Was watching something recently and a character told a robot to stay out of Philly, or the east coast, something like that. I started laughing, my son asked what was so funny so I had to bring up this robot and explain what happened lol.

Edit: it was bobs burgers 🤣🤣

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6119178/trivia/

"At about 16:45 Yuli is escorting the robot outside for its "spiritual voyage" when he wishes it, "Safe travels, robot. Avoid Philly." This is a reference to a social experiment called "hitchBOT" - a Canadian hitchhiking robot. The robot was meant to learn about human experiences in various places by hitchhiking, and had hitchhiked through all of Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. However, this experiment abruptly ended on hitchBOT's first stop in the USA, Philadelphia, where it was immediately destroyed and "beheaded" by unidentified locals. The robot should definitely avoid Philly."

I do recognise that reality... I just recognise the reality that it can be undone. I have a problem with idea that cars are the solution to the delivery-bots because it implies cars are just part of society forever now, and they're not. We can have cities without them, or at least without them as the default mode of transport.

How many people in wheelchairs have been forced to stop and wait for a robot to get out of the way?

Well at least one, that I know of; I read an article about that years ago and it's the one issue I can actually see where this is a problem. I just don't buy the logic that we don't need the bots because we have cars; I don't want the cars either! Cars unarguably have been way more of a problem for way longer. They kill people. All the time. They've corrupted urban planning, have huge carbon footprints, destroyed small businesses, and just plain take up a lot of room...

I did not say we don't need the bots because we have cars. I said the bots should be forced to use the street.

As a bonus, that's one fewer lane for the cars.

We both know in practice it will mean widening the street so there's a bot lane and pedestrians have less room anyway.

Only because people like you criticize this woman instead of standing with her.

We don't have to let them take our sidewalk from us. We can force them to give up a lane of traffic instead.

Actually... I would stand with this woman. I just believe she's making her point poorly.

She stood in front of a robot and refused to move, but the act of doing so created the image inadvertently proving it's not in anyone's way... There's plenty of people walking around the robot (and her). It unfortunately makes her mindset seem "Boomer" backwards-thinking and anti-technology on principle– rather than doing this out of care for accessibility and walkable spaces for all or "saving the sidewalk", which by her own admission is not why she did this...

You literally aren't standing with her, and I don't think there's anything she could have done differently to change that.

Well she probably could well have done something differently. Namely, probably an entirely different demonstration.

I will level with you for a moment. If I could make a comparison to another cause, I am often sympathetic to the cause of veganism. I am not vegan or vegetarian myself, but I can't deny they often have a point when they argue the ethics of treating animals like commodities.

There's the kind of vegan activism where you chain yourself to a truck full of cows ready to be driven to the slaughterhouse; you make a clear point and photos taken of your arrest as you're dragged away draw attention to the undeniable reality of where your meat is coming from. It might even give a few meat eaters some serious pause; the reality is someone is being arrested so a huge corporation can proceed with a literal slaughter.

And then there's vegan activism where you march into a fast food restaurant, bother innocent minimum wage workers, and spread fake blood everywhere...

In short, even if this woman had a point, she does just look like a bit of a ninny standing in front of a robot and (presumably) some poor fool is sat wondering where the heck his dinner is.

She literally got herself arrested and drew attention to the fact that you can be arrested for blocking delivery robots, thus demonstrating that robots have more of a right to our sidewalks than we do.

It's not like she followed the delivery bot to someone's apartment to scream at them.

Yes. You can also be arrested for blocking traffic.

Do you think my doing so would make people sympathise with my anti-car stance?

If that traffic was driving over our sidewalks? Yes, as evidenced by all the people who support her and are outraged by her arrest.

I notice you haven't actually explained what she should do. I think you're just being stubborn and don't want to admit you're wrong.

For goodness' sake.

My whole point is that THE ROADS USED TO BELONG TO HUMANS, TOO. I would be hypothetically getting myself arrested for the cause of taking it back.

But this woman hasn't proven that the sidewalks are being invaded because... well, you can see in the video the robots aren't bothering a lot of pedestrians. At least no more than a toddler or dog standing in your immediate path might.

This woman has proven that you will be arrested for blocking a robot. That, itself, is useful for agitating people.

People today don't think the roads belong to pedestrian traffic and you can't change that by blocking traffic; people do think sidewalks belong to pedestrian traffic, and so you can raise the contradictions of delivery robots invading our sidewalks by getting arrested for blocking them.

Once again, you have not explained what she should do. Should we all just lay down and let the robots take everything from us?

k

Well, "one thousand to you, too, mister" :D