3 ms·

> So would I pay the money for it? Fear on this level seems like a pretty poor use of $12,000 or $199 a month. You can rent a horror movie for $2.99, and paying

by tr3ntg 3y ago

> So would I pay the money for it? Fear on this level seems like a pretty poor use of $12,000 or $199 a month. You can rent a horror movie for $2.99, and paying attention to America is free. I like the way the author writes this. Interesting to hear unfiltered thoughts from a first-time user of the software.

jstummbillig 3y ago
Something this (unironically) comedic is probably far from "unfiltered". Fun read though!
ajross 3y ago
To be clear: the author wrote it because they knew you'd like it, and interpret their florid prose as "unfiltered". The rest of us using boring English to tell you that it's been driving us around for almost two years now don't get the same kind of click traffic. Meh. Believe what you want; read what you want; fear what you want. Whether it "works" or not is a question susceptible to factual analysis, not vocabulary.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Actually, articles like this can kneecap the service using regulatory pressure if enough people don’t want to even wait for “factual analysis” since that’s actual human lives on the line. HN talks a lot about “we need FDA to preemptively block chemicals that seem like they’d be dangerous”. This is the logical extension of that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
klooney 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
porphyra 3y ago
It is a hilarious way of writing but it is quite common to find people who are fearful of new technology. In the 1890s I'm sure that people fearful of motor vehicles would consider it a "pretty poor use of money" to buy a "horseless carriage".
- amenod 3y ago
  It seems that OP isn't so much fearful of new technology as they are fearful of dying (and killing others).
  - porphyra 3y ago
    Sure and people fearful of horseless carriages in the 1890s are rightfully fearful of dying since: * horseless carriages won't avoid running into things whereas horses can see and instinctively won't run into a wall * the greater speed of horseless carriages in the 1890s without modern safety infrastructure like signs and traffic lights does greatly increase the risk of injury
    - amenod 3y ago
      Not sure what the point is here? My point is that OP is not afraid of new tech per-se, but instead doesn't like where it is now and finds it dangerous. I'm sure in time the technology will evolve and there won't be a new car on the road that wouldn't support FSD - just like it did with "horseless carriages". It will take some more time though and not all companies will be equally advanced. From what I've heard (from other sources too) I wouldn't want to be driven by a Tesla FSD at the moment. > * horseless carriages won't avoid running into things whereas horses can see and instinctively won't run into a wall Off topic, but interesting - if you think about it, we actually already had mostly-FSD in the 1890s. It just ate a whole lot of grass.
      - porphyra 3y ago
        My point is that OP's post which espouses a common fear, even if it may be justified for some, is not really interesting. I don't want to gatekeep HN, but personally I do not enjoy this type of content. A secondary implied point is that new technologies which may seem dangerous can still be safe and useful when used properly, such as driving horseless carriages carefully in the 1890s or using FSD (Supervised) with proper supervision as directed.

by tr3ntg 3y ago

jstummbillig 3y ago

Something this (unironically) comedic is probably far from "unfiltered". Fun read though!

ajross 3y ago

To be clear: the author wrote it because they knew you'd like it, and interpret their florid prose as "unfiltered". The rest of us using boring English to tell you that it's been driving us around for almost two years now don't get the same kind of click traffic. Meh. Believe what you want; read what you want; fear what you want. Whether it "works" or not is a question susceptible to factual analysis, not vocabulary.

aaomidi 3y ago
Actually, articles like this can kneecap the service using regulatory pressure if enough people don’t want to even wait for “factual analysis” since that’s actual human lives on the line. HN talks a lot about “we need FDA to preemptively block chemicals that seem like they’d be dangerous”. This is the logical extension of that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

klooney 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

porphyra 3y ago

It is a hilarious way of writing but it is quite common to find people who are fearful of new technology. In the 1890s I'm sure that people fearful of motor vehicles would consider it a "pretty poor use of money" to buy a "horseless carriage".

amenod 3y ago
It seems that OP isn't so much fearful of new technology as they are fearful of dying (and killing others).
- porphyra 3y ago
  Sure and people fearful of horseless carriages in the 1890s are rightfully fearful of dying since: * horseless carriages won't avoid running into things whereas horses can see and instinctively won't run into a wall * the greater speed of horseless carriages in the 1890s without modern safety infrastructure like signs and traffic lights does greatly increase the risk of injury
  - amenod 3y ago
    Not sure what the point is here? My point is that OP is not afraid of new tech per-se, but instead doesn't like where it is now and finds it dangerous. I'm sure in time the technology will evolve and there won't be a new car on the road that wouldn't support FSD - just like it did with "horseless carriages". It will take some more time though and not all companies will be equally advanced. From what I've heard (from other sources too) I wouldn't want to be driven by a Tesla FSD at the moment. > * horseless carriages won't avoid running into things whereas horses can see and instinctively won't run into a wall Off topic, but interesting - if you think about it, we actually already had mostly-FSD in the 1890s. It just ate a whole lot of grass.
    - porphyra 3y ago
      My point is that OP's post which espouses a common fear, even if it may be justified for some, is not really interesting. I don't want to gatekeep HN, but personally I do not enjoy this type of content. A secondary implied point is that new technologies which may seem dangerous can still be safe and useful when used properly, such as driving horseless carriages carefully in the 1890s or using FSD (Supervised) with proper supervision as directed.