4 ms·
That’s not whataboutism - I’m saying it’s the job of elected government to make exactly these determinations even when actual lives hang in the balance, and in
by zaroth 8y ago
That’s not whataboutism - I’m saying it’s the job of elected government to make exactly these determinations even when actual lives hang in the balance, and in fact many thousands of regulations make these sorts of risk/reward trade offs in all sorts of ways in our daily lives. Most of them are in fact significantly more risky than allowing self-driving cars on the road in return for significantly less potential reward.
My point is primarily that the claim like “I didn’t consent to share the road with this nascent technology” — as if that means the technology should not be allowed — is not actually how our society functions. We don’t actually get to veto technology that minutely increases our risk of injury when we venture out in the world.
I’m surprised to see your ad hominem attacks and accusation of shilling. You’re relatively new here so please allow me point out that kind of response is against HN guidelines.
- Semirhage 8y agoShilling is a very different thing from just being biased because of a personal stake in something. Shilling is dishonesty, bias is just human. I know you’re not shilling, I’m asking if you might be biased due to a personal stake, or ideology. Are you?
- zaroth 8y ago> Shilling is dishonesty, bias is just human. I know you’re not shilling... But in fact your previous post asserted; >> The whole thing is a dishonest deflection... It seems like you’re trying to walk back your previous statement without apology or actually turning away from continued ad hominem attacks.
- Semirhage 8y agoCall me paranoid, but this is the second time you’ve decided to cherrypick my comments and play the victim rather than just saying “nope, no personal financial or ideological stake.” I’ll ask again, do either of those apply to you?