251–260 of 288 posts
I had no idea so many Hacker News commenters were rocket scientists.
Is there something about the topic of rocketry that you expected would keep it away from HN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those lines are not imaginary per se. It means that the people living within those imaginary lines have come together with similar ideals and unity, arrived by many years of co-operation, to bestow certain rights and privileges to their fellow neighbors. Those rights were paid in blood, sweat and tears. The reason people organized as tribes matters. Its part of our very nature. And those tribes also respected imagina…
Hardly. The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it. They are expressions of power and very little else, and mostly not the power of the people. The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions of the value of…
>>> The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people
So by that assertion , wherever you live, you should vacate right now. Because if you take that line of thinking to its conclusion, it means that there are no property rights, and therefore, no security at all. And, there's the conundrum that the entire world disagrees with you, and has borders which they protect to varying degrees.
>>> (aristocrates) who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions
The aristocrats are actually elected representatives. Its nice to paint them with the aristocrat brush, hey ill even join you there because i despise them too, but taking that tack doesn't change the fact that those are still elected representatives. And they made those assertions in our behalf. On behalf of free people.
>>> of the value of human beings, not citizens I don't know what that means. If you are arguing for inalienable rights, I agree there. But inalienable rights do not include the right to force a group of humans to carry the weight of a stranger. That's aggression over a human's inalienable rights.
>>> that doesn't mean that enshrining that reality in law or even nurturing it is morally right. It is morally right because you have the right to protect yourself and your kin. That's what borders are. Arguing otherwise goes against nature and against what's right. Once you leave your comfortable home to write on HN and instead house some malnourished somalians, maybe we will start paying attention to you.
All you advocate is charity, by usurping your tribe's rights. That is an act of aggression, and i'm calling you out on it. That's what politicians do. Maybe do something different from them, and lead by example ? (do as i say, not as i do, seems a fitting descripting here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.
More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their re…
No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior.
No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility.
Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available.
Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist.
Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility.
When the driver MUST BE fully engaged
(as you argue and I just documented),
the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving".
The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive.
The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said:
They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer.
There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged.
I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional.
Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly. The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it. They are expressions of power and very little else, and mostly not the power of the people. The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions of the value of…
>>> The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it I agree. So ? Tribes had the same interactions. Nothing's changed. We are still humans. >>> The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people So by that assertion , wherever you live, you should vacate right now. Because if you take that line of…
It's true that now those kinds of people are often directed towards politics and become the elected officials which you assert justify the borders, but in fact most of the borders we live with were never drawn with any consent of the people living there. The vast majority of borders are pure objects of fiat power (especially the border over which the immigration you have a chip on your shoulder about, which was quite literally determined via war).
Herein I'm not advocating charity, which is, nevertheless, a fundamental human virtue. I am advocating that human beings, if they have any rights or dignity at all, have those rights and dignities by virtue of their humanity and not by virtue of where their parents happened to be when they were born. Communities of humans shouldn't tolerate freeloaders, but the people coming across the border are by and large the exact opposite: people willing to work harder for less than many people living here. If you are really so concerned with social parasites, let me suggest you look to institutions like health insurance companies, landlords, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope people who break laws to immigrate to America, will continue having the same sympathies towards you, when they become majority, and start dominating over you with their culture. I don't know how many folks around me broke the law to immigrate to America, but whether or not they broke the law to come here they faced a lot of racism, classism, and suspicion. I've been in the same area for about 20 years, and i…
If you don't mind sharing, i'm curious to know where you live. I live in North central Oak Cliff which is a large, predominantly hispanic, area consisting of multiple neighborhood just SSW of downtown Dallas. In my neighborhood there's a local Mercado that i can walk to for small things, i speak enough Spanish to manage but I'm eyed with suspicion from when i go in to when i leave. My wife is a HS teacher with about…
Funny you should mention private school though because my mom did send me to a private high school. At its most diverse it was probably 90% white, and I wonder if that colors my experience. I did decide to learn Spanish there and ended up minoring in it in university.
One of my daughters goes to a predominately Latino high school, and my other daughter goes to a mostly white Jr. High. My oldest doesn't get any harassment like you describe, so my advice is to come to Longmont. Maybe because it's still a city in flux we humans haven't had a chance yet to revert to our normal xenophobic ways.
Haha but yeah when I go to the tortilleria to try my Spanish the people behind the counter almost always respond politely but pointedly in English. I feel like such a dork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it I agree. So ? Tribes had the same interactions. Nothing's changed. We are still humans. >>> The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people So by that assertion , wherever you live, you should vacate right now. Because if you take that line of…
There are not property rights and there is no security except the security that human beings create for themselves and, ultimately, one another. "Property rights" do not descend from the platonic realm to protect you if someone invades your home. You may protect yourself or your neighbors may protect you or, as is more generally the case, I believe, a general sense of bonhomie shared by human beings everywhere, does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are not property rights and there is no security except the security that human beings create for themselves and, ultimately, one another. "Property rights" do not descend from the platonic realm to protect you if someone invades your home. You may protect yourself or your neighbors may protect you or, as is more generally the case, I believe, a general sense of bonhomie shared by human beings everywhere, does…
Your dream will evaporate when the newcomers self organize and disenfranchise you. This foolishness and lack of critical thinking will be ultimately resolved by nature itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.
More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze In rockets/aerospace, where the failure of any one of a thousand different parts means instant disintegration, checks are always worth the squeeze. Everyone talks about building rockets on the cheap and accepting a slightly-higher failure rate, but in reality that doesn't work. Even a tiny increase in component fault rates translates to total mission failure once multiplied…
this might be 20th-century thinking. if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper
Day 1 patches for space travel?
Thanks, I hate it.