JoshCole

55 ms·

421.
by JoshCole 8y ago
You're question about this technology mistakes the fear for the thing prompting the fear. Picture someone saying that you need to slow down while driving toward an area. The request to slow down isn't mitigated just because there
422.
by JoshCole 8y ago
In going cash-only, you lose access to credit lines, because credit lines require established credit. For a lot of people, a lack of a credit line means they will not be able to get a house or car. As a direct result of this, someone intere
423.
by JoshCole 8y ago
You're projecting that the projected future upside isn't superhuman. My comment projects that it is. We disagree on projected benefits. Right now human driving is one of the leading causes of death. I believe that technology can e
424.
by JoshCole 8y ago
No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential. You quoted text in which I explicitly acknowledge the danger of updates. Read it. Also, read further down where I explicitly ask that I not be taken the
425.
by JoshCole 8y ago
> That is because you are overly generous with assumptions to justify their claims, which is typical of people who are apologetic of fraudulent entities such as Musk. No, I actually conceded. I gave up the generous assumptions on safety,
426.
by JoshCole 8y ago
You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted. In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potenti
427.
by JoshCole 8y ago
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116969_tesla-model-3-e... An ad hominess attack doesn't not trump evidence. My claim is true. The above article talks about an example of an update which improved the safety o
428.
by JoshCole 8y ago
You clearly don't know what deduce means. You've also clearly haven't understood anything I've said during this entire conversation. Or even much of what you've said, since you don't seem to realize you've
429.
by JoshCole 8y ago
> I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). In citing their documentation, you acknowledge that there communication is enough to deduce the
430.
by JoshCole 8y ago
This comic kind of captures what you two are getting at, though I think you are applying the idea a little more generally. https://xkcd.com/1138/
431.
by JoshCole 8y ago
I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every upda
432.
by JoshCole 8y ago
> I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR.
433.
by JoshCole 8y ago
> There is not enough data to do this "scaling up". So doing so would be incredibly misleading (But doesn't stop tesla's PR from doing the same). There are tens of thousands of Tesla vehicles on the road, many of whic
434.
by JoshCole 8y ago
There haven't even been five deaths yet in the entire history of Tesla autopilot car accidents, but there are more than three thousand deaths a day due to car accidents. Tesla's safety record actually is such that if scaled up, th
435.
by JoshCole 8y ago
The article does address the question, but I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. Let me give an example of what I mean by that. Let's say a person swallows poisons. The poison is going to kill them if it stays inside
436.
by JoshCole 8y ago
When I hear open source maintainers talk about their woes, it tends to be that they are a single person and their are many people who try to contribute who think they are offering great things, but who are in fact just giving them shit that
437.
by JoshCole 8y ago
Your intuition that the existence of more than one bad things means that people can't solve other bad things is exceedingly wrong. It flies in the face of the fact that humans regularly tackle more than one issue at a time. Also, its n
438.
by JoshCole 8y ago
Noted, I see the distinction you're pointing out. The marketing is different from the technology itself.
439.
by JoshCole 8y ago
What I was hoping to show was that there are things where the property of causing deaths doesn't mean that the thing itself was a bad idea. Water is an example of that. Going without water is fatal. Getting water can be fatal. It would
440.
by JoshCole 8y ago
I totally agree with you and share your confusion. On the topic of the different algorithmic approaches, I find it so fascinating how different these two approaches actually end up looking when analyzed by a professional commentator. When y
441.
by JoshCole 8y ago
It's also directly prevented a number of deaths. The same is true of the consumption of water. However, I can count the number of deaths caused by Tesla on one hand, but I cannot count the number of deaths caused by the consumption of
442.
by JoshCole 8y ago
A quick google search puts the average number of deaths due to car crashes at 3,287 per day [1]. Another one gives me a list of four deaths attributed to autonomous vehicles [2]. Not four per day. Just four. Ever. Memory leads me to recall
443.
by JoshCole 8y ago
Yes, I'm suggesting an equivalence. The reason that fallacies exist is because there is underlying structure to arguments. For some arguments, its possible for every statement within the argument to be true, but for the conclusion to b
444.
by JoshCole 8y ago
Bombs hit Syria vs bombs intercepted. Gassing by Syria vs false flag by Britain. Clearly, we do run into situations where multiple sets of facts are put forward. So fake news is not a ridiculous thing that never happens. Suggesting that it
445.
by JoshCole 8y ago
I know. I'm pointing out why this is a bad thing, because most people who advocate for better mobile support on Hacker News don't see themselves as advocating for a reduction in the quality of discussion and a reduction in the dep
446.
by JoshCole 8y ago
One thing that I think most people don't consider often is that making things more usable isn't always good. Medium and message are interlinked. If everyone in the world switched to mobile, it would change the content of the artic
447.
by JoshCole 8y ago
The same could be said of the term graphene, transistor, computer, genetics, probability distribution, bayesian, nueron, electricity, and millions of other words. We can't learn much from the lack of their use, because the lack of thei
448.
by JoshCole 8y ago
You're conflating the analogy with what the analogy was about. They didn't say that ten years of browser history was needed for automatic login. Privacy and usability actually are orthogonal, as the cookie and login issue shows. Y
449.
by JoshCole 9y ago
It's not a lie. You're just distorting the idiom.
450.
by JoshCole 9y ago
Dating offline can be one of the most frightening euphoric experiences a person will ever have even if the result of an attempted approach is rejection. I remember asking a girl out for the first time. It was nothing like swiping right a fe

More ›