>They just got through saying that foul play was not suspected. It'd be nice if you could not slander the dead.
>not suspected
lol, It's all speculation. No one knows anything at this point. Have there been cases in the past where the police initially announce no foul play was suspected and then have it turn out to be that foul play was indeed involved? We can imagine so.
And there is no slander here. None. So what on Earth are you even talking about?
>The fact that the car was self-driven doesn't really affect any of this
That's a bit ridiculous. Of course it does; how many people do you know are OK with some random dudes making an ass of themselves in the middle of the street, blocking your right-of-way?
Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.
Generally, if I'm driving in SF (which I do on occasion) and somebody is making an ass of themselves int he middle of the street, I don't do anything. Moving the car often prompts such people to spend even more time in the street.
I don't work at Google. Why do you think I work at Google (I worked at Google, but not on self-driving cars; I am sympathetic to their mission, but also skeptical about the product's future). And even so, why would that matter? All I'm doing is pointing out there are systemic problems and having a driver in the car really wouldn't have addressed any of those.
As I said, I don't work at google. I worked at Google. I'm mainly curious how people identify me on HN (I've gotten email from folks who looked at my submissions to figure out my real life identity).
The reason I'm defending waymo is not that I worked at Google. It's that I think self-driving cars are a good idea and I don't want to see them invalidated through viral social media and "think of the children" press articles.
I think you must be misreading. You brought this up in the first place when you said "Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.". Before that, I did not say anything about Google, or imply that I worked there, in any way. The thread clearly shows this.
>I think you must be misreading. You brought this up in the first place when you said "Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.". Before that, I did not say anything about Google, or imply that I worked there, in any way. The thread clearly shows this.
Oh c'mon; are you just trolling now? Of course you didn't say that in this thread, but you did say it lol.
I mean, do you think I just made a wild guess that some random HN user worked for Google and happened to be right?
Yes, I did (originally) believe you made a wild guess. The alternatives (including what appears to be the actual truth... that you saw a comment I made some time ago on another thread) all seemed lower probability to me.
Yea, I do think it’s the best browser and use it every day, but I don’t really love it, mostly it is just for lack of good options.
Browsers are in a bad spot nowadays. The web has been turned into this half-baked app platform, and as a result nobody makes a web browser to just, like, download and view documents.
Why would we limit ourselves to the set of not-Googlers? That is prima facie irrational and incorrect. Best case is there's a googler out here saying it, all you'd have to do is check in a week if they still had a job.
