5 ms·

So should we just start arresting annoying who results in a loss of revenue for a company? I didn’t eat at Carl’s Jr today, should I go to jail?

veec_cas_tant 3y ago
This is more akin to disabling their grills so they couldn't sell food
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Carl's Jr. has several workers and a manager right there to restart the grill and get it working again. These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!
  - veec_cas_tant 3y ago
    Okay, disabling self-serve gas pumps during off hours at a 24/7 station. Removing a stop sign in the middle of the night. Turning on the faucet in an unoccupied apartment.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      The ethical difference is that none of your examples stem from an interference in public safety. SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians. This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        No, it's clearly against California law, you can search the legislative record to see that Waymo and Cruise operations have been authorized.
        sonicshadow 3y ago
        Would love to know what law this is in violation of. Also laws can be changed if they're dumb.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Did you miss the latter part of the comment? Waymo and Cruise operations in California have been explicitly authorized, i.e. written down on paper/databases, passed through the legislature that has binding authority on all of California, etc...
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
If you don’t eat at Carl’s Jr, you didn’t deprive them of willing revenue. If you decided to bar their doors so others couldn’t eat there, ya, you should go to jail.
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  That is a very low bar for jail time if you ask me but I can understand your point. Don’t agree with it but I can understand it.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Your comment instituted a tongue & cheek low bar for low jail threshold, I just went with it. These days you need to practically murder someone to finally get sent to jail (at least where I live). But if someone physically barred me from entering a fast food restaurant, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t at least be assault (assuming I tried to force myself in, of course then the question is who is assaulting who, that can get messy legally). But, no, you wouldn’t even go to jail for assault, or would get bailed out quickly and get let off by the judge.
    - manuelmoreale 3y ago
      Well if someone barred you from entering a fast food that would be assault, absolutely. But what if someone was pretending to be a public worker doing sidewalk maintenance and that forced you to simply walk on the other side of the road and not being able to access the fast food? That to me is more like an annoyance and a form of protest.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Impersonation of a public official will actually get you thrown in jail, for some odd reason, much faster than assault will.
zaphirplane 3y ago
Funny and i hope you are being funny, it’s the internet you never know. In case you are serious, there is a difference between acting to harm (human, animal, building, company). Not acting to prevent harm, not acting to provide gain. Stealing a burger, Reporting a burger being stolen, rolling your sleeves jumping behind the grill to help out I’m sure a philosophy major can add to the list with a clearer argument

veec_cas_tant 3y ago

This is more akin to disabling their grills so they couldn't sell food

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Carl's Jr. has several workers and a manager right there to restart the grill and get it working again. These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  Okay, disabling self-serve gas pumps during off hours at a 24/7 station. Removing a stop sign in the middle of the night. Turning on the faucet in an unoccupied apartment.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    The ethical difference is that none of your examples stem from an interference in public safety. SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians. This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      No, it's clearly against California law, you can search the legislative record to see that Waymo and Cruise operations have been authorized.
      - sonicshadow 3y ago
        Would love to know what law this is in violation of. Also laws can be changed if they're dumb.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Did you miss the latter part of the comment? Waymo and Cruise operations in California have been explicitly authorized, i.e. written down on paper/databases, passed through the legislature that has binding authority on all of California, etc...

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

If you don’t eat at Carl’s Jr, you didn’t deprive them of willing revenue. If you decided to bar their doors so others couldn’t eat there, ya, you should go to jail.

manuelmoreale 3y ago
That is a very low bar for jail time if you ask me but I can understand your point. Don’t agree with it but I can understand it.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Your comment instituted a tongue & cheek low bar for low jail threshold, I just went with it. These days you need to practically murder someone to finally get sent to jail (at least where I live). But if someone physically barred me from entering a fast food restaurant, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t at least be assault (assuming I tried to force myself in, of course then the question is who is assaulting who, that can get messy legally). But, no, you wouldn’t even go to jail for assault, or would get bailed out quickly and get let off by the judge.
  - manuelmoreale 3y ago
    Well if someone barred you from entering a fast food that would be assault, absolutely. But what if someone was pretending to be a public worker doing sidewalk maintenance and that forced you to simply walk on the other side of the road and not being able to access the fast food? That to me is more like an annoyance and a form of protest.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Impersonation of a public official will actually get you thrown in jail, for some odd reason, much faster than assault will.

zaphirplane 3y ago

Funny and i hope you are being funny, it’s the internet you never know. In case you are serious, there is a difference between acting to harm (human, animal, building, company). Not acting to prevent harm, not acting to provide gain. Stealing a burger, Reporting a burger being stolen, rolling your sleeves jumping behind the grill to help out I’m sure a philosophy major can add to the list with a clearer argument