> I also don't oppose regulations to prevent them from skimping on certain safety features. > I would expect any remotely competent deployment of delivery dron

> I also don't oppose regulations to prevent them from skimping on certain safety features. > I would expect any remotely competent deployment of delivery drones would be much safer than the delivery automobiles they replace, simply due to the baseline accident rate of automobiles. Why would you expect that a brand-new, mostly-unregulated technology would be safer than one that is over a century old with a lot of safety regulation in place? Even over the last several decades, safety regulation has reduced the per-mile as well as overall death rate of motor vehicles. [1] Regulation takes time and is often reactionary to large-scale problems. How do you expect to define a "remotely competent deployment of delivery drones" given the general lack of experience in doing so? Given the employee churn described in the article, do you think there is a culture of safety in this organization so deep that finding a fundamental+fatal flaw would be grounds for ceasing all drone-deliveries until the flaw is provably fixed? From the article: “There was a lot of decision making made in the moment without long term thought to it. It was almost slinging shit at the wall and hoping stuff would stick.” How can you justify better safety from something developed with constant engineering churn, short-term thinking and unreasonable time goals? [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot#trends https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearl...