4 ms·
This is why we can’t have nice things. If this had been the policy, we’d still be technologically in the 18th century.
by unsupp0rted 1y ago
This is why we can’t have nice things.
If this had been the policy, we’d still be technologically in the 18th century.
- bilekas 1y agoI'd argue the opposite.. For example in this case of they roll it out without tearing and something catastrophic happens. The faith in the tech will not be restored for generations, regardless of how much testing is done. Better to have these things working out the door straight away Instead of risking literal lives.
- unsupp0rted 1y agoWe just need some major wars or implacable ideological enemies to force us to test in prod. The biggest tech leaps happen there, because there’s no alternative.
- amelius 1y agoYes, putting everything in service of the fastest possible technological advancement is a pretty dumb idea.
- unsupp0rted 1y agoWhy? Would you rather be the world’s richest person in 1825 or lower middle class today? I like antibiotics, MRI, anesthetics during surgeries, unlimited information and entertainment, and the ability to travel places in less than 8 weeks and without getting tuberculosis along the way. Tech advancement has given the most people the most happiness, safety and prosperity. And it’s still barely a drop in the bucket compared to what is plainly visible already as the next level up.
- amelius 1y agoYou are presenting a false dichotomy. Better testing procedures will not put us back in 1825.
- unsupp0rted 1y agoWe didn't have better testing procedures and we got here. With better testing procedures, would we have gotten here sooner, in the same amount of time, or slower? My contention is slower. And this seems obvious, because in any Cold War sabotage handbook for slowing down a project, the first rule is to insist on more documentation, more consensus, more verification and validation: i.e. more "testing" and less "push to prod".
- maxerickson 1y agoOf course we tested our way here. Billions of dollars spent on research and development. You are also sort of begging the question. Better testing wouldn't be better if it was worse.
- TFYS 1y agoWe've caused a mass extinction, we're warming the planet at a dangerous rate, we've covered it with harmful long lasting chemicals that are now in the bloodstreams of most living things, we've damaged the mental health of youth with social media, etc. All this because we don't test and think about the consequences broadly enough, the most important (if not the only) question we ask being "will this be profitable for the owners?". If one of the things I mentioned doesn't cause our extinction, it's only a matter of time until one of our inventions does, if we don't consider the effects broadly enough before putting it in production at a large scale.
- rwmj 1y agoIt's how software in commercial planes works, and those seem to be doing fine.
- jajko 1y agoNot at all, few years, at most a decade behind. Don't you feel a decade ago we had a bit better life? Many people think so. What did we gain? Certainly not mature usable self-driving tech. Anyway giving a choice of bleeding tech or being slightly more conservative tech is something that is taken away by people like Musk. Maybe you prefer being such a choice-less 'slave' to the system and uber rich just to have some shiny new toy a bit earlier, most people don't and many systems consider it outright illegal. I don't get how tesla is not already sued in Europe for massive frauds they did and do on their customers. I'll happily buy electric car in future but hell will freeze sooner than my family sponsoring those nazi cars, competition is pretty good these days.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- amelius 1y agoWait, you want nice things that break all the time and kill people?
- adrr 1y agoAir travel is heavily regulated. They don’t do over the air updates on a weekly or biweekly cadence. Safest form of travel.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Air travel is heavily regulated It wasn’t while we were figuring it out. And we still have active greenfield development in military and experimental aircraft. It would make sense to freeze development once we figure out what works. But in the meantime we need an open field for the technology to develop, lest we become another Europe to China.
- ben_w 1y ago> If this had been the policy, we’d still be technologically in the 18th century. Health and safety, and public safety, are as much an innovation as anything else since then. The laws that say we need testing etc. come from the observable dangers of much of the tech of the 18th and 19th and 20th century. The rules that say we can't buy thorium toothpaste any more* and why car headlights and signal lights are mandatory, are written in blood — and you can witness the result of failing to adhere to such principles and winging it with stuff like the 2020 Beirut explosion, or even that the first Starship test flight covered a nearby city in dust from the destruction of the insufficient concrete launch pad. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doramad_Radioactive_Toothpaste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doramad_Radioactive_Toothpaste