I don't really see what it has to do with fight club.
suppose car A and car B have autonomous driving that perform identically across a wide range of conditions. the manufacturer A enables FSD whenever the customer feels like it, but accepts no liability. manufacturer B accepts full liability for FSD use, but restricts it to situations where that's a good bet. car B is safer for the average customer, because it doesn't let them use FSD when it is especially risky. unless I understood a lot more about ML, CV, etc, I would pick car B every time.
Your comment is predicated on the assumption that FSD (the actual system installed in the car, not a future theoretical perfect system) is safer than the average driver in the situations where Mercedes currently disables it.
I'm not sure we have data to support that? We know Tesla's autopilot is safer on average, but most of those miles will have been driven in the situations where Mercedes allows it to be used.
We don't even know this (even if you restrict it to highway miles), since it's not an apples to apples comparison. General safety statistics include old cars with fewer safety features independent of who's driving the car.
I am saying such a scenario may possibly exist, not necessarily that it does exist.
Mercedes could be increasing the number of overall deaths by limiting the availability of the feature and still be reducing their liability for when the system is in use.
Let’s say with FSD on all the time that instead of 30,000 people a year dying that only 20,000 people a year die. Would a company accept the liability?
What if the death rate was 10,000? 1,000? 100?
If FSD could prevent 29,900 deaths a year but still see deadly failures 100 times a year, would a company say “I accept the liability”?
So you see, perhaps it’s crucial that companies not be able to be sued out of existence even if a few hundred people a year are dying in exceptional cases under their software, in order to prevent over a quarter million deaths and untold number of maimings every decade.
Also consider in this ethical and legal liability dilemma that these populations are not necessarily subsets, but could be disjoint populations.
Well, unless you are going to rebut the statement, I don't see the point.
If you are just basing your point of view on the widely reported Tesla crashes, you might want to look up some actual safety stats. Crashes of human-driven cars happen every day, and they're often fatal.
But as I pointed out, most Tesla autopilot use is presumably in "easy" conditions, which complicates comparisons.
You were responding to someone saying that Tesla’s autopilot is safer (based on crash stats per million miles), not FSD. FSD and autopilot are two different features.
Fair enough. I cannot believe those related are not in tight conversation considering the AI element of FSD (or am I mistaken there?).
Either way, in summary, I cannot trust FSD until it is 100% reliable (impossible) and the temporary situation for some time to come (regulated/supervised FSD) drains all the life out of what I enjoy, actual engaged driving! ...
The bits we don't enjoy (stop-start traffic and some motorway driving) have already been taken care off more than a decade ago.
I'd love the option of FSD but ... either FSD will never fully be realised, or will be adopted widely and there'll be some hold outs like me who actually enjoy their driving.
> The bits we don't enjoy (stop-start traffic and some motorway driving) have already been taken care off more than a decade ago.
Not really. You're referring to assistance features that require continuous driver attention. I think that highway driving, and perhaps even city driving in some parts of the world, could be completely automated to a level of safety that is far higher than humans can achieve.
I am deeply skeptical that we will ever see a system that can drive in all current road conditions though; I think it's more likely that road systems will eventually co-evolve with automated driving to a point that the automated systems simply never encounter the kind of emergent highly complex road situations that currently exist which they would be unable to handle.
I also enjoy driving, and my 40yo car doesn't even have a radio, let alone Autopilot, but I think it's likely that within our lifetimes, the kind of driving that you and I enjoy will be seen as a (probably expensive) hobby rather than something anyone does to get to work or the shops every day.
I think the majority of people enjoy driving. Driving is fun. Sure, traffic sucks, but the actual act of driving comes with lots of pleasures. Most people don’t seem eager to give up driving, nor are many people ready to hand over control to AI.
I’m a transportation planner, and for many years my specialty was bicyclist & pedestrian planning and safety. I would follow autonomous vehicle news, but always through that lens. In addition, I have sat through lectures, webinars, and sales pitches that tout our wonderful autonomous future. And lemme tell ya, there is little to no mention of all the road users who are not in vehicles. Countless renderings and animations that do no account for our most vulnerable users. It smells like mid-20th century transportation planning mentalities that is completely engineer-driven. Very narrow-focused and regressive.
My coworkers and I enjoyed sitting around and coming up with countless difficult-to-solve scenarios (that my tech friends would look at and say “eh, sounds interesting and solvable”) for AV developers to contend with. And despite pressure from our “future forward” marketing coworkers to focus on this sector, it feels nowhere close to really being ready (20-30 years maybe?).
Anyway, I do think the focus on “allowed in some places” is interesting. I have some trouble seeing “road systems will eventually co-evolve with automated driving” coming to fruition given the glacial pace of road system evolution.
I guess by "road systems will eventually co-evolve with automated driving" I would also include relatively minor interventions like increasing the proportion of controlled intersections, which are much easier for autonomous systems to deal with.
I have spent a lot of time in parts of Asia where massive evolution of transportation infrastructure has happened on a scale of a few decades (or less), so it seems less crazy to me that large-scale road evolution could happen along with autonomous vehicle development than it might seem to someone working in the West.
kids is a cool film, but not much of a cautionary tale. it's more like a 90s urban euphoria, in that the message is really more to adults: "this is what teenagers are actually doing right now".
what (imo) would make requiem for a dream really effective is that it shows the transition from the "honeymoon phase" of drug use to the "consequences phase" really well. I think this is the part that teenagers really don't understand (or at least I didn't). when you're starting out, it can seem like a lot of the anti-drug messaging is just fear mongering (and it is, to an extent). but most people that age don't yet have the perspective to distinguish between harmless fun and a slow motion crisis.
trainspotting is also great, and a bit more realistic than requiem for a dream. but if I had to pick one of the two to show to teens, I'd probably pick the former.
I dunno what discussions you are referring to specifically, but the mainstream belief is that all-out nuclear war would end in nuclear winter. I have seen some posts/articles recently contesting that, which are (quietly) supported by the scientific community. we don't know for sure that nuclear winter wouldn't happen, but the foundations of the original theory have come into question under the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
I don't really see a meaningful distinction between "end of the human race" and merely "end of civilization as we know it", but it's interesting to learn about the current debate among experts.
I think it's more dark humor / coping with death than a plan. if that were someone's serious plan, they would probably consider killing themselves if the bomb didn't do it for them.
Correct. Even if I survived the immediate blast effects, I think I would be in for a painful and unavoidable death from nuclear poisoning. I don't have a fallout shelter. The best I could do is close all my windows, but those would be shattered I'm sure. And seeing as I live in a 5-over-1, I think my building wouldn't survive anyway. The [normally reasonable] fire safety of these primarily-wood buildings depends on a functioning sprinkler system, which assumes municipal water still works. That won't be the case in a nuclear war.
The only realistic plan for this scenario is to leave before the war even starts.
first there's the philosophy itself and all the associated dogma and religious aspects. I found this pretty weird and not my cup of tea, but I have no problem with it existing and people adhering to it if it helps them.
then there's the community. thirteenth stepping aside, these are mostly people genuinely trying to help themselves and others. I noticed some odd things, like some AA meetings banning the mention of drug use (?) and the fact that people are often preaching total abstinence in between gulps of coffee and drags off a cigarette. but whatever, not a big deal. what was a big deal to me was the attitude some members take towards people who don't find success with the process. the big book is quite clear that it does not claim to have a solution for everyone, only one that worked for the writer. and yet I often heard some variation of "it works if you work it" if I voiced anything like this, the implication being that it would work for me too, if only I tried harder, surrendered more fully, etc. very toxic imo, not sure if all meetings are like this, but it was a persistent theme in the ones I went to.
but the biggest issue I have with AA is not the philosophy/organization/community, but its place in recovery in general. it's not just the default option; it's often the only one. you really have to dive deep to find any alternatives. even if you pay to see a psychiatrist or therapist, they will often just tell you to go to meetings, maybe prescribe some suboxone/naltrexone if you're lucky. rehabs (the ones that will take your insurance at least) are heavily based on the AA model. some of the lazier ones basically are just a series of AA meetings that you can't get away from. it sucks all the proverbial air out of the room. on top of all that, the relationship with ostensibly secular government (ie, court-ordered meeting attendance) is highly inappropriate.
this was a pretty negative comment, so I want to be clear that I do respect what you do. "free" and "works for some people, at least" is a pretty hard combo to beat when it comes to recovery. I don't want to pressure anyone to change something that helps them with such a serious problem. I do wish that, as a group, AA would just stay in its lane though. it should not have the relationship with government and medicine that it currently does.
Yes, your biggest issue with it is also my biggest issue with it. It holds this spot in the cultural consciousness as like, the only/best general-purpose addiction program when it absolutely is not that.
Judges and mental health professionals sending people to AA without specifically understanding its practices and how those will help that individual is terrible and I hate that it's as common as it is.
And speaking from within the US, a lot of the weird AA-isms I think are adaptions to our fucked up healthcare system and general attitudes towards personal agency and addiction. No one is picking people up off the streets and giving them top-notch medicalized in-patient addiction treatment you know? AA isn't ideal or even necessarily very good for a lot of things. But it is there and it is free, and no matter how fucked up your life is they won't turn you away. Can't really say that about many other treatment paradigms right now.
this is the sort of conversation that must be conducted very delicately, but it is something I have also wondered, having had similar experiences myself.
quite a few times I have experienced unwanted sexual advances/touching/groping in public spaces from women I considered friends, in front of our other friends. I don't consider those events traumatic, but certainly uncomfortable at the time. I never knew what to do, so I would just freeze and pretend it wasn't happening. once I actually went through with it and had sex with the person because I felt I had led her on by allowing her initial advances (dumb of me in hindsight).
perhaps one important difference is that I was physically stronger than every one of those people. I could have resisted, but didn't due to (possibly imagined) social pressure. like I said, I don't think there is any lasting trauma over these events; I think of them more as misunderstandings than assaults. but at the same time, all of these women were otherwise quite vocal about feminism, consent, etc. I wonder what they would have called it if I'd done the same things to them.
>this is the sort of conversation that must be conducted very delicately,
Only because of the context.
If this were a conversation behind closed doors you could say what you wanted, people could disagree and eventually mutual understanding of people's opinions could be reached despite initial clumsy or imprecise wording.
But this is an internet conversation where if you pick the wrong words, speak too broadly or fail carpet bomb every sentence with carve outs for exceptions and special cases some jerk will swoop in and post a low effort rebuttal for the easy karma and off the rails it goes from there.
opioids are a large class of drugs with widely varying effects and potential for abuse. for instance, the active ingredient in Imodium is an opioid, but you don't see a lot of recreational Imodium users.
kratom is certainly not a miracle herb, but its characteristics do make it a lot less addictive and lethal than its more popular relatives. it's not unreasonable to think it might be used in replacement therapy, similar to buprenorphine.
Using Imodium as an example really hurts your case here. Loperamide (Imodium's active ingredient) isn't used recreationally because it's not psychoactive - or more accurately, it doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier. Meanwhile, you'd be hard pressed to find an opioid which does (as kratom obviously does) that lacks recreational users.
that's exactly my point. maybe it wasn't worded well. "X is an opioid" does not imply "X is an extremely dangerous drug with high potential for addiction". not all opioids have psychoactive effects. some (eg, buprenorphine) do have psychoactive effects that are generally considered unpleasant by users. it's a large class of drugs...
Occasionally people with opioid addictions actually do use loperamide at high doses to stave off withdrawals. But it does not have the same effects as ones that cross the BBB, correct.
- kratom is certainly not a miracle herb, but its characteristics do make it a lot less addictive and lethal than its more popular relatives.
Yea, that's what you read online. But after going 2.5 months without sleep (I would doze off for half an hour once a twice per night), 4 months of acute depression, and umm like a year of PAWS, I beg to differ. If you're going off of personal experience, congrats, you didn't abuse it.
Someone already linked the quitting kratom subreddit where you can hear all kinds of horror stories.
Finally, comparing Kratom to traditional opiods isn't all that useful. Kratom has a shitload of other active alkaloids and very little research on their effects. Saying it's less addictive than other opiodis is like saying you'd rather get hit by a car going 60 vs 100.
Personally, I would have been much much better off if Kratom had been illegal, and I am amazed it still is.
I've only tried kratom a couple times, many years ago. I can see how someone like me could have a severe problem with it, but I didn't find it to be nearly as addictive (to me) as heroin. I knew someone, like you, who had withdrawal symptoms for a very long time after quitting. I've also known a couple of the mythical "chippers", who've used heroin/oxy/etc occasionally over the course of many years without becoming addicted.
humans can become addicted to pretty much anything that's enjoyable. some things are probably much more addictive than others, but you can't really create a strict ordering of addictive substances/activities when every individual responds differently. is kratom less addictive than heroin? I would guess yes. is it more addictive than alcohol? I don't know, probably yes for some, no for others.
it kinda depends. simply being high/tripping is not illegal in most places, but you can still be arrested for public intoxication if you make a scene or just appear very fucked up in the presence of a police officer. they are obligated to detain you if they judge you to be a danger to yourself (often happens with drunks). better hope you don't have any contraband on you if that happens.
a lot of people are overconfident in their ability to handle psychedelics. some people really are capable of maintaining a totally serene presence when they're tripping, but many don't realize just how weird they look to sober observers.
There are any number of principled reasons to oppose paying taxes to USA government, but "I'm rich and I can afford the lobbyists and tax attorneys to make the system work for me" is not among those.
The entire middle class already does pay a regular tax on their assets. We call it "property taxes". The groups who AREN'T taxed on the bulk of their assets are the poor (who have no assets) and the wealthy (whose assets aren't taxed).
a 2020 outback is considerably larger in every dimension than a 2000 outback and rides quite a bit higher. it's no more a station wagon than any other crossover.
Seems 1.4 inches higher for ground clearance between 2000 and 2019 models.
I guess eye of the beholder.
https://groundclearances.com/subaru-outback-ground-clearance...
2020 is 6 inches longer, and 4 inches wider.
8 inches higher overall. So yes bigger.
A 2000 outback is a (I'm going to stop just short of saying literally but I really want to) 1989 Legacy with redesigned cosmetic body panels, interior and some extra supported welded into places you can't see.
You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the stripped shells without looking at the head/tail light opening shaped. The pile of drive-train parts is more or less identical save a 5-gal bucket of minor stuff
suppose car A and car B have autonomous driving that perform identically across a wide range of conditions. the manufacturer A enables FSD whenever the customer feels like it, but accepts no liability. manufacturer B accepts full liability for FSD use, but restricts it to situations where that's a good bet. car B is safer for the average customer, because it doesn't let them use FSD when it is especially risky. unless I understood a lot more about ML, CV, etc, I would pick car B every time.