“I gave you an example, and you insulted it because you don’t want to understand it”
No, my FRiend, I think it is you who does not understand it. A human driver got the truck from the warehouse to the interstate. Do you understand how underwhelming that is? How 1960 that is?
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vUpeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3WANAAAAIBAJ&pg=6885,3667738
Seriously, what can that truck do that the ‘smart auto’ of 1960 couldn’t?
BTW, my goalposts never move. Its always the same. In order for a car to be considered ‘autonomous’, I merely insist that it be autonomous. I’m a stickler like that.
Part of your problem is you couldn’t even be bothered to understand the exchange. He said this would go the way of the flying car and there was no money in it. That’s a popular retort but lacks facts. The two big ones being that nobody seriously attempted to develop the flying car while at this point basically everybody is attempting to develop the self driving car, and there’s a ton of money to be made.
This revolution IS happening:
https://www.trucks.com/category/tech/autonomous-vehicles/
No you’re moving the goalposts. You just did it again. Because you refuse to understand incrementalism. Even if a vehicle only autonomously drove part of the journey it STILL DROVE ITSELF. You have forgotten how most people are taught to drive, usually with somebody else driving us to the place where we practiced. By your standards none of us drove until after we got our licenses, including our driving test, which just goes to show how wrong your standard is.
This IS happening. We don’t yet have 100% fully autonomous parking space to parking space. But we DO have vehicles that drive parts, even most, of their own journeys, and the technology just keeps getting bigger. That first link I gave you did prove my point, but you don’t want it, so you moved the posts. But all that proves is that you’re in denial.