3 ms·
I don't think that addresses my question about why this particular tradeoff was unusually objectionable, it looks to be just the general point that safety is go
by SilasX 4y ago
I don't think that addresses my question about why this particular tradeoff was unusually objectionable, it looks to be just the general point that safety is good. But even your examples of "doing it right" are implicitly doing the same thing as the Pinto: not spending infinite resources to improve safety, but cut it off at some point.
Also, this is false, or at least, you've asserted it without basis:
>Unfortunately the same argument makes the case for ignoring safety all together.
If you have a reason why this case stands out, I'd love to learn it. If you just want to shame everyone who recognizes the inherent tradeoffs in improving safety, then I'm not sure your comment makes HN a better, more curiosity-friendly place.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThanks for the feedback. Feel free to rewrite it so that it is more curious.
- SilasX 4y agoIf it were from a spirit of curiosity, none of those points would have been made, because you would have soon realized you're not responding to anything in my comment. The more-curious version of your comment would be, "That's a good point. I can't quite put my finger on what makes this particular safety/cost tradeoff different from the other cases, especially given that it maintains the same general level of safety through different decisions. Something still seems off, but I'm not at the point where I can rigorously justify it." Does that about summarize where you stand?