[frgtpsswrdlame]

>you're making bold conclusions on almost no data.

Then Uber should disillusion me, not lie and cover up. Was it a flash of light off a reflection, a leaf that blew across the light, an odd angle? Then Uber should tell us that. More importantly though is the question of whether Uber even knows why it failed. What if they don't even understand why the car ran the light?

EDIT:

>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time.

Where did I assume that?

[jayjay71]

You clearly made the comparison between Uber's technology and the legally blind. Looking at your other comments, it seems you want to argue more than you want to have a constructive conversation. I'm exiting this thread.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Sure and I suppose we've gotten a bit off topic. I guess my comment should have prepended this (to stay constructive):

>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time. The real world is a dynamic environment, something odd may have happened that it just missed the light that one instance.

Whether Uber misses this specific light over and over again or whether it fails in one off incidents across a spectrum of events when "something odd" happens shouldn't change our judgment of the car or company.

[MegaButts]

Nobody said Uber shouldn't do that. I was pointing out that Uber's self-driving technology isn't fundamentally different from a collection of bad drivers (at least within the scope of our comments). You just seem to want to hate on Uber. There are lots of reasons to hate Uber, but please do so with logical consistency.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>There are lots of reasons to hate Uber, but please do so with logical consistency.

Where have I not been consistent?