3 ms·

But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are argum

But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are arguments to be made for a standard that uses heuristics to detect impaired driving for sure. Its harder to make the case if theres like a homomorphic data situation going on where your car can 1) use data and processi locally to detect potential impaired driving, 2) it stipulates loss of function in terms of abillity to further drive (pulls you over) in exchange for eliminating the potentialitt for crime, damage, and criminal chsrging process. Its a goddamn loss of time, energy, and life to still have this problem. A car should not need to necessarily measure your BAC as evinced by breath to detect you're driving like a maniac and maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). The criminal aspect is bullshit because yes its a fucked up thing but people who are impaired are not thinking clearly or able to consent to committing a criminal act in th same way they can't consent to something as simple and hands-off (no pun intended) as being sexually fucked and still be considered to have had the agency to have been lawfully able to consent to that in the first place. It really makes zero sense: 1) simple thing: receiving sexual intercourse 2) complex thing: driving car You can do both these things drunk but your only assumed to have lacked agency in #1. Makes no sense to me, you're almost guranteed to fuck (up) your car [car non-consensually] if not yourself as the end result lol EDIT: i'd appreciate if any lawyer or legal person or someone you know could critique this rationale and discuss how/why it is or isnt cogent and elaborate on the extent to which it could even be theoretically implemented, even [GASP?!] if it costs us all a lil bit of money/taxes/legislation to get us to that point in legal dtae of affairs

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
marcus_holmes 3y ago
Love the analogy ;) But yes, if your condom could detect if your partner had an elevated blood/alcohol level and requested them to confirm that they consented to the sexual act, would it be the same? And would it be useful, or would it just elevate the stats of condom-less rape? In the same vein; if you could rip out the processor of your car because it refused to drive because it thought you were drunk, would it increase safety or reduce it?
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  But to me, thats the real criminal offense. Who would do that drunk if it was basically impossible in the sense it is part ofthe car in a non-central way where there's like bot one discrete part you can remove to dismantle it? If you were sober and took the time to criminally alter your car in the same way (but criminal) you cant have totalky tinted windowsand must have catalytic converter, i think basically everyone can agree you're prolly a piece of shit who needs judicial intervention
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    I can pretty easily imagine a scenario where this (ripping the processor out of the car) would be the right thing to do... let's say me and a bunch of friend get drunk in the middle of nowhere, one of us is injured and is going to bleed out, so the choice is to drive drunk to the hospital or let my friend bleed out. I'm going to drive drunk, and if that involves ripping out the processor that won't let me start the car because I'm drunk, I'm doing that. I get where you're coming from, but I think the blanket application of fixed rules with no consideration of context is pretty much always wrong.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Rapextfully thats a ridiculous contrived example that internally doesnt even make sense. Alm that time spent on reverse engineering while you're drunk can be spent accepting your current reality and calling an expensed taxi ride home. Society will gladly pick up the tab now for a $20 ride to save itself $20,000 in legal costs just on its own side not to mention if you appeal and all the other stuff
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Disregard please, see next to it
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      I guess you could have a centralized removeable unit that costs a fuck ton to replace and jacks your insurance rate up once it auto-alerts them when you've removed it. If you can prove exigent circumstances than its replaced for a smaller cost or free and your rates are ok but I don't see what insurance company is ever gonna be sitting pretty knowing you now have a history of removing the anti-drunk-driving enforcement mechanism and that you must have logically been dabbling or moonlighting in drunk driving :/
ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
In case (1) you are the victim. The rapist bears responsibility for what they did to you knowing your mental state. In case (2) you are the offender. In your sober state, you're expected to know your limits. While sober, you had a chance not to take the action (i.e. taking the first drink) that eventually resulted in you losing your faculties and hurting innocent people, yet you did anyway. That makes you responsible.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  And I'm sure all the analogue-no heuristics/moralistic crusade crowd will feel the same way once they realize they blocked the suggestion that could have prevented their dead loved one (regardless of perp/victim status). I might be mixing up the points here and implementationetc but its asinine we dont just find a way that is the last invasive to prevent instead of waiting for destruction and the PUNISHING the CULPABLE OFFENDER. Why should the law and traffic policy be so reactive as opposed to enlightened and as privacy respecting as possible proactive in nipping the issue in bud. To say nothing of all the criminal cases that are fundentalh the stand in for treatment that as a society we both shame people in seeking before the fact and refuse to offer same and also after the fact when its wayyyy too fucking late (sorry for swearing but its passion) and that there exists enough technically-based or mental health related defenses to so as to render the process in my view a giant joke and waste of time
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Can I ask how you feel about the larger proposition/regime I'm suggesting? Do you feel criminal trials are the best forum to dea with impaired drivingor or should we maybe update the social contract and traffic policy/car manufacturing etc so we can move on to more practical interventions that stop it before it "happens" (please don't nitpick about "well u already are guilty cuz u started the car", like just answer rhe darn question with as much good faith as it was asked ny me which is completely in)
  - ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
    Sorry but I disagree. > maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). My own property should hold me hostage on the side of some random street if a pothole causes a false positive for drunk driving in some inscrutable algorithm? Not in a million years. Don't punish me for other people's failings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_Drunk_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_D... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

marcus_holmes 3y ago

Love the analogy ;) But yes, if your condom could detect if your partner had an elevated blood/alcohol level and requested them to confirm that they consented to the sexual act, would it be the same? And would it be useful, or would it just elevate the stats of condom-less rape? In the same vein; if you could rip out the processor of your car because it refused to drive because it thought you were drunk, would it increase safety or reduce it?

Obscurity4340 3y ago
But to me, thats the real criminal offense. Who would do that drunk if it was basically impossible in the sense it is part ofthe car in a non-central way where there's like bot one discrete part you can remove to dismantle it? If you were sober and took the time to criminally alter your car in the same way (but criminal) you cant have totalky tinted windowsand must have catalytic converter, i think basically everyone can agree you're prolly a piece of shit who needs judicial intervention
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  I can pretty easily imagine a scenario where this (ripping the processor out of the car) would be the right thing to do... let's say me and a bunch of friend get drunk in the middle of nowhere, one of us is injured and is going to bleed out, so the choice is to drive drunk to the hospital or let my friend bleed out. I'm going to drive drunk, and if that involves ripping out the processor that won't let me start the car because I'm drunk, I'm doing that. I get where you're coming from, but I think the blanket application of fixed rules with no consideration of context is pretty much always wrong.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Rapextfully thats a ridiculous contrived example that internally doesnt even make sense. Alm that time spent on reverse engineering while you're drunk can be spent accepting your current reality and calling an expensed taxi ride home. Society will gladly pick up the tab now for a $20 ride to save itself $20,000 in legal costs just on its own side not to mention if you appeal and all the other stuff
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Disregard please, see next to it
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I guess you could have a centralized removeable unit that costs a fuck ton to replace and jacks your insurance rate up once it auto-alerts them when you've removed it. If you can prove exigent circumstances than its replaced for a smaller cost or free and your rates are ok but I don't see what insurance company is ever gonna be sitting pretty knowing you now have a history of removing the anti-drunk-driving enforcement mechanism and that you must have logically been dabbling or moonlighting in drunk driving :/

ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago

In case (1) you are the victim. The rapist bears responsibility for what they did to you knowing your mental state. In case (2) you are the offender. In your sober state, you're expected to know your limits. While sober, you had a chance not to take the action (i.e. taking the first drink) that eventually resulted in you losing your faculties and hurting innocent people, yet you did anyway. That makes you responsible.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
And I'm sure all the analogue-no heuristics/moralistic crusade crowd will feel the same way once they realize they blocked the suggestion that could have prevented their dead loved one (regardless of perp/victim status). I might be mixing up the points here and implementationetc but its asinine we dont just find a way that is the last invasive to prevent instead of waiting for destruction and the PUNISHING the CULPABLE OFFENDER. Why should the law and traffic policy be so reactive as opposed to enlightened and as privacy respecting as possible proactive in nipping the issue in bud. To say nothing of all the criminal cases that are fundentalh the stand in for treatment that as a society we both shame people in seeking before the fact and refuse to offer same and also after the fact when its wayyyy too fucking late (sorry for swearing but its passion) and that there exists enough technically-based or mental health related defenses to so as to render the process in my view a giant joke and waste of time
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Can I ask how you feel about the larger proposition/regime I'm suggesting? Do you feel criminal trials are the best forum to dea with impaired drivingor or should we maybe update the social contract and traffic policy/car manufacturing etc so we can move on to more practical interventions that stop it before it "happens" (please don't nitpick about "well u already are guilty cuz u started the car", like just answer rhe darn question with as much good faith as it was asked ny me which is completely in)
- ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
  Sorry but I disagree. > maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). My own property should hold me hostage on the side of some random street if a pothole causes a false positive for drunk driving in some inscrutable algorithm? Not in a million years. Don't punish me for other people's failings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_Drunk_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_D... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8