What is the charge?
So, she is protesting against People having their food delivered to them?
What happens if you place something on the top of one of these things? I'm imagining a second robot that sits atop and sprays silly sting at pedestrians it detects. Or one with an air horn that goes of randomly. or one that attaches to the side at the bottom and uses a series of spray chalk guns to dot matrix messages into the sidewalk. :p
Never change Philly... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HitchBOT" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HitchBOT</a><p>I have to wonder if in the long term this bot is an uber product or a restaurant owned product.
I would be surprised if these robots were taking many jobs. Aren't they mostly piloted by people?
Second-hand info, but: I've heard humans only take control when the system flags that they're stuck.
> Aren't they mostly piloted by people?<p>In which country? People normally consider outsourcing to a cheaper country as taking jobs.
Yes, by offshore teleop pilots from low wage countries. They are still taking local jobs.<p>Those kinds of robots should never be allowed on sidewalks.
Civil disobedience
Is this the new "dog bites man"?
Arrested for refusing to yield to a motor vehicle on a public sidewalk? Curious to see if they can find any jury in the land that won’t laugh this one out…
No, she was arrested for disobeying police orders. But whether they're lawful orders or not is a different matter; strongly suspect that if this went to trial, she'd have a decent 1st amendment argument, which is why it won't go to trial. (ACAB, but also this is a pretty standard part of civil disobedience -- getting arrested is just part and parcel, for better and worse.)
I don’t know why you think she’d have a 1st amendment case; intentionally obstructing public passages is a crime in PA. Time, use, and manner restrictions are widely understood to be constitutional as long as they are content neutral and do not restrict expression. If she was following behind or in front of the robot with a sign, that would be one thing, but intentionally blocking someone or something almost certainly does not constitute protected speech in itself.
> But whether they're lawful orders or not is a different matter; strongly suspect that if this went to trial<p>Right: you win arguments against cops in court, not on the street.<p>Unless you're in your home, and they don't have a warrant.
ACAB?
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAB" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAB</a>
All Cats Are Beautiful
"all cops are bad cops" - an idiotic leftist acronym, a remnant from the BLM days
That's not actually what it stands for...
ACAB & ACAC both span multiple english speaking countries, predate BLM days by at least three or four decades, and are hardly idiotic in the face of documented abuses of power by rotten apples, coupled with tacit acceptance of the bad ones by their wider fraternity.
Interestingly, it isn't strictly "leftist". In fact it was used by both racist and anti-racist skinheads.
No, it was for this:<p>> ignored multiple commands from officers to move.<p>> She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.<p>The fact that it was a robot doesn’t really matter. Blocking traffic on a sidewalk and refusing to stop after police intervened was the basis for the charge.
The police only helped her cause by arresting her I imagine.
[dead]