4 ms·

> Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. It's not a hyperbolic to use

by mythz 7y ago

> Calling something countless is hyperbolic exaggeration. I wasn't expecting an exact number. I also was not expecting hyperbole. It's not a hyperbolic to use "countless" when it's one of the top 10 causes of deaths. > NHTSA is no different than the DOE stating... You're really into your inaccurate strawmans

beerandt 7y ago
1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. Will progress be made? Probably. Will an army of driverless cars be safer than the same number of humans driving in X years? Thats a bold statement that requires an explanation beyond "Because technology progesses." I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years.
- mythz 7y ago
  > 1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. Using the word "countless" to describe one of the leading causes of deaths is not close to a valid example of hyberbolic exaggeration. > 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. You're the only one making proclamations, hypocritical of others for not using exact numbers you wont quote yourself and proclaiming some of the smartest engineers in the world and motor vehicle institutions must be blind hopefuls for investing their efforts in automatic driving solutions to save lives. > I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years. Says a lot that you think unproven feasible future technology is somehow an adept strawman to actual technology that's driven over 1B miles. Tesla's AutoPilot results for the latest Q2 2019 shows it had 1 accident per 3.27 million miles vs NTHSA's recent statistics showing 1 accident per 498k miles: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport The state of automation is meaningful today, it's not blind hope to presume actively developed technology will improve even more with time, it would be naive to think otherwise and suggest it needs another 20-30 years to evaluate FSD's for viability.

by mythz 7y ago

beerandt 7y ago

1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. Will progress be made? Probably. Will an army of driverless cars be safer than the same number of humans driving in X years? Thats a bold statement that requires an explanation beyond "Because technology progesses." I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years.

mythz 7y ago
> 1) that is the very definition of hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect. Using the word "countless" to describe one of the leading causes of deaths is not close to a valid example of hyberbolic exaggeration. > 2) I'm not the one making the claim that a revolutionary technology that will save millions of lives is just around the corner. You're the only one making proclamations, hypocritical of others for not using exact numbers you wont quote yourself and proclaiming some of the smartest engineers in the world and motor vehicle institutions must be blind hopefuls for investing their efforts in automatic driving solutions to save lives. > I think the comparison to fusion is quite adept at this point. We can re-evaluate in 20-30 years. Says a lot that you think unproven feasible future technology is somehow an adept strawman to actual technology that's driven over 1B miles. Tesla's AutoPilot results for the latest Q2 2019 shows it had 1 accident per 3.27 million miles vs NTHSA's recent statistics showing 1 accident per 498k miles: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport The state of automation is meaningful today, it's not blind hope to presume actively developed technology will improve even more with time, it would be naive to think otherwise and suggest it needs another 20-30 years to evaluate FSD's for viability.