3 ms·

Nonsense all the way. - There was less percentage of covid in his plant than in the state the plant is. - Teslas are still less dangerous than other cars and

by mam2 6y ago

Nonsense all the way. - There was less percentage of covid in his plant than in the state the plant is. - Teslas are still less dangerous than other cars and im pretty sure tesla drivers also drink less while driving. Its just not more dangerous.

smt88 6y ago
> There was less percentage of covid in his plant than in the state the plant is. I'm not comparing the plant's infection rate to the state's infection rate. That makes no sense. I'm comparing the plant's infection rate to 0%, which is the infection rate for a plant that is complying with the law and shut down. > Teslas are still less dangerous than other cars and im pretty sure tesla drivers also drink less while driving. Its just not more dangerous. Again, I'm not comparing Tesla safety rate to general safety rate. In both of these cases, I'm comparing the results to what they would be if Elon Musk didn't do something anti-social and irresponsible. Testing self-driving technology in the real world using non-professional drivers is incredibly irresponsible. Even a single death caused by that technology is preventable and completely under Musk's control.
- mam2 6y ago
  Of course if you do nothing and everyone live in a shelter for 5 years the pandemic will be stopped. But that's not possible so you have to find a middle ground. A LOT of people including myself consider it's an exaggerated middle ground to shut down an entire economy for something that's not more lethal than going in the street for 2/3 of the population. You may disagree but you have to understand that it's largely in the interest of the government to act as the "most scared people" want to, because they are usually the loudest and it's the best way not to be criticized during reelection. So to me opening a plant an having a similar (and actually less because people actually wear mask at work) infection rate than in the general population is a better middle ground. Maybe an even better middle ground would have been to let the choice to people to come or not... I'm not sure we'll ever agree if you are on the uber-cautious side. same reasoning goes for the self-driving. basically it's a trade of between risk and reward. it's the same for medicine: there's no drug development without human testing and sometimes... human death.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    > But that's not possible so you have to find a middle ground. How about we set the middle ground as "respecting local regulation" at a specific time point? It's incredibly mindblowing to me that he basically said in public "we're gonna ignore your laws" and the local government was like "lol, whatcha gonna do".
    - mam2 6y ago
      Don't take it too harshly but it's a very naive view of how the world works. 1/ most regulations com from how people behave, not the other way around, which is a good thing. 2/ civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) 3/ in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure if you do a referendum in many countries (starting with the US), people will say they don't want a lockdown. You are probably not on the majority side.
      - smt88 6y ago
        > civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) It is laughable to suggest that Musk did this because it was moral. He did it to make money. His employees were getting paid either way. There is nothing noble or humanitarian about the decision. > in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. Desegregating the South in the US is a counterpoint. It was not popular (in the South), it was expensive, and it did change people's behavior. > You are probably not on the majority side. Why even write this without googling it? Temporary lockdowns have always been popular in the US[1]. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-national-one-month-lockdown-poll-1557262 https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-n...

by mam2 6y ago

smt88 6y ago

> There was less percentage of covid in his plant than in the state the plant is. I'm not comparing the plant's infection rate to the state's infection rate. That makes no sense. I'm comparing the plant's infection rate to 0%, which is the infection rate for a plant that is complying with the law and shut down. > Teslas are still less dangerous than other cars and im pretty sure tesla drivers also drink less while driving. Its just not more dangerous. Again, I'm not comparing Tesla safety rate to general safety rate. In both of these cases, I'm comparing the results to what they would be if Elon Musk didn't do something anti-social and irresponsible. Testing self-driving technology in the real world using non-professional drivers is incredibly irresponsible. Even a single death caused by that technology is preventable and completely under Musk's control.

mam2 6y ago
Of course if you do nothing and everyone live in a shelter for 5 years the pandemic will be stopped. But that's not possible so you have to find a middle ground. A LOT of people including myself consider it's an exaggerated middle ground to shut down an entire economy for something that's not more lethal than going in the street for 2/3 of the population. You may disagree but you have to understand that it's largely in the interest of the government to act as the "most scared people" want to, because they are usually the loudest and it's the best way not to be criticized during reelection. So to me opening a plant an having a similar (and actually less because people actually wear mask at work) infection rate than in the general population is a better middle ground. Maybe an even better middle ground would have been to let the choice to people to come or not... I'm not sure we'll ever agree if you are on the uber-cautious side. same reasoning goes for the self-driving. basically it's a trade of between risk and reward. it's the same for medicine: there's no drug development without human testing and sometimes... human death.
- input_sh 6y ago
  > But that's not possible so you have to find a middle ground. How about we set the middle ground as "respecting local regulation" at a specific time point? It's incredibly mindblowing to me that he basically said in public "we're gonna ignore your laws" and the local government was like "lol, whatcha gonna do".
  - mam2 6y ago
    Don't take it too harshly but it's a very naive view of how the world works. 1/ most regulations com from how people behave, not the other way around, which is a good thing. 2/ civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) 3/ in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure if you do a referendum in many countries (starting with the US), people will say they don't want a lockdown. You are probably not on the majority side.
    - smt88 6y ago
      > civil desobedience is a good thing if you think some rules can have really bad social impact (i mean lockdowns are not slavery but there are mental health / economic impacts which have literally never even been considered in the public debate) It is laughable to suggest that Musk did this because it was moral. He did it to make money. His employees were getting paid either way. There is nothing noble or humanitarian about the decision. > in practical terms a rule can only exist if you have some police power to enforce it. which costs money. this also leads up to 1 and 2 which says it's impossible to create regulations which are disconnected of what people want. Desegregating the South in the US is a counterpoint. It was not popular (in the South), it was expensive, and it did change people's behavior. > You are probably not on the majority side. Why even write this without googling it? Temporary lockdowns have always been popular in the US[1]. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-national-one-month-lockdown-poll-1557262 https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-americans-would-support-n...