2 ms·
> Listing all of the things that could go wrong with a technology hasn't worked well for us I am did not list anything wrong with the technology. My point is
by kumarvvr 5y ago
> Listing all of the things that could go wrong with a technology hasn't worked well for us
I am did not list anything wrong with the technology.
My point is that human nature itself is at fault. Would you trust a flying machine in the hands of a drunk driver? But, no amount of regulation / laws / punishment will deter such incidences.
- mattmaroon 5y agoThose laws do a pretty good job of deterring such incidences with private pilots. Or perhaps more likely, the increased danger does. If it became a real problem, it would be easy enough to do something like a mandate built in breathalyzers
- ctvo 5y ago> My point is that human nature itself is at fault. Would you trust a flying machine in the hands of a drunk driver? But, no amount of regulation / laws / punishment will deter such incidences. You're talking about degrees of damage. The issues presented here are present in cars. We've worked around them in cars (relatively well I'd argue) because of the trade-offs in convenience and time savings. There's nothing that says this mode of transaction, if viable, wouldn't have the same pressures applied to make it safer. The wider point is convenience / time savings is a significant motivator, and betting against a technology that seems to include both has never turned out well.