3 ms·

So your model is that 100% of the incidents that can cause harm will not cause harm? No matter how many cars they put on the road? Again, I'd ask you to back th

So your model is that 100% of the incidents that can cause harm will not cause harm? No matter how many cars they put on the road? Again, I'd ask you to back that up. Because otherwise it sounds to me that because of your particular political convictions, you're just handwaving away 100% of the evidence here. If you get to be skeptical of all of the evidence that's collected because there's an upcoming relevant decision, I get to be at least as skeptical of how your skepticism is applied.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> you're just handwaving away 100% of the evidence here The evidence is a collection of inconvenient interactions. No actual harm. Contrast that with Tesla: actual harm. In the absence of evidence of actual harm, I don’t see an argument for limiting scope. Hence actual, measured harm versus theoretical harm one would assume would manifest from the frequency of interactions.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Again, I want to see you explain why those "inconvenient interactions" will never add up to a safety problem, because all I'm seeing is handwaving. In my view, "inconveniencing" a firefighter in the middle of fighting a fire is a clear safety issue Your notion that you have to see blood before taking it seriously is pretty wild to me. In college I knew a guy who regularly drove drunk using pretty similar logic because he'd never had a problem.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    “Never add up” is a straw man. If your guy in college drunk driving were hundreds driving drunk every day for years on end, yes, I’d validly (if sceptically) question my priors if there hadn’t been any injuries nor serious property damage. Here, my priors are much softer than those for drunk driving. So when all we have is anecdotes and vague interactions, I lean towards the lack of evidence of actual harm.

3 ms·

So your model is that 100% of the incidents that can cause harm will not cause harm? No matter how many cars they put on the road? Again, I'd ask you to back th

by wpietri 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> you're just handwaving away 100% of the evidence here The evidence is a collection of inconvenient interactions. No actual harm. Contrast that with Tesla: actual harm. In the absence of evidence of actual harm, I don’t see an argument for limiting scope. Hence actual, measured harm versus theoretical harm one would assume would manifest from the frequency of interactions.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Again, I want to see you explain why those "inconvenient interactions" will never add up to a safety problem, because all I'm seeing is handwaving. In my view, "inconveniencing" a firefighter in the middle of fighting a fire is a clear safety issue Your notion that you have to see blood before taking it seriously is pretty wild to me. In college I knew a guy who regularly drove drunk using pretty similar logic because he'd never had a problem.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    “Never add up” is a straw man. If your guy in college drunk driving were hundreds driving drunk every day for years on end, yes, I’d validly (if sceptically) question my priors if there hadn’t been any injuries nor serious property damage. Here, my priors are much softer than those for drunk driving. So when all we have is anecdotes and vague interactions, I lean towards the lack of evidence of actual harm.