4 ms·

> And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. "reliable enough" != "perfect". You're strawmanning the parent. As for downmodding, if you goad people to do it, you

by vacri 11y ago

> And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. "reliable enough" != "perfect". You're strawmanning the parent. As for downmodding, if you goad people to do it, you lose the right to complain about it.

CamperBob2 11y ago
Sorry, but I believe it's insanely stupid that things are being done the way they're done, and I believe the arguments that I'm "strawmanning" are part of the reason why. In a rational world, the burden of argument would fall on those who advocate human control of trains, not on those who simply can't fathom why they're not already automated. Sometimes it makes sense to call out stupidity for what it is... even on HN. I'm not trying to come across as personally disrespectful.
- vacri 11y ago
  In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. Similarly, in a rational world, anyone advocated that X control the train should have to present their arguments. 'automation' doesn't 'win by default' - people favouring automation still have to present their arguments. 'automation' is not the null hypothesis here.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Me: There's this thing called GPS. It would cost about $100 to have the train "know" where it is. You: In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. And I'm the guy with the lighter and the pile of straw?
    - vacri 11y ago
      I apologise - you did say that the controls would cost more than $100. A lot of what you have been saying is fantasy though - for example, that there is no need for a train to be going 1mph faster or slower than the last time. Apparently weather conditions should be ignored? However, just because I made an error (or even strawmanned) doesn't mean that you're not strawmanning.

by vacri 11y ago

> And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. "reliable enough" != "perfect". You're strawmanning the parent. As for downmodding, if you goad people to do it, you lose the right to complain about it.

CamperBob2 11y ago

Sorry, but I believe it's insanely stupid that things are being done the way they're done, and I believe the arguments that I'm "strawmanning" are part of the reason why. In a rational world, the burden of argument would fall on those who advocate human control of trains, not on those who simply can't fathom why they're not already automated. Sometimes it makes sense to call out stupidity for what it is... even on HN. I'm not trying to come across as personally disrespectful.

vacri 11y ago
In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. Similarly, in a rational world, anyone advocated that X control the train should have to present their arguments. 'automation' doesn't 'win by default' - people favouring automation still have to present their arguments. 'automation' is not the null hypothesis here.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Me: There's this thing called GPS. It would cost about $100 to have the train "know" where it is. You: In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. And I'm the guy with the lighter and the pile of straw?
  - vacri 11y ago
    I apologise - you did say that the controls would cost more than $100. A lot of what you have been saying is fantasy though - for example, that there is no need for a train to be going 1mph faster or slower than the last time. Apparently weather conditions should be ignored? However, just because I made an error (or even strawmanned) doesn't mean that you're not strawmanning.