[sonicshadow]

So should we just start arresting annoying who results in a loss of revenue for a company? I didn’t eat at Carl’s Jr today, should I go to jail?

[veec_cas_tant]

This is more akin to disabling their grills so they couldn't sell food

[NoZebra120vClip]

Carl's Jr. has several workers and a manager right there to restart the grill and get it working again.

These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!

[veec_cas_tant]

Okay, disabling self-serve gas pumps during off hours at a 24/7 station. Removing a stop sign in the middle of the night. Turning on the faucet in an unoccupied apartment.

[NoZebra120vClip]

The ethical difference is that none of your examples stem from an interference in public safety.

SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians.

This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.

[MichaelZuo]

No, it's clearly against California law, you can search the legislative record to see that Waymo and Cruise operations have been authorized.

[sonicshadow]

Would love to know what law this is in violation of. Also laws can be changed if they're dumb.

[zaphirplane]

Funny and i hope you are being funny, it’s the internet you never know.

In case you are serious, there is a difference between acting to harm (human, animal, building, company). Not acting to prevent harm, not acting to provide gain.

Stealing a burger, Reporting a burger being stolen, rolling your sleeves jumping behind the grill to help out

I’m sure a philosophy major can add to the list with a clearer argument

[seanmcdirmid]

If you don’t eat at Carl’s Jr, you didn’t deprive them of willing revenue. If you decided to bar their doors so others couldn’t eat there, ya, you should go to jail.

[manuelmoreale]

That is a very low bar for jail time if you ask me but I can understand your point. Don’t agree with it but I can understand it.

[seanmcdirmid]

Your comment instituted a tongue & cheek low bar for low jail threshold, I just went with it. These days you need to practically murder someone to finally get sent to jail (at least where I live). But if someone physically barred me from entering a fast food restaurant, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t at least be assault (assuming I tried to force myself in, of course then the question is who is assaulting who, that can get messy legally). But, no, you wouldn’t even go to jail for assault, or would get bailed out quickly and get let off by the judge.

[manuelmoreale]

Well if someone barred you from entering a fast food that would be assault, absolutely.

But what if someone was pretending to be a public worker doing sidewalk maintenance and that forced you to simply walk on the other side of the road and not being able to access the fast food?

That to me is more like an annoyance and a form of protest.

[seanmcdirmid]

Impersonation of a public official will actually get you thrown in jail, for some odd reason, much faster than assault will.