3 ms·

The linked article is very clearly an attempt to persuade its reader that the lack of classing (IE verification of safety by an external auditor) is less of an

by advael 3y ago

The linked article is very clearly an attempt to persuade its reader that the lack of classing (IE verification of safety by an external auditor) is less of an issue than they might otherwise think. Your advice to a reader of this article is rational here, but I think it's worth also pointing out that the article is meant to persuade said reader to not think that way

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
Perhaps this might be a cultural issue (I am not a US-American citizen), but to me your quote > "We're so innovative we don't have time for safety regulations" reads like "to offer an innovative service which would otherwise not possible, we exchanged known risks (what safety regulations are for to capture and mitigate) for much more unknown risks". As I wrote: "risks that are likely very hard to actually measure are a huge red flag for any risk-averse person" (and most people are risk-averse), so every customer should be perfectly aware for what he signs up. This is like a financial adviser who offers a highly innovative finance product with a risk profile that is hard to measure because of its novelty, which the advisor clearly tells. There do exist customers for which such a product is a good choice (say risk-affine, novelty-seeking ones), but such customers are perfectly aware what they are up to.
- advael 3y ago
  The linked article is a clear case of the messaging from the company trying to downplay the risk, as I wrote before. The example of financial advisers selling risky products is an apt one, because very famously, the entire finance industry has crashed giant segments of the US economy multiple times via selling products carrying insane risk profiles to customers who were not in actual fact risk-affine and novelty-seeking, and did not in fact understand the risks. They did this because they were incentivized not to be responsible, but to push as much product as possible, and because their risk in this equation was substantially mitigated by deep-pocketed financial backers, including but not limited to bailouts from the government itself, in a way that the risk of their "customers" (Past a certain threshold of deceptiveness, I would consider the term "victims" more appropriate) was not

by advael 3y ago

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

Perhaps this might be a cultural issue (I am not a US-American citizen), but to me your quote > "We're so innovative we don't have time for safety regulations" reads like "to offer an innovative service which would otherwise not possible, we exchanged known risks (what safety regulations are for to capture and mitigate) for much more unknown risks". As I wrote: "risks that are likely very hard to actually measure are a huge red flag for any risk-averse person" (and most people are risk-averse), so every customer should be perfectly aware for what he signs up. This is like a financial adviser who offers a highly innovative finance product with a risk profile that is hard to measure because of its novelty, which the advisor clearly tells. There do exist customers for which such a product is a good choice (say risk-affine, novelty-seeking ones), but such customers are perfectly aware what they are up to.

advael 3y ago
The linked article is a clear case of the messaging from the company trying to downplay the risk, as I wrote before. The example of financial advisers selling risky products is an apt one, because very famously, the entire finance industry has crashed giant segments of the US economy multiple times via selling products carrying insane risk profiles to customers who were not in actual fact risk-affine and novelty-seeking, and did not in fact understand the risks. They did this because they were incentivized not to be responsible, but to push as much product as possible, and because their risk in this equation was substantially mitigated by deep-pocketed financial backers, including but not limited to bailouts from the government itself, in a way that the risk of their "customers" (Past a certain threshold of deceptiveness, I would consider the term "victims" more appropriate) was not