3 ms·

I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the

I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update. Eventually for example, that same update feature is expected to bring the car to the point of being superhuman in its ability to drive safely. The inability to rely on the autopilot means that I'm still responsible for my own safety, so the autopilot safety isn't as important as the car's safety in general. I disagree that their communication is only reflective of them covering their ass. I feel their is the expectation that self-driving is going to prevent more deaths than it causes. Especially as the technology improves, but even to an extent now if only through the virtue of it not being a system people should be using without being ready to intervene. Don't get me wrong here, you raise good points. I just don't think it's a case of blatant evil. Also, if you have the link to the math, I'd love to read it.

buvanshak 8y ago
>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update... You don't work in software, right?
- JoshCole 8y ago
  https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-earns-consumer-reports-recommendation-after-software-brake-upgrade https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e... An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety of the vehicle.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...
    - JoshCole 8y ago
      You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted. In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - buvanshak 8y ago
        >I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update... The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.
        JoshCole 8y ago
        No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential. You quoted text in which I explicitly acknowledge the danger of updates. Read it. Also, read further down where I explicitly ask that I not be taken the wrong way, because good points were made. My acknowledgement only make sense if I agree that there is some level of danger in each update. That is why you're addressing a straw man. I feel like there is a language barrier: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Or maybe you're being uncharitable with me, because as you put it in our other thread you find the things I've said "stupid". So you are just guessing that I hold the stupidest possible belief you can ascribe me, even when I tell you otherwise.
        buvanshak 8y ago
        >No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential No. You are not missing the potential. But you do not seem to get difference in magnitude. One is incremental, reviewed safety enhancement, Other is unpredictably catastrophic. You only seem to grasp very superficial aspects of my comments, which is why I requested to give some thought before responding. So I think there is some kind of barrier. But it is not of language. but for lack of a better word, I think it is of a lack of enough shared sensibilities..

buvanshak 8y ago

>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update... You don't work in software, right?

JoshCole 8y ago
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-earns-consumer-reports-recommendation-after-software-brake-upgrade https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e... An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety of the vehicle.
- buvanshak 8y ago
  Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...
  - JoshCole 8y ago
    You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted. In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - buvanshak 8y ago
      >I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update... The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.
      - JoshCole 8y ago
        No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential. You quoted text in which I explicitly acknowledge the danger of updates. Read it. Also, read further down where I explicitly ask that I not be taken the wrong way, because good points were made. My acknowledgement only make sense if I agree that there is some level of danger in each update. That is why you're addressing a straw man. I feel like there is a language barrier: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Or maybe you're being uncharitable with me, because as you put it in our other thread you find the things I've said "stupid". So you are just guessing that I hold the stupidest possible belief you can ascribe me, even when I tell you otherwise.
        buvanshak 8y ago
        >No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential No. You are not missing the potential. But you do not seem to get difference in magnitude. One is incremental, reviewed safety enhancement, Other is unpredictably catastrophic. You only seem to grasp very superficial aspects of my comments, which is why I requested to give some thought before responding. So I think there is some kind of barrier. But it is not of language. but for lack of a better word, I think it is of a lack of enough shared sensibilities..