Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 325 posts

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#271

Post by sangnoir »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…

> I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues...

I think those issues are red-herrings. We already have the tools to deal with bad actors in the commons. We already allow people to 'tune' their non-AI cars (and in the process its possible to exceed the pollution limits). The solution is to allow modification, but in an auditable and measurable process similar to Android's "fastboot oem unlock". AI cars should possibly be able to mark human-driven & non-stock-AI-driven cars and respond accordingly. This is assuming all cars will have a standard AI, otherwise the AIs will need to treat all the other AI-cars as black boxes - if a Toyota AI can't predict the behaviour of a Dodge AI car, then a 'tuned' AI shouldn't be treated any different.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#273

Post by wyldfire »

lotu wrote: post #204
CaptSpify wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I'm not sure. I was a level-of-separation away, so I never really had to worry about it personally. I'd imagine both will end up in the lawsuit, at least partially. FWIW, we did keep updated records on all the work that was done on the machine, for this exact reason. We also had to have records of passed diagnostics.

I would also have to imagine that is is extremely difficult to fix an MRI such it produce incorrect scan results with being obviously broken.

You'd be wrong. Source: diagnostic imaging design engineer (CT, not MR, but the hazards are similar).

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#274

Post by gerbilly »

mikeash wrote: post #19
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…

I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…

>I think the ethical question is greatly overblown.

I agree, especially since when I sit on my porch I see every other person on my street texting and driving, yet no one cares about this much greater hazard.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#275

Post by afarrell »

mikeash wrote: post #19
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…

I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…

> 99.9999% of the time

There are 109,277 workers in the US who drive to work and back on their own[1]. 6 nines means a quandry once every 10 weekdays...which I guess is actually pretty rare all things considered. Okay carry on.

[1] page 7 of https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/2014/acs-32.pdf

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#276

Post by mikeash »

afarrell wrote: post #275
mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…

> 99.9999% of the time There are 109,277 workers in the US who drive to work and back on their own[1]. 6 nines means a quandry once every 10 weekdays...which I guess is actually pretty rare all things considered. Okay carry on. [1] page 7 of https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/2014/acs-32.pdf

Er, that number is in thousands. It's 109 million.

But I'm talking about crashes, not normal drives. I think ethical considerations will be one-in-a-million events for crashes, not for normal drives.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#277

Post by mikeash »

kbart wrote: post #223
eru wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I just looked up "rolling coal". I can maybe get the political protest aspect---even if I disagree, but blowing the smoke at pedestrians, cyclist or even just other cars seems like one of the most dickish things ever.

Is it even legal in USA? In EU, that would make your card road illegal instantly.

It's not legal. Even in states without emissions controls, you're still violating federal EPA regulations. But the feds have much bigger fish to fry and don't care to enforce stuff against individual car owners.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#278

Post by mikeash »

eru wrote: post #227
ams6110 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen it happen firsthand a couple of times. In both cases it was done after the cyclists stayed two abreast instead of singling up to let traffic pass.

Does the law say anything about having to get into single file? (In any case, the law doesn't provide for this case of vigilantism. And two wrong wouldn't make a right.)

Of course not. The law typically requires slow traffic to pull over when safe and allow faster traffic to pass when there are more than a few cars backed up behind, but that's a bit different. But naturally the lack of legal standing doesn't stop drivers who think they have the right to pass all bicyclists as soon as possible.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#279

Post by mikeash »

Fomite wrote: post #177
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Per hour" is rather ridiculous. I'm talking about per crash . There are a couple million vehicle crashes in the US each year, so if it really is 99.9999%, that's two or three ethical crises per year here. Among a billion vehicles it would be maybe ten per year. And honestly I'd be surprised if it's that many. When have you ever heard of a crash where there was any kind of ethical dilemma in the response? People keep…

I like how you're going to fight about other people's numbers, but act like "99.9999%" is in any way meaningful.

I happen to think that a rate of one in a million crashes is realistic (even if far from accurate, it's roughly in the ballpark) while a rate of one in a million hours is absurd on its face.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#280

Post by mikeash »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #230
mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…

> as is the case with "rolling coal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal "Targets of coal rolling often include owners of hybrid vehicles (hence the nickname "Prius duster") as well as bicyclists and pedestrians." People really do shit like this out of spite? I have no words.

Welcome to America, where a big chunk of the population thinks that caring about the environment is a scam, and pollution regulations are just a way for liberals to acquire power.
Post reply on HN