3 ms·

Personally I’m not very keen on owning a vehicle the manufacturer can completely brick at will

• stevenjgarner 10mo ago
  So liberty then. I don't disagree with you, but this modern flashpoint in the classic debate between individual liberty and collective safety does bring up the question what is saving 50,000+ lives annually actually worth in terms of loss of personal freedoms? I am personally struggling with this debate having lost loved ones in this manner.
  • direwolf20 10mo ago
    Remote bricking of cars does not save 50,000 lives.
    • stevenjgarner 10mo ago
      That is not the argument being made. We are discussing how "dumb" vehicles (e.g. vehicles that contribute to 50,000+ fatalities annually) provide independence, privacy and freedom that "smart" vehicles (e.g. vehicles with self-driving that can be bricked at will) do not ensure.
      • dotancohen 10mo ago
        That actually is exactly the argument. GP posted about liberty concerns, he was met with claims of saving 50,000 lives.
      • mixmastamyk 10mo ago
        Also you are conflating thing the poster may not have intended. I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc. But spying packages, and touchscreen dash, hell no.
        • vel0city 10mo ago
          > I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc I hear people on this site complain about these things all the time.
          • mixmastamyk 10mo ago
            I’m sure it’s happened in the history of the world, but otherwise approaching zero.