4 ms·
I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me
by vivekd 3y ago
I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me as qualifing as "true" any statement that says "the law requires a kill switch." This also applies for good laws requiring a kill switch.
I think your statement "up in arms" suggests the conclusion, these fact checkers are rating it as false because they are not in arms about the law. But being up in arms is not relevant to whether a statement is true or false.
I think if the fact checkers were being genuine, they would rate it as true and give an explanation about the benefits of the law
- Aurornis 3y ago> I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure I’m curious: Do you also think that automakers can produce good drunk driver detection and ship it in a couple years? Are you willing to have a car that some times false positive flags you as drunk and shuts down? Or are you assuming the technology is so perfect that it can’t possibly ever apply to you?
- vivekd 3y agowell all tech is imperfect, you can't have perfect tech or anything that works 100% of the time. The question is what is the false positive rate. If getting a false positive or break in the tech once a year or less dramatically reduces drunk driving, it's worth it to me. We already have sensors that help cars release less pollutants which can sometimes fail and cause the car not to drive properly. I don't see why this tech should be treated any different