SF Examiner reports on the new Waymo "safety" dashboard, which is basically just company propaganda. If Waymo was actually interested safety then they would pivot to providing cost effective driver assist technology. And they would instead alternative forms of transit, and of course, better road design.
NY Times reports on the myth of "driverless" robotaxis. It turns out that all of the robotaxi companies have large and expensive remote operation centers, where actual humans help drive the vehicles for the inevitable situations where automation simply does not work.
NY Times asks the truly pertinent question: is Waymo a viable business that will continue? While most articles dwell on safety issues, the NY Times digs into how Waymo might not continue once it realizes it is in a hopeless taxi business where they have to front all the costs.
UC Davis study shows that contrary to claims by Uber and Lyft, their trips replace more sustainable options like transit and walking, half the time. And of course, robotaxis are exactly the same.
Wired reports that Waymo has not started curbside pickups and drop-offs at the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport in Arizona. And indeed, people who cannot lift their suitcases into the trunk will simply not be accommodated.
SF Standard reports that the reason some people like Waymo robotaxis is because they are able to have their kids ride alone, since there is no human driver to enforce the rules.
Waymo reports that they served 100k paid trips in a week. They should have also mentioned that they have about the same number of completely empty trips, clogging our roads and generating pollution.
The Verge reports that Waymo will be using fewer sensors in the future to lower costs. The article also explains that the vehicle in question will face a 100% tariff since it is made in China.
Financial Times reports on how the emissions from Big Tech are growing rapidly, and how their "carbon offsets" are allowing them to hide their true emissions.
