4 ms·
Honestly that is as it should be. Does that kind of regulation inhibit progress in some domains, sure - is the cost of the loss of that progress worth it again
by noir_lord 6y ago
Honestly that is as it should be.
Does that kind of regulation inhibit progress in some domains, sure - is the cost of the loss of that progress worth it against the likely outcome of de-regulating it absolutely.
Safety regulations are written in blood and when organisations like the FCC, FDA etc fall down on the job people die.
I want my cyberpunk aircar as much as the next geek but not at the price of having them fall out the sky because some programmer made an error at the end of a 70hr work week to make a deadline for shipping.
- Jabbles 6y agoThis seems very absolutist. If we assume the technology exists to make this safe, there are a number of factors that would make this obviously less risky: 4 people per aircraft reduce the number of lives at risk from any particular issue. That doesn't mean the FAA can be 100x as cavalier as they are with an A380, but it does mean the worst possible likely outcome is not as bad. Short flights - easily predictable weather patterns. Elimination of pilot error - obviously replaced with computer error, but still. And as I said elsewhere, the ability to test to destruction.
- praveen9920 6y agoAs grim as it may seem, our air safety is built on deaths of thousands of people died in airplane crashes. some may call it cost of progress.