4 ms·

Hopefully non autonomous driving becomes illegal. Its a lethal weapon and we shouldnt be trusting humans with cars

2Ccltvcm 7y ago
We should all just become vegetables plugged into the matrix so we can't possibly hurt ourselves or others. We would be valuable vassals providing energy to our overlords. I can't wait for your future.
- veritas_veritad 7y ago
  false dichotomy- there exists a world in which cars are not the normal mode of transportation because everything you could possibly want is within walking distance and intra-city travel is something you do only occasionally.
  - Tade0 7y ago
    Does there though? I personally would be interested in living in a 1mln+ city that's 99%+ car free.
    - veritas_veritad 7y ago
      would be or would not be- I'm confused by your statement
      - Tade0 7y ago
        I wanted to say that while I would like to live in such a world, I can't think of an example.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    I couldn't possibly want to leave the city, drive down a logging road, tour around, and enjoy my personal freedom, right? Why would anyone want that, when someone might possibly have a small chance of dying because of it?
    - veritas_veritad 7y ago
      it's not just the small chance of dying, though- it's the very real and cumulative effects of driving cars in general. We have laws around being able to pump raw sewage into rivers and lakes as well as laws around leaving depleted uranium anywhere remotely possible of causing harm (and even then it probably still isn't great) You're welcome to leave the city via some means that doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Walk, bike, etc. It's really whiney of you to feel so incensed that you can't just do whatever TF you want because "mah freedoms" when those activities are contributing to a degradation of the livability of the planet. Yes, we as a species have reached the point where there are things we _can_ do that we _ought not_ do. Sucks I guess?
      - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
        You’re typing as if your fever dream of restricted behaviors has already come true. It must be exciting to be so delusional.
    - jodrellblank 7y ago
      If you demand your personal freedom in that way, why do you live in a city at all? You can't park on a street at night and blare loud music, you can't shoot pigeons on the rooftops with a rifle, you can't fly a drone over people or around other's property without permission, and those won't even kill people.
- deevolution 7y ago
  A very small minority of elite cyber criminals, less than .000001% of the population will ever have the privilage to drive a vehicle manually in this future.
- felipemnoa 7y ago
  >>providing energy to our overlords The Matrix AI robots do not really need humans to survive. They had a form of fusion. In reality the reason why they created the symbiotic relationship was as a kindness to their human supporters so that the human race would not go extinct.
  - artifice 7y ago
    The truth is that in the original imaginings of the plot to The Matrix, the artificial entities of the machine world had reversed the roles of interaction between humans and computers. It wasn't about energy at all, but about using human brains as a computational resource. They were farming the humans and enslaving them, because the machines occupied the antagonist role in the plot. They were the villains. It's established in the animatrix set of short films, that the machines did not perceive themselves as villains, and this is a common characteristic that cuts across most tropes of villainy. During a monologue, a villain will often equivocate their motivation with that of the hero. (you and me? we're really the same...) Focus groups and producers interfered with that aspect of the plot (the grid computer made of people, hence the name: The Matrix), and rewrote the story to depict the machines as using humans as an energy source, a power grid (changing puns and quips using, instead of computational terms, to energy references, such as "coppertop" and the like), which tested as a more accessible concept to the lowest common denominator in the target audience. If you watch the supplemental material included with the trilogy boxed set, I think it's mentioned in either one of the commentaries or the documentaries and interview segments.
distant_hat 7y ago
But then you'd be trusting software developers with cars. What if a botnet of cars activates and tries to mow down everybody around?
- nan0 7y ago
  You must have read Seeker by Douglas E Richards :)
prepend 7y ago
Maybe the same law can make commenting on web sites illegals. Sitting and lethargy kill many more than driving.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  The people commenting kill themselves. The people driving kill and injure other people. I don't know how widely reported it was outside the UK, but Prince Philip (Queen Elizabeth's husband) is 97. In January this year, he drove his car into a car with two women and a nine month old child in it. He was OK, the women required hospital treatment (but were not seriously injured). "Prince Philip unhurt in crash" said the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46912691 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46912691 "Prince Philip will not be prosecuted [..] We have decided that it would not be in the public interest" said the Crown Prosecution Service. ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/14/prince-philip-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-car-crash-cps https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/14/prince-phili... ). He voluntarily surrendered his driving license after that.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
People like you should be forbidden from all forms of communication.

We should all just become vegetables plugged into the matrix so we can't possibly hurt ourselves or others. We would be valuable vassals providing energy to our overlords. I can't wait for your future.

veritas_veritad 7y ago
false dichotomy- there exists a world in which cars are not the normal mode of transportation because everything you could possibly want is within walking distance and intra-city travel is something you do only occasionally.
- Tade0 7y ago
  Does there though? I personally would be interested in living in a 1mln+ city that's 99%+ car free.
  - veritas_veritad 7y ago
    would be or would not be- I'm confused by your statement
    - Tade0 7y ago
      I wanted to say that while I would like to live in such a world, I can't think of an example.
- core-questions 7y ago
  I couldn't possibly want to leave the city, drive down a logging road, tour around, and enjoy my personal freedom, right? Why would anyone want that, when someone might possibly have a small chance of dying because of it?
  - veritas_veritad 7y ago
    it's not just the small chance of dying, though- it's the very real and cumulative effects of driving cars in general. We have laws around being able to pump raw sewage into rivers and lakes as well as laws around leaving depleted uranium anywhere remotely possible of causing harm (and even then it probably still isn't great) You're welcome to leave the city via some means that doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Walk, bike, etc. It's really whiney of you to feel so incensed that you can't just do whatever TF you want because "mah freedoms" when those activities are contributing to a degradation of the livability of the planet. Yes, we as a species have reached the point where there are things we _can_ do that we _ought not_ do. Sucks I guess?
    - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
      You’re typing as if your fever dream of restricted behaviors has already come true. It must be exciting to be so delusional.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    If you demand your personal freedom in that way, why do you live in a city at all? You can't park on a street at night and blare loud music, you can't shoot pigeons on the rooftops with a rifle, you can't fly a drone over people or around other's property without permission, and those won't even kill people.
deevolution 7y ago
A very small minority of elite cyber criminals, less than .000001% of the population will ever have the privilage to drive a vehicle manually in this future.
felipemnoa 7y ago
>>providing energy to our overlords The Matrix AI robots do not really need humans to survive. They had a form of fusion. In reality the reason why they created the symbiotic relationship was as a kindness to their human supporters so that the human race would not go extinct.
- artifice 7y ago
  The truth is that in the original imaginings of the plot to The Matrix, the artificial entities of the machine world had reversed the roles of interaction between humans and computers. It wasn't about energy at all, but about using human brains as a computational resource. They were farming the humans and enslaving them, because the machines occupied the antagonist role in the plot. They were the villains. It's established in the animatrix set of short films, that the machines did not perceive themselves as villains, and this is a common characteristic that cuts across most tropes of villainy. During a monologue, a villain will often equivocate their motivation with that of the hero. (you and me? we're really the same...) Focus groups and producers interfered with that aspect of the plot (the grid computer made of people, hence the name: The Matrix), and rewrote the story to depict the machines as using humans as an energy source, a power grid (changing puns and quips using, instead of computational terms, to energy references, such as "coppertop" and the like), which tested as a more accessible concept to the lowest common denominator in the target audience. If you watch the supplemental material included with the trilogy boxed set, I think it's mentioned in either one of the commentaries or the documentaries and interview segments.

distant_hat 7y ago

But then you'd be trusting software developers with cars. What if a botnet of cars activates and tries to mow down everybody around?

nan0 7y ago
You must have read Seeker by Douglas E Richards :)

prepend 7y ago

Maybe the same law can make commenting on web sites illegals. Sitting and lethargy kill many more than driving.

jodrellblank 7y ago
The people commenting kill themselves. The people driving kill and injure other people. I don't know how widely reported it was outside the UK, but Prince Philip (Queen Elizabeth's husband) is 97. In January this year, he drove his car into a car with two women and a nine month old child in it. He was OK, the women required hospital treatment (but were not seriously injured). "Prince Philip unhurt in crash" said the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46912691 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46912691 "Prince Philip will not be prosecuted [..] We have decided that it would not be in the public interest" said the Crown Prosecution Service. ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/14/prince-philip-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-car-crash-cps https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/14/prince-phili... ). He voluntarily surrendered his driving license after that.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

People like you should be forbidden from all forms of communication.