CCW while using Waymo or Uber

[Jimi Jah]

How about if you're going in someone's car? Like your neighbor giving you a ride to fetch your car from the repair shop? I think the same logic should apply there.

And once it applies to "someone's car", it should also logically apply to Uber/Lyft/Waymo. And that also means that if you are aware that they prohibit guns in their cars, you should not carry one (concealed, or locked in a case as cargo).


I'm not!

Which collective are you a member of?

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

I'm not!

*we're not.

 

[treelogger]

Which collective are you a member of?

You didn't get the joke? All I need to say is: Brian.

 

[Dvrjon]

The robo-taxi didn’t Robo-call.

San Mateo Kron — Waymo is always watching, two teenagers on summer break found out this week.

The 15-year-old passengers were riding in a driverless autonomous car around San Mateo Monday afternoon. The teens drank alcohol inside the Waymo taxi and shot Orbeez beads with a toy gun toward other vehicles.

A Waymo employee, who was remotely monitoring the car, tricked the unruly teenagers, authorities said. The employee told the young passengers that the Waymo was having mechanical issues and needed to stop.

Unknown to the teens, the employee had also called the San Mateo Police Department to report that a gun was firing from the car.

SMPD spokesperson Jeanine Luna said, “They saw what they described as a firearm in the vehicle, described it black in color, and at some point believed that the passengers were firing.”

The Waymo car stopped in a shopping center’s parking lot by El Camino Real and Highway 92, where five police officers were waiting.

“We conducted a high risk traffic stop. Waymo did disable the vehicle for us in a location that we were able to set up safely. And at that point, we pulled them out of the vehicle, searched the vehicle, and then we found what we determined to be Orbeez,” Luna said.

The 15-year-old passengers were detained by police and later released to their parents. Police sent the case to the district attorney’s office to review for possible charges, including underage drinking and engaging in threatening behavior.

So, no passive observation and automated review; no electronic discovery of a concealed weapon; no “ghost gun” or AW.

Similar report.

 

[drinktothat421]

Concealed being the key word.

 

[Gawernator]

The robo-taxi didn’t Robo-call.


So, no passive observation and automated review; no electronic discovery of a concealed weapon; no “ghost gun” or AW.

Similar report.

Wow, those pesky facts come out again! But what about the psychotic conspiracy theorists!!?? MUH RIGHTS!!!!

CAN'T EVEN SHOOT OUT OF OUR WAYMO TAXI ANYMORE. THE USA IS FALLEN

/s

 

[QQQQQ]

The waymo story is interesting if it has those night infared cameras.
I’d think it would do eye damage to it’s riders. Infared at low levels is said to be safe but I doubt it. It’s like something they’ll say is not 20 yrs from now. It has to be worse than blue light from phones. They say they’re all safe now.

With the recent $40m uber payout story about drunk girls kicked out on a fwy for barfing I wonder what changes will happen.

When I’m riding in a uber I’d like to talk to the driver but most seem to not speak english at least the cars are nice. I think about if I don’t talk to the driver what’s the difference between this driver and a robot. And is a robot actually better. If it had real time traffic data from a satellite I think the robot would be more time efficient.

 

[QQQQQ]

Another ride share thought, is the olympics and the flying taxis they have planned for it.

After the recent news helicopter crash. I wonder if they’re still going to have them. That would be bad press globally if one of those crashed during the Olympics.

It would be cool and would make LA appear modern when it’s far from it. So they probably better off making tickets really expensive and doing some cgi.

 

[RustVendor]

The waymo story is interesting if it has those night infared cameras.
I’d think it would do eye damage to it’s riders. Infared at low levels is said to be safe but I doubt it. It’s like something they’ll say is not 20 yrs from now. It has to be worse than blue light from phones. They say they’re all safe now.

With the recent $40m uber payout story about drunk girls kicked out on a fwy for barfing I wonder what changes will happen.

When I’m riding in a uber I’d like to talk to the driver but most seem to not speak english at least the cars are nice. I think about if I don’t talk to the driver what’s the difference between this driver and a robot. And is a robot actually better. If it had real time traffic data from a satellite I think the robot would be more time efficient.

You get a butt ton of infrared from the sun all the time, it passes through the body and clothing quite easily. But also infrared cameras detect infrared, not emit it. The infrared is coming from you (heat)

 

[QQQQQ]

I get two answers about infared security cameras. One, it does not emit anything. The other, Infrared cameras can potentially damage eyes, especially with prolonged exposure, as they emit light that is not visible and may not trigger a natural protective response like blinking. It's recommended to avoid looking directly into infrared lights to prevent possible eye damage.
If they did harm to peoples eyes I’m sure far less would be sold and placed inside restaurants where they’re pointed at people eating for 1-2 hours. This I think is gonna be like the asbestos perfectly safe till not.

 

[Gawernator]

You get a butt ton of infrared from the sun all the time, it passes through the body and clothing quite easily. But also infrared cameras detect infrared, not emit it. The infrared is coming from you (heat)

I get two answers about infared security cameras. One, it does not emit anything. The other, Infrared cameras can potentially damage eyes, especially with prolonged exposure, as they emit light that is not visible and may not trigger a natural protective response like blinking. It's recommended to avoid looking directly into infrared lights to prevent possible eye damage.
If they did harm to peoples eyes I’m sure far less would be sold and placed inside restaurants where they’re pointed at people eating for 1-2 hours. This I think is gonna be like the asbestos perfectly safe till not.

Security cameras usually do have active IR, infrared LED's. They don't hurt your eyes. Only really bright powerful ones if maybe you stare into it up close on a military base lol

 

[elemental]

You get a butt ton of infrared from the sun all the time, it passes through the body and clothing quite easily. But also infrared cameras detect infrared, not emit it. The infrared is coming from you (heat)

Yeah that’s not how IR security cameras work. They are visual light cameras that are sensitive to near IR. The human body is around 30C which radiates around 9um. The near IR ends around 1um. You should just think of near IR like another color that humans are color blind to.
Security cameras normally have an IR emitter (flashlight)

The danger is the energy is still there even if you can’t see it and if it is focused enough and pointed at your eye you can go blind and not notice until it’s too late because you can’t see it.

 

[RustVendor]

Yeah that’s not how IR security cameras work. They are visual light cameras that are sensitive to near IR. The human body is around 30C which radiates around 9um. The near IR ends around 1um. You should just think of near IR like another color that humans are color blind to.
Security cameras normally have an IR emitter (flashlight)

The danger is the energy is still there even if you can’t see it and if it is focused enough and pointed at your eye you can go blind and not notice until it’s too late because you can’t see it.

thank you for the correction, I was talking out of my ass because I have only used cameras that actually do just detect and not emit IR for IR photography and earth science applications. It does appear that the security cameras are low intensity and subsequently low risk, it's basically a small LED.


OH but also, the reason I was thinking of IR sensing vs IR emitting is that the IR emitting cameras will essentially give you a low light image, if you wanted to detect a gun it would be a non-emitting camera that would show the shape of a gun when it blocks your body heat. That's called thermal imaging but still believe it's in the IR spectrum.

 

[Gawernator]

Yeah that’s not how IR security cameras work. They are visual light cameras that are sensitive to near IR. The human body is around 30C which radiates around 9um. The near IR ends around 1um. You should just think of near IR like another color that humans are color blind to.
Security cameras normally have an IR emitter (flashlight)

The danger is the energy is still there even if you can’t see it and if it is focused enough and pointed at your eye you can go blind and not notice until it’s too late because you can’t see it.

Lol regular IR security cameras use low power LED's, they will not hurt your eyes.

 

[elemental]

thank you for the correction, I was talking out of my ass because I have only used cameras that actually do just detect and not emit IR for IR photography and earth science applications. It does appear that the security cameras are low intensity and subsequently low risk, it's basically a small LED.

What the camera does for night mode is puts an IR filter on to block the visual light and then turns on a light that humans can’t see but it can. In general the light shouldn’t

Lol regular IR security cameras use low power LED's, they will not hurt your eyes.

In general I would agree with you, but it's not just power it also depends on the focus.