2 ms·

Which is why it should be monitored to ensure that the net result of the rollout is a reduction in accidents/fatalities/injuries/etc.

eimrine 3y ago
Your comment is very hard to disagree. But how are you going to test if there might be some interference of two changes? For example, negative effect from screen/touchscreen and positive from auto-breaking - isn't your next proposal to gather more information including video of driver's moves? I have a strong feel that an argument that the drivers must be video-streaming while moving will be equally hard to disagree.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  Why should drivers be video streaming? I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking. I'm not saying we should spy on anybody, surely regulators already get this data.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > Why should drivers be video streaming? Because nobody has drawn a red line and Ron Jones in 1967 has shown us how vulnerable our freedom is. We already has a lot of mandatory non-FOSS software in cars which use to phone home which effectively is a streaming (not a video yet, but amount of data is never decreasing). And a lot of so-called safety (surveillance in reality) devices are around us nowadays - phones exposing a lot of uncertain data about us, bank cards which allows banks know where we are right now, etc. If some crackpot politician proves to safety-demanding influencers that video streaming from every moving car helps us to prevent $bad_things_list so that kind of demand is totally possible, especially if using cars for mass killings would become more common than mass shootings. > I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking. It's impossible because you have not 100% of the data.

2 ms·

Which is why it should be monitored to ensure that the net result of the rollout is a reduction in accidents/fatalities/injuries/etc.

by sebzim4500 3y ago

eimrine 3y ago
Your comment is very hard to disagree. But how are you going to test if there might be some interference of two changes? For example, negative effect from screen/touchscreen and positive from auto-breaking - isn't your next proposal to gather more information including video of driver's moves? I have a strong feel that an argument that the drivers must be video-streaming while moving will be equally hard to disagree.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  Why should drivers be video streaming? I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking. I'm not saying we should spy on anybody, surely regulators already get this data.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > Why should drivers be video streaming? Because nobody has drawn a red line and Ron Jones in 1967 has shown us how vulnerable our freedom is. We already has a lot of mandatory non-FOSS software in cars which use to phone home which effectively is a streaming (not a video yet, but amount of data is never decreasing). And a lot of so-called safety (surveillance in reality) devices are around us nowadays - phones exposing a lot of uncertain data about us, bank cards which allows banks know where we are right now, etc. If some crackpot politician proves to safety-demanding influencers that video streaming from every moving car helps us to prevent $bad_things_list so that kind of demand is totally possible, especially if using cars for mass killings would become more common than mass shootings. > I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking. It's impossible because you have not 100% of the data.