5 ms·

dude, you are so confused. The car design as a whole. A car designed with a bomb in it is a different design than the other civics. Do you not understand that?

dude, you are so confused. The car design as a whole. A car designed with a bomb in it is a different design than the other civics. Do you not understand that? This makes my point even more clearly. If you have Civics with bombs and civics without, and the ones without have a safety result that is higher overall, even if there is some arguable benefit of the bomb (ie, less likely to be carjacked?) if the design of the cars without the bomb results in a better safety result, those cars should be preferred. I'm going to leave this here I think - I'm not sure who is on HN anymore, but it does feel like the actual engineering type folks are a smaller group, and so normal tradeoff analysis has turned into the outraged / condemn them type yelling.

asddubs 6y ago
so replace it with a bomb that has a 1/1000000 chance of going off over the cars average lifespan. Seems like you're just arguing semantics. It's a pointless regression in safety
- temp667 6y ago
  Motorcycles are a pointless regression in safety. Fast cars are a pointless regression (and have terrible rear side views in many cases). Many things that are "cool" are also regressions - almost all big screens and apple carplay etc is distracting. The trade is that people like cars not just for safety but to use, and those features may in one way or another enhance the use of the vehicle. And yes, they build vehicles with explosives in them, and those do drive around if there is a use, everything from military tanks, to construction and mining ops have vehicles with bombs in them. While MUCH more dangerous, the tradeoffs are considered worth it. So you look at the whole package. I want yellow blinkers on all vehicles. Something as basic as that is not required. Fast cars are allowed. And now we are not only saying that a different design shouldn't even be allowed to be considered, but the folks considering the design should be "condemned"? Heads up - Tesla, and eventually others are pushing HARD on greater autonomy. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more designs started reducing the number of passenger controls. Airplanes have had this happen too. Spaceships same thing, crew dragon a lot fewer buttons. They were condemned for that as well. My own guess? Tesla is too far ahead here (ie, their AI supplement is not yet ready), and may get reeled back. But they are pushing this way. They don't want side mirrors, they want cameras as an example, and yes, folks condemn them for that too even through the fuel savings would be incredible. Folks condemned them for their "dangerous" batteries. They've been condemned repeatedly, but their death rates per mile driven are far better than the news stories make it seem.

asddubs 6y ago

so replace it with a bomb that has a 1/1000000 chance of going off over the cars average lifespan. Seems like you're just arguing semantics. It's a pointless regression in safety

temp667 6y ago
Motorcycles are a pointless regression in safety. Fast cars are a pointless regression (and have terrible rear side views in many cases). Many things that are "cool" are also regressions - almost all big screens and apple carplay etc is distracting. The trade is that people like cars not just for safety but to use, and those features may in one way or another enhance the use of the vehicle. And yes, they build vehicles with explosives in them, and those do drive around if there is a use, everything from military tanks, to construction and mining ops have vehicles with bombs in them. While MUCH more dangerous, the tradeoffs are considered worth it. So you look at the whole package. I want yellow blinkers on all vehicles. Something as basic as that is not required. Fast cars are allowed. And now we are not only saying that a different design shouldn't even be allowed to be considered, but the folks considering the design should be "condemned"? Heads up - Tesla, and eventually others are pushing HARD on greater autonomy. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more designs started reducing the number of passenger controls. Airplanes have had this happen too. Spaceships same thing, crew dragon a lot fewer buttons. They were condemned for that as well. My own guess? Tesla is too far ahead here (ie, their AI supplement is not yet ready), and may get reeled back. But they are pushing this way. They don't want side mirrors, they want cameras as an example, and yes, folks condemn them for that too even through the fuel savings would be incredible. Folks condemned them for their "dangerous" batteries. They've been condemned repeatedly, but their death rates per mile driven are far better than the news stories make it seem.