I'm puzzled by this reporting on these protests, especially the violent ones. I have yet to read someone condemning them and demanding they be arrested.
I'm puzzled for other reasons, but as far as I know, protesting in public areas is a well-defended US constitutional right. Violence or other illegal acts should clearly be prosecuted, if there's sufficient evidence to determine who did what.
It doesn't sound like the protestors were violent in this case. All they did was distribute leaflets outside someone's home. Obviously it was not a lot of fun for the engineer who was targeted.
They threatened to not let him or his family leave his house. If you’re that person, what is a reasonable threat level? Are they going to shout at you? Stare intimidatingly? Lock arms and try to stop you? Punch you? Draw weapons?
Because if I read that pamphlet manifesto, it doesn’t come across as logical and rational - it actually reads more like “borderline unhinged radical”, and who knows what level of “restraint” is acceptable to such a person?
If I’m kept in my home by fear of such - I’m sure there’s a word that captures that, perhaps “imprisoned”, then to me (and in the case of false imprisonment, to the law), the fact that noone or nothing has been hurt or damaged doesn’t make things “non-violent”.
One thing strikes me as particularly short-sighted. This is the person working on getting rid of the most dangerous component of driving - drivers. While yes, there will be impact to jobs and the auto-industry to some extent, but my personal take on this, is the loss will be much less compared to the gain.
Airplanes are an interesting example, as they can basically fly themselves by most part, and pilots are often just baby-sitting the machine. Of course the draw back is when the machine fails, they often don't have enough training to properly react, but that's for another day. If one draws similar parallel, this would indicate that trucking would not be wiped out completely as a profession, but will change into supervising the self-driving truck. Likely, enabling greater loads, faster delivery and therefore setting economics for better pay. (One would hope at least.)
The creep-factor of this flier really strikes me as a restraining order-worthy. Since they know where he lives, such a order becomes a viable option. I personally don't buy the "peaceful" protest part with this much hatred put on paper.
Self-driving cars + military robotics contractor = self-driving tanks, perhaps? Which after a future war might find themselves at the disposal of local American police departments? I can see why people might be concerned.
This isn't protesting. This is a coordinated group singling out an individual for the purpose of intimidation and harassment. This is bullying, and does nothing to add to any constructive discourse of affordable housing.
In the last year I've woken up to the fact that almost everything I do as a developer is a political act.
It's not just a job, I'm not just a component in a machine -- I have a responsibility to wrestle with the social and political implications of what I create.
While I believe that autonomous cars and Street View imagery are net good for the world, I can understand the counter-argument.
Some of us are well compensated architects of the cages which imprison us. It's past time to engage with the larger consequences of what we do.
The protestors complaints are justified. Google has made surveillance easier and privacy a distant wish. The tech elite have by-and-large ignored the poor. Rooftop gardening is a fun leisure activity and not a solution to obesity, global warming, or world hunger.
But however well intentioned, the protestors are hurting their own cause by resorting to ruthless tactics. The problem of rising surveillance, income inequality, and food shortages are not the fault of one man, or one company. We are all complicit. We all thrive off of an exploitative, unsustainable system. Finding scapegoats gets us no where. Be more productive - Propose solutions. Get the attention of people who can make a difference. Lead people in making a difference.
Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
I'm all for free speech, and let these people have their voices heard; that being said, here's my free speech: fuck these protestors. They aren't being constructive. They aren't being original. They aren't addressing problems that aren't already known about and definitely aren't caused by any one person. What they should be doing is working on more pro-active, productive solutions, you know, like eliminating the most dangerous factor in driving. I look forward to a day when I don't have to worry about losing both my feet below my knees, as one of my cousins did, because of a drunk driver. And while I don't look forward to the privacy implications of only Google offering driverless cars, I do look forward to a world replete with driverless cars. And I might add, this is one of the very few cases in which technology can honestly solve a societal problem.
I was going to downvote you based on your first sentence. But then the rest of your comment brought you back to earth.
Now that last sentence though:
>>Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
You cannot[1] say tech has given the world a net negative. This is all pedantic though because the bottom line is the protesters are upset and emotions have boiled over striking anyone that happens to be nearby. Right now, that's Google. Please Google and its employees, don't respond in a way that'll make this whole thing blow up more than it already has. The protesters do have a point; they're just not venting their anger in the best way possible. Their focus on Google will makes tech-people forget the bigger picture and start thing about "Why Google?" "Why this G-employee?"... and then we start down the path of crazy-town where there is no positive-outcome.
1. I do realize this is potentially debatable given the invention of stuff like the atomic-bomb. But let's not go there. As long as we haven't blown ourselves up and out of existence, tech is a net positive.
I'm talking about silicon valley in particular. If you ask me, the privacy implications of facebook, google, et al cancel out the benefits of sharing photos with friends and more accurate search results. Not a net negative either. Just breaking even.
Certainly, the world is a better place than it was in the last few decades. Technology had a role in that, but so did politics, culture, and societal trends.
Before it was known as Silicon Valley it was home to places like Bell Laboratories, Xerox PARC, the Stanford Research Institute, etc. Tech workers in SV created ethernet, optical storage, text to speech recognition, laser printing, the modern graphical user interface, and all of that was just at Xerox PARC! I'm pretty sure the transistor was invented at Bell Labs in SV.
I agree that there are some privacy concerns about what's going on with social media companies, but if you think that's of equal importance to the transistor then I don't think we live in the same universe.
With respect to self-driving cars, wouldn't the increased safety of our roads greatly outweigh the privacy implications? Think of all the lives that could be saved.
>If you ask me, the privacy implications of facebook, google, et al cancel out the benefits of sharing photos with friends and more accurate search results.
We aren't just talking about "sharing photos with friends and more accurate search results" anymore. Having had many people that I care about torn away from me due to fatal car accidents, I personally believe that the trade-off here is a no-brainer.
>Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
Self-driving cars can (and will) create a better world.
"The tech elite have by-and-large ignored the poor."
Wrong. For example, Bill Gates has donated the majority of his fortune to his foundation to help rid Malaria from impoverished nations around the world. He has even convinced Warren Buffett to donate most of his fortune to philanthropic causes.
"Rooftop gardening is a fun leisure activity and not a solution to obesity, global warming, or world hunger.”
This is a straw man. Who, let alone the poor guy being protested, ever claimed that it was? He lives in SF. He most likely doesn’t have a yard. Is a roof top garden a net positive, or negative, to any number of things, including personal contentment?
He lives in Berkeley. And the rooftop garden is in reference to the apartment building he is planning to build in downtown Berkeley.
Levandowski has also purchased a property on the corner of Dwight and Fulton, just one block from Shattuck Avenue. At this location, he has hired the Nautilus Group to construct a proposed 77-unit apartment building call Garden Village complete with rooftop gardens, 24-hour surveillance, private security, and a fleet of electric vehicles parked in an underground garage. The residents will have the luxury of renting these cars whenever they want to cruise out to the beach for a dip.
I thought for sure that would be something the typical Berkeley person would be all about. Rooftop gardens to grow your own veggies. Eco Friendly car sharing. That all sounds pretty good to me. Why are they hating on that?
This is amazing, if not a little bit unfortunate for the guy.
Unaffordable housing and personal automated transit for the wealthy? It's like something out of a Sci-Fi novel. While some people may benefit, a lot of people will get thrown under the bus. What happens when regular driving cars are illegal, in the same way manufacturing a car without ABS is illegal?
What does this mean for cities and sustainable living?
What happens when your car is disabled because you didn't pay a parking fine?
We're seeing the birth of a new social movement that will probably dominate this generation.
Wow. That flier is a bit off the rails. They blame this guy for the housing bubble because he started a company that made tablets designed to show blue prints at construction sites?
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 62.2 ms ] threadThis logic only works in the parallel universe of Tarantino films.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1869716/
Because if I read that pamphlet manifesto, it doesn’t come across as logical and rational - it actually reads more like “borderline unhinged radical”, and who knows what level of “restraint” is acceptable to such a person?
If I’m kept in my home by fear of such - I’m sure there’s a word that captures that, perhaps “imprisoned”, then to me (and in the case of false imprisonment, to the law), the fact that noone or nothing has been hurt or damaged doesn’t make things “non-violent”.
Airplanes are an interesting example, as they can basically fly themselves by most part, and pilots are often just baby-sitting the machine. Of course the draw back is when the machine fails, they often don't have enough training to properly react, but that's for another day. If one draws similar parallel, this would indicate that trucking would not be wiped out completely as a profession, but will change into supervising the self-driving truck. Likely, enabling greater loads, faster delivery and therefore setting economics for better pay. (One would hope at least.)
The creep-factor of this flier really strikes me as a restraining order-worthy. Since they know where he lives, such a order becomes a viable option. I personally don't buy the "peaceful" protest part with this much hatred put on paper.
It's not just a job, I'm not just a component in a machine -- I have a responsibility to wrestle with the social and political implications of what I create.
While I believe that autonomous cars and Street View imagery are net good for the world, I can understand the counter-argument.
Some of us are well compensated architects of the cages which imprison us. It's past time to engage with the larger consequences of what we do.
But however well intentioned, the protestors are hurting their own cause by resorting to ruthless tactics. The problem of rising surveillance, income inequality, and food shortages are not the fault of one man, or one company. We are all complicit. We all thrive off of an exploitative, unsustainable system. Finding scapegoats gets us no where. Be more productive - Propose solutions. Get the attention of people who can make a difference. Lead people in making a difference.
Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
Now that last sentence though:
>>Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
You cannot[1] say tech has given the world a net negative. This is all pedantic though because the bottom line is the protesters are upset and emotions have boiled over striking anyone that happens to be nearby. Right now, that's Google. Please Google and its employees, don't respond in a way that'll make this whole thing blow up more than it already has. The protesters do have a point; they're just not venting their anger in the best way possible. Their focus on Google will makes tech-people forget the bigger picture and start thing about "Why Google?" "Why this G-employee?"... and then we start down the path of crazy-town where there is no positive-outcome.
1. I do realize this is potentially debatable given the invention of stuff like the atomic-bomb. But let's not go there. As long as we haven't blown ourselves up and out of existence, tech is a net positive.
Certainly, the world is a better place than it was in the last few decades. Technology had a role in that, but so did politics, culture, and societal trends.
I agree that there are some privacy concerns about what's going on with social media companies, but if you think that's of equal importance to the transistor then I don't think we live in the same universe.
>If you ask me, the privacy implications of facebook, google, et al cancel out the benefits of sharing photos with friends and more accurate search results.
We aren't just talking about "sharing photos with friends and more accurate search results" anymore. Having had many people that I care about torn away from me due to fatal car accidents, I personally believe that the trade-off here is a no-brainer.
>Still, this is a reminder that we've all failed to create a better world with technology.
Self-driving cars can (and will) create a better world.
Wrong. For example, Bill Gates has donated the majority of his fortune to his foundation to help rid Malaria from impoverished nations around the world. He has even convinced Warren Buffett to donate most of his fortune to philanthropic causes.
This is a straw man. Who, let alone the poor guy being protested, ever claimed that it was? He lives in SF. He most likely doesn’t have a yard. Is a roof top garden a net positive, or negative, to any number of things, including personal contentment?
Levandowski has also purchased a property on the corner of Dwight and Fulton, just one block from Shattuck Avenue. At this location, he has hired the Nautilus Group to construct a proposed 77-unit apartment building call Garden Village complete with rooftop gardens, 24-hour surveillance, private security, and a fleet of electric vehicles parked in an underground garage. The residents will have the luxury of renting these cars whenever they want to cruise out to the beach for a dip.
I thought for sure that would be something the typical Berkeley person would be all about. Rooftop gardens to grow your own veggies. Eco Friendly car sharing. That all sounds pretty good to me. Why are they hating on that?
Unaffordable housing and personal automated transit for the wealthy? It's like something out of a Sci-Fi novel. While some people may benefit, a lot of people will get thrown under the bus. What happens when regular driving cars are illegal, in the same way manufacturing a car without ABS is illegal?
What does this mean for cities and sustainable living?
What happens when your car is disabled because you didn't pay a parking fine?
We're seeing the birth of a new social movement that will probably dominate this generation.