4 ms·

Less regulation is not the solution to issues relating to the public good and society as a whole: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-tx-regulation-power-down https

Less regulation is not the solution to issues relating to the public good and society as a whole: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-tx-regulation-power-down https://futurism.com/elon-musk-tx-regulation-power-down

CryptoPunk 6y ago
That's an overly simplistic / too-low-resolution analysis. As always, it depends on the specific problem. In the case of self-driving vehicles, regulations are the primary impediment. Some for good reason mind you. But undoubtedly the technology would advance more quickly with fewer regulations on its deployment. As for the Texas outage, regulations could potentially have prevented, but the question is at what cost.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  "Move fast and break things" is a valid approach in motorsports, where the track and surroundings are uniform and predictable, and where the drivers are trained and behave predictably, because they're all going the same direction at roughly similar speeds in very similar vehicles. The drivers have also all opted in to the greater level of risk that is inherent when trying to push the limits. It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. Moving fast and breaking things in a public road context means maiming and injuring innocent people, who have not been consulted on whether they want to participate in semi-controlled tests of self-driving cars. The advancement of technology is not a goal in itself. There is an argument for using self-driving technology on motorways, because they are very uniform and simpler than other types of roads. They have traffic flowing in one direction only, segregated from other types of traffic. Get that working properly, and we may consider rolling self-driving tech further onto other types of roads. RE: Texas, they literally chose to cut off ERCOT from the east and west power grids of the US, in order to avoid regulation. If they had not done so, they could have drawn on power from other states, significantly lessening the impact of the snowstorms, which would have saved both lives and property. By choosing to cut themselves off from the larger interconnected grid, the politicians in power put their constituents in a severely disadvantaged position, for purely ideological and irrational opposition to sensible regulation.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. That's a fair point. Making public roads dangerous would go against basic human-rights/libertarian principles, on the basis that the public could never unanimously consent to it. With respect to Texas, I'm not informed enough to comment on the recent power outages. I suspect there are a huge number of factors involved, and I would need to familiarize myself with most of them, and preferably by reviewing sources that aren't reflexively anti free-market/profit, before I would feel confident in providing any kind of over-arching summary of the main causes.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

That's an overly simplistic / too-low-resolution analysis. As always, it depends on the specific problem. In the case of self-driving vehicles, regulations are the primary impediment. Some for good reason mind you. But undoubtedly the technology would advance more quickly with fewer regulations on its deployment. As for the Texas outage, regulations could potentially have prevented, but the question is at what cost.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
"Move fast and break things" is a valid approach in motorsports, where the track and surroundings are uniform and predictable, and where the drivers are trained and behave predictably, because they're all going the same direction at roughly similar speeds in very similar vehicles. The drivers have also all opted in to the greater level of risk that is inherent when trying to push the limits. It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. Moving fast and breaking things in a public road context means maiming and injuring innocent people, who have not been consulted on whether they want to participate in semi-controlled tests of self-driving cars. The advancement of technology is not a goal in itself. There is an argument for using self-driving technology on motorways, because they are very uniform and simpler than other types of roads. They have traffic flowing in one direction only, segregated from other types of traffic. Get that working properly, and we may consider rolling self-driving tech further onto other types of roads. RE: Texas, they literally chose to cut off ERCOT from the east and west power grids of the US, in order to avoid regulation. If they had not done so, they could have drawn on power from other states, significantly lessening the impact of the snowstorms, which would have saved both lives and property. By choosing to cut themselves off from the larger interconnected grid, the politicians in power put their constituents in a severely disadvantaged position, for purely ideological and irrational opposition to sensible regulation.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. That's a fair point. Making public roads dangerous would go against basic human-rights/libertarian principles, on the basis that the public could never unanimously consent to it. With respect to Texas, I'm not informed enough to comment on the recent power outages. I suspect there are a huge number of factors involved, and I would need to familiarize myself with most of them, and preferably by reviewing sources that aren't reflexively anti free-market/profit, before I would feel confident in providing any kind of over-arching summary of the main causes.