I believe they got a permit after the last cutoff date, they'll show up in the next one most likely.

This is correct (AFAIK). Uber did operate AVs in San Francisco around 2016, but they did so while openly refusing to apply for permits [0], which would have then required them to disclose. They pulled their AVs at the end of 2016 and moved them to Arizona. Only recently, did Uber apply properly to have cars in SF, and apparently it's only been so far to give rides to Uber employees [1].

Also of note from [1]: apparently California is just weeks away from allowing AVs with no human operators. I'm guessing Uber wouldn't have been ready to try that out in any reasonable scale (if the state of the program is as bad as the internal docs say), though the cynical person in me thinks that, if the AZ fatality hadn't happened, they might have had a non-human-assisted AV in SF just to get some slice of the publicity.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14062926/uber-self-drivi...

[1]

Wow, they have a complete disregard for safety and just care about their stupid valuation. This isn’t even a case of “hacking” for innovation. The company seems to be rotten to th core with everyone just salivating to profit from the IPO.

Did you actually visit the link?

chrome-extension://cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm/web_accessible_resources/59fb24a2d12455d15bea20980e8a6801.javascript?secret=lef6ooqidsb6

  (function() {
	// https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/
	var noopfn = function() {
		;
	};
	var noopnullfn = function() {
		return null;
	};
	//
	var Tracker = function() {
		;
	};
	var p = Tracker.prototype;
	p.get = noopfn;
	p.set = noopfn;
	p.send = noopfn;
	//
	var w = window,
		gaName = w.GoogleAnalyticsObject || 'ga';
	var ga = function() {
		var len = arguments.length;
		if ( len === 0 ) {
			return;
		}
		var f = arguments[len-1];
		if ( typeof f !== 'object' || f === null || typeof f.hitCallback !== 'function' ) {
			return;
		}
		try {
			f.hitCallback();
		} catch (ex) {
		}
	};
	ga.create = function() {
		return new Tracker();
	};
	ga.getByName = noopnullfn;
	ga.getAll = function() {
		return [];
	};
	ga.remove = noopfn;
	w[gaName] = ga;
	// https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3075
	var dl = w.dataLayer;
	if ( dl instanceof Object && dl.hide instanceof Object && typeof dl.hide.end === 'function' ) {
		dl.hide.end();
	}
  })();

That is uBlock Origin intercepting the request and responding with a no-op version of analytics.js

Nothing too interesting. They're restricted so they can only update their own source code.

Except for that _one_ time. ZRH SRE has never been the same.

Person who manages budgets, day-to-day, organizational specific priorities, tracking higher level objectives, etc. Its basically a high level Program/Project Manager with a horizontal responsibility.

Google "my stocks" and click the star to unfollow them.

Of course I promptly did that. The things is that I already unfollowed everything in the past. More importantly, I asked Google to remove everything multiple times.

This Whac-A-Mole is not a game, and that will not end well.

AdMob: https://firebase.google.com/docs/admob/admob-firebase

Also Firebase has a free tier but it does cost money https://firebase.google.com/pricing/

So the contention is that Google stole his idea for building design software? His representation is a bunch of patent trolls and the suit has already been going on for 3 years. The only news is now they are contending that many major Google products are based on coordinated and systematic IP theft (Search, Ads, Maps, Wallet, Hangouts, Youtube, Android). Pretty sure this is entirely bullshit.

Actual lawsuit: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

Thanks for posting the link. I just read the first several pages, and I disagree with your conclusion.

This was more than a simple idea or patent. It was developed by someone with extensive experience in a vertical industry. Google actually paid to contract with him to develop a proof-of-concept, with the idea if the tech panned out and had market viability, they'd take it to market with him.

Google doesn't hire patent trolls or rely on their expertise in developing products.

The lawsuit is full of hyperbole (which hurts it in IMHO), but the underlying claim looks pretty believable.

I met with Google ATAP in 2013 and had a similar experience. I am and have been an aspiring inventor for the past 10 years.

You can read more about my experience with Google ATAP via this post...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475

Just to be clear, they spend $200MM on travel for 7000 people a year, that's ~$75/day/person.

I think this one hurts more:

A new entry on the docket for the case notes that Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction has been partially granted and partially denied, but it’s not clear yet which of Waymo’s requests the judge will honor.