3 ms·

Your initial claim: >So it's obvious to me that increasing safety and througput at the same time is very plausible. Your current claim: >I'm not making any suc

Your initial claim: >So it's obvious to me that increasing safety and througput at the same time is very plausible. Your current claim: >I'm not making any such assumptions If you don't make any assumption how can you even say that something is 'very plausible'? Based on what exactly then? Gut feeling? If so then it's not 'plausible', it's just your gut feeling dressed in nice wording

andrewflnr 3y ago
> check my phrasing more carefully "plausible" is not nearly as definite as "safety obviously comes at a cost of throughput", and is furthermore not a statement about causality, but a claim that improving safety and througput don't immediately rule each other out; a contradiction needs a strong proof, since so many things that appear contradictory turn out to be compatible with enough imagination. Absent that proof, compatibility is plausible. But sure, maybe I should have put air quotes around "obvious", since there's no real obvious correct conclusions here. "Just your gut feeling dressed in nice wording" is another great way to describe your initial claim about roundabouts, too, which was my main point to start with.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  I provided reasons why I think throughput would be affected, such as the fact that roundabout is a curved road explicitly designed to slow traffic down. With slowed down traffic approaching from all directions it is reasonable, hence plausible, to assume that the throughput would be negatively affected. You instead just reply with some sophistry and don't bring any arguments grounded in reality. Especially your statement, that 'absent that proof, compatibility is plausible' just highlights that you don't even know what 'plausible' actually means because something can't be plausible by default, without any reasoning or facts backing it up
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    I note you've moved the goalposts from "obvious" causality to "reasonable, therefore plausible" causality. Still, I continue to find your attempt at "grounding" unconvincing. The mere fact that cars must slow for a roundabout does not automatically make it lower throughput than one where they have to actually stop for some unspecified interval. Speaking of specification, if I was trying to be grounded, I would assume that which system has higher throughput depends on the implementation details and situation, notably the timing of the lights and how much traffic is naturally on the given road. Details matter. You've been attempting to make generalizations irrespective of any of those details, and I'm saying they're not justified, or at best need much stronger evidence. But sure, I'm the sophist here. I'd ask you for "facts" to back up your claim, but you've already walked it back, so I guess I'm done.

andrewflnr 3y ago

> check my phrasing more carefully "plausible" is not nearly as definite as "safety obviously comes at a cost of throughput", and is furthermore not a statement about causality, but a claim that improving safety and througput don't immediately rule each other out; a contradiction needs a strong proof, since so many things that appear contradictory turn out to be compatible with enough imagination. Absent that proof, compatibility is plausible. But sure, maybe I should have put air quotes around "obvious", since there's no real obvious correct conclusions here. "Just your gut feeling dressed in nice wording" is another great way to describe your initial claim about roundabouts, too, which was my main point to start with.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
I provided reasons why I think throughput would be affected, such as the fact that roundabout is a curved road explicitly designed to slow traffic down. With slowed down traffic approaching from all directions it is reasonable, hence plausible, to assume that the throughput would be negatively affected. You instead just reply with some sophistry and don't bring any arguments grounded in reality. Especially your statement, that 'absent that proof, compatibility is plausible' just highlights that you don't even know what 'plausible' actually means because something can't be plausible by default, without any reasoning or facts backing it up
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  I note you've moved the goalposts from "obvious" causality to "reasonable, therefore plausible" causality. Still, I continue to find your attempt at "grounding" unconvincing. The mere fact that cars must slow for a roundabout does not automatically make it lower throughput than one where they have to actually stop for some unspecified interval. Speaking of specification, if I was trying to be grounded, I would assume that which system has higher throughput depends on the implementation details and situation, notably the timing of the lights and how much traffic is naturally on the given road. Details matter. You've been attempting to make generalizations irrespective of any of those details, and I'm saying they're not justified, or at best need much stronger evidence. But sure, I'm the sophist here. I'd ask you for "facts" to back up your claim, but you've already walked it back, so I guess I'm done.