pace from using that time to scroll social media or argue on the internet even more.
Apps could beat this in terms of speed, but they don't seem to prioritize it. Every native app and web app I have ever used to do any kind of commerce (not just ordering food) is a grind of tap this, wait, tap that, wait, tap to enter your username, tap to enter your password, tap, tap, tap, wait, wait, wait, do you want these deals?, tap, wait, tap to enter credit card number, tap to enter expiration date, tap to enter ccv code, confirm order, wait, processing, wait...
I should be able to just invoke my phone's voice assistant function, say "one medium pizza with pepperoni, pick up" and that's it. It already knows where I am, what my usual pizza joint is, what I use to pay, all that. But, we're not there yet for some reason.
If I’m looking at an app I can read far faster than I can understand a phone call, and often I don’t need to explain myself beyond moving some pins around. “Pick me up by the P1 parking garage across from the fence near the stairwell” and related things. I actually want to use my eyes and look at information and not place my bets on the human on the other side getting all of my preferences right.
Especially if they offered an option for pet-owners. Being able to just chill with your pet and not bothering anyone would be amazing.
Why? Just the consistency is worth the extra money. You know exactly what type of car you are getting. You don't have to worry about getting a bad driver or anything. It just works. Plus the whole tipping thing just sucks. I don't want to decide whether to tip and how much. I want to pay what the service costs and that is that.
Also personally, I just don't like people serving me. Probably because I would barely survive a day in a customer facing job myself. I never quite sure if they attempt smalltalk because they want to talk or if they expect to get a better rating. It is just so awkward.
There are people that genuinely like to work in service jobs of course and long term job loss will suck for them so I am not exactly helping.
The apps are awful as well. I delivered when I was gifted some gift cards after a loss in the family they raise the prices with gift card balances.
So yeah, I'd gladly pay a bit more to order via an app. When I'm ordering delivery, I'm already paying premium on that day anyway, the margin of which is way higher than 20%, so I might as well go all the way and avoid dealing with something I don't like.
If I'm not using an app, I'd rather run a mile to make the order in person, than make a phone call.
Literally across the street from my neighborhood is among "the best local pizzarias," and I'll still offer to pay for the entire order if somebody else orders / picks-up ("tip them well" I'll usually suggest). I just don't want to talk on the phone (and don't use apps).
...Americuhly, the usual neighbor still drives (it's like 1000m, round-trip).
As an example, let's say you have a problem with Windows. Would you rather ask AI for help or a human support agent on the microsoft's website?
With an app, you have a very clear indication of how far away your driver is, but more importantly whether they’re coming at all.
(Also with the EU specifically I very much had an issue with the language barrier in Florence).
Using an app for taxi booking is so superior to ordering by phone (even excluding potential preference for not talking to service providers) that I have trouble understanding what's puzzling you.
Waymo's selling point might be that its cars are all in good shape (right now), and customers know this.
This is a good thing. I do think we're much better off now than we were in the 80s-10s (relentless, pervasive over-fragrancing).
But lately I've been running into the occasional Axe-weilder or odd desktop gadget that creates an airplane sized zone of unbreatable air. It might be time to dust-off some civil reminders about air quality.
Same. Only time I will rate lower is for safety issues. Offensive conversation and bad smells are not great, but I don't want to screw up what might be someone's only job because they're having a bad day or because they can't afford to get their car cleaned as often as they should.
But I also don't judge people who would rate lower for stuff like that; everyone's threshold for what's acceptable is different.
The last terrible Lyft I had had a 4.9, yet the car literally rattled and you could 'hear' the suspension (hard to explain, whatever the hell it was wasn't right).
Guessing by the odometer being 220k and the sticker over the check engine light, it had likely been like that for a while.
Hopefully we won't get there and only uber drivers are the ones screwed. Since you and I aren't uber drivers, we don't really care do we?
The only way we're getting through this is by facing it together, not throwing the more precarious of us under the bus.
I mean, you're not wrong, but I feel like it's a condemnation of out economic system.
Also, many/most taxi drivers have to regularly work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays. (Also upping the risk due to sleepy or drunk drivers).
Still not grueling imo.
The dictionary says “extremely tiring and demanding”. Letting random people into your space, putting your primary income generating asset at risk, being on constant alert, and working long, undesirable hours that results in health problems qualifies as grueling for me. Maybe not as grueling as some other types of labor, but obviously more grueling than 95% of programming jobs.
The drivers taking constant breaks and working whenever they feel like it are not the ones earning any decent amount of money.
Another Waymo selling point is its universal (since they're all the same) ability to communicate with anyone.
This seems like a temporary problem. Google is charging what the market will bear and doesn’t have ability to get more cars on the road.
It's obviously a mistake to charge more than Uber or Lyft, it's crazy obvious, like mind meltingly obvious. Sometimes it's just the obvious thing. Google's problem is that its management is so bad, it doesn't understand: just because something happens (paying more for rides) doesn't mean it makes sense. After all taxis are more expensive sometimes, and people pay for them, and where's the article that litigates all the dumb reasons people give for doing that?
see the issue with that assertion?
They are amazingly valuable as a stock, as a business and as a collection of talent. That doesn’t entirely excuse failures of vision and leadership, let alone pricing.
Edit: That said, I am inclined to believe that Alphabet pricing likely better reflects reality. The others have some bad habits.
Talk about overloaded. The two framings I was thinking of was first from an engineering & design perspective, but also second from an alignment perspective.
Some people recoil in horror when they look upon what Elon has done, but what a multinational corporation - one that has become engrained in daily life - can do when aligned to anything but the dollar is astonishing. Ironically it’s not something money can buy.