14 ms·

Is that Homo Economicus driving the delivery truck? You'd expect a machine that saves a life every 5 seconds to have some kind of investment in redundancy. Eit

Is that Homo Economicus driving the delivery truck? You'd expect a machine that saves a life every 5 seconds to have some kind of investment in redundancy. Either is spread over more machines or the wonder device has spare parts that are kept stocked. And if not, I'm sure parliament could pass a law to clear the streets for the day.

Denvercoder9 6y ago
It's a bad example, but there are legitimate scenarios where you want the ability to (temporarily) drive above the speed limit. E.g. speeding up until you can get out of the way of an ambulance, or to avoid getting rear-ended.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Is that Homo Economicus driving the delivery truck? Is it too far of a leap to expect that someone who knows they're doing something where lives are at risk and time is of the essence will rightly estimate that the optimal travel speed is in excess of the ordinary speed at which accountants commute to their office buildings? > You'd expect a machine that saves a life every 5 seconds to have some kind of investment in redundancy. Either is spread over more machines or the wonder device has spare parts that are kept stocked. You might think that, but in reality, humans are fallible and don't always have perfect foresight. Maybe they had a spare on site, but the spare was defective, or was the wrong revision number and incompatible. Maybe the part is a filter, but the problem is that there are a hundred times more pollutants than normal, so they already used all their spare filters and need twenty more ASAP. Maybe the machine is the backup generator for a hospital, which was damaged by the same lightning strike that caused the power outage. > And if not, I'm sure parliament could pass a law to clear the streets for the day. The scenario is the machine goes offline so the company immediately calls the shop with the part who immediately leaves to deliver it. It's a five minute drive at the speed limit, but meaningfully less if you exceed it. The police response time is six minutes, they can't help you. Your suggestion is for parliament to enact legislation in that amount of time?
- lordnacho 6y ago
  All I'm saying is that the example is contrived, it streches credulity. You're making a marginalist argument where the cost of being slow is increased enormously. I could as well make up a scenario where each additional kph increase costs some absurd number of lives, and then it balances wherever you pick the numbers to balance. > And if not, I'm sure parliament could pass a law to clear the streets for the day. My scenario is that we run out of parts due to a foreseen supply chain issue, and parliament can then indeed pass a law to let the delivery guy drive faster, assuming the issue is not fixed. And for your case, there is already a judicial system that will give you a break if these things happen. In the end, and this is what we really mean to be discussing, rules vs discretion ends up with discretion somewhere in the system.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > All I'm saying is that the example is contrived, it streches credulity. You're making a marginalist argument where the cost of being slow is increased enormously. Things like that actually happen. Hospital generators fail during a power outage. The floodgate machinery for a dam fails and if they can't get it open in time the dam will burst. Instances exist of someone without lights and sirens on their car having a legitimate need to get somewhere quickly. > I could as well make up a scenario where each additional kph increase costs some absurd number of lives, and then it balances wherever you pick the numbers to balance. But then human discretion is deployed in the other direction, and you don't drive the vehicle that fast, even if the vehicle itself doesn't prevent you from doing so. > And for your case, there is already a judicial system that will give you a break if these things happen. What we are discussing is having a chip in your car that prevents you from exceeding the speed limit. How is ex post facto judicial understanding supposed to help with that?

Denvercoder9 6y ago

It's a bad example, but there are legitimate scenarios where you want the ability to (temporarily) drive above the speed limit. E.g. speeding up until you can get out of the way of an ambulance, or to avoid getting rear-ended.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Is that Homo Economicus driving the delivery truck? Is it too far of a leap to expect that someone who knows they're doing something where lives are at risk and time is of the essence will rightly estimate that the optimal travel speed is in excess of the ordinary speed at which accountants commute to their office buildings? > You'd expect a machine that saves a life every 5 seconds to have some kind of investment in redundancy. Either is spread over more machines or the wonder device has spare parts that are kept stocked. You might think that, but in reality, humans are fallible and don't always have perfect foresight. Maybe they had a spare on site, but the spare was defective, or was the wrong revision number and incompatible. Maybe the part is a filter, but the problem is that there are a hundred times more pollutants than normal, so they already used all their spare filters and need twenty more ASAP. Maybe the machine is the backup generator for a hospital, which was damaged by the same lightning strike that caused the power outage. > And if not, I'm sure parliament could pass a law to clear the streets for the day. The scenario is the machine goes offline so the company immediately calls the shop with the part who immediately leaves to deliver it. It's a five minute drive at the speed limit, but meaningfully less if you exceed it. The police response time is six minutes, they can't help you. Your suggestion is for parliament to enact legislation in that amount of time?

lordnacho 6y ago
All I'm saying is that the example is contrived, it streches credulity. You're making a marginalist argument where the cost of being slow is increased enormously. I could as well make up a scenario where each additional kph increase costs some absurd number of lives, and then it balances wherever you pick the numbers to balance. > And if not, I'm sure parliament could pass a law to clear the streets for the day. My scenario is that we run out of parts due to a foreseen supply chain issue, and parliament can then indeed pass a law to let the delivery guy drive faster, assuming the issue is not fixed. And for your case, there is already a judicial system that will give you a break if these things happen. In the end, and this is what we really mean to be discussing, rules vs discretion ends up with discretion somewhere in the system.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > All I'm saying is that the example is contrived, it streches credulity. You're making a marginalist argument where the cost of being slow is increased enormously. Things like that actually happen. Hospital generators fail during a power outage. The floodgate machinery for a dam fails and if they can't get it open in time the dam will burst. Instances exist of someone without lights and sirens on their car having a legitimate need to get somewhere quickly. > I could as well make up a scenario where each additional kph increase costs some absurd number of lives, and then it balances wherever you pick the numbers to balance. But then human discretion is deployed in the other direction, and you don't drive the vehicle that fast, even if the vehicle itself doesn't prevent you from doing so. > And for your case, there is already a judicial system that will give you a break if these things happen. What we are discussing is having a chip in your car that prevents you from exceeding the speed limit. How is ex post facto judicial understanding supposed to help with that?