3 ms·
That's silly. We'd never release any product with ridiculous standards like "Test for 100 years". Original horseless carriages didn't have any rules like that.
by JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That's silly. We'd never release any product with ridiculous standards like "Test for 100 years".
Original horseless carriages didn't have any rules like that. We liked them anyway. That seems a more realistic model of adoption, than ivory tower perfect-safety pipe dreams.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago>> We'd never release any product with ridiculous standards like "Test for 100 years". The same timeframe does not necessarily apply to other kinds of systems. The study is about self-driving cars and the numbers quoted are about self-driving cars, in particular self-driving cars compared to human-driven cars. The study starts by defining various industry-standard measures of reliability, for example scroll down to page 3 and look at equation 1 and equation 2. You can see that those are not about "perfect safety" but about measuring the probability of an accident and so on. As a general rule, if you are confused by the text of a study, check out the maths. They should be unambiguous.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoSure, but the conclusion of the post was something like "we can't test these things enough". Which seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the math as well.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y agoI'm sorry, which post do you mean? Who said 'something like "we can't test these things enough"'?
- lnsru 5y agoOriginal horseless carriages had enough weird rules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts Edit: it took almost 4 decades to improve them. We are starting with driverless vehicles just right now.