451–460 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The driverless car is already safer than the other people you share the road with everyday.
We can't make safe driverless cars if people frequently make false claims about their current safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who likes to walk in an urban environment, I'd say it's not good and relevant. It's rather detached from the actual experience of the urban walker. There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.
The point is simply that that one person's choice can have impact on others. This is pretty basic and true if you like like urban walking or not.
If it is not actually that, and if there are safety measures that can be taken, he doesn't care.
I'm not a pro car person actually. And that's the vibe I'm getting from Kaczynski in this instance. Words of an out of touch person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither aircraft nor drug development norms look anything like the norms of software development. I actually find a substantial difference in my trust level between a traditional car company that's building self-driving capabilities (e.g. Mercedes) than a company that fashions itself as a software company that happens to build cars (e.g. Tesla) for exactly the reason of the norms and behaviors that each org would enc…
Generally agree but also knew people who worked on Boeing QA/SWE and the internal picture sounds dicy. I'm a bit disconcerted flying after learning about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you so sure? Even if there's data showing improvement, this would be data from a supremely untrustworthy source with a long history of manipulation and deception.
I mean you're making an argument that does nothing to facilitate discussion on the issue. It's basically saying "No it hasn't changed. And if you have evidence or data showing otherwise, it can't be trusted." At the point you refute any provided data or evidence the conversation just devolves into an argument instead of a debate or conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?
I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.
This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The difference is that airplane software standards are by far the most rigorous in the world and so rigorous that most software developers are shocked at the level of rigor employed... You mean the standards set by the FAA, which regularly defers to the private industry to regulate itself, due to complexity that it can't afford to keep up with? Those standards?
I'm lost by your comment. It seems that you're trying to suggest either 1) that the standards as mentioned necessarily aren't True Standards - as a blanket statement - because they're set by the industry or 2) that these standards aren't True Standards - specific to this particular discussion - because there is no reason to think they're necessarily more rigorous than the standards for driverless car software. If you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.
Absolutely his murders invalidate his manifesto. The ideas that he expressed in the manifesto are the same ideas that moved him to murder people. His opposition to technology is why he was bombing computer stores and the University of Utah Engineering Building. This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
>His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely his murders invalidate his manifesto. The ideas that he expressed in the manifesto are the same ideas that moved him to murder people. His opposition to technology is why he was bombing computer stores and the University of Utah Engineering Building. This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. >His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally agree but also knew people who worked on Boeing QA/SWE and the internal picture sounds dicy. I'm a bit disconcerted flying after learning about it.
Boeing's issues were written on the wall about 2 decades ago when it moved it's hierarchy from an engineer-centric one to a Chicago accountant-centric one. That alone wouldn't have been an issue, but they had an immediate brain drain as half their HQ staff didn't follow the relocation. Imagine a thousand employees, half your HQ staff, that leave. There are several possible reasons: - they're older -> more corporate k…
I remember it being discussed on SlashDot back then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. >His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
Most of us consider murder to be self-evidently wrong. The intersection of "right, and causing murder" is very close to empty for most definitions of "right". Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.
Replace "murder" with 'killing" and most people will have the opposite reaction.