Cruise recalls all self-driving cars after grisly accident and California ban | All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update::All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update

    • Baggins [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

      • raptir@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s equally ridiculous to say. Self driving cars just need to be better than people to be worth it, they just currently are not better than people.

        • Baggins [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s ridiculous to think that cars shouldn’t be killing people? Well smack my ass and call me an extremist.

          • raptir@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it’s ridiculous to say that if self driving cars kill fewer people than human driven cars but still more than zero that we should not use them. That’s like saying “why use seatbelts, they’re not 100% effective.”

                • Baggins [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m sorry to hear you’re having trouble with logic but it’s not complicated. Zero people should be killed by cars, therefore anything that gets us closer to that ideal number is a good thing.

          • wile_e8@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you calling for a ban on human driven cars? They killed more than zero people yesterday! If you aren’t, you’ve accepted a human-driven vehicular homicide rate above zero.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is more than zero. Anything that beats humans is a win. Getting to zero is unrealistic. Nothing has a zero risk of death.

        • Baggins [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the acceptable number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re shifting goal posts.

            What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

            Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the ideal number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

            Acceptable is different than ideal.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s true. But then you run into the issue of “The perfect being the enemy of the good.”

            • Baggins [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok ya pedantic fuck. I edited my comment just for you. I know English is hard to understand.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                But now you’re misusing “acceptable”.

                We would need to get to the other side of acceptable for widespread use of autos (self driving vehicles). It’s not an unachievable goal you always try to get closer to. That word is your previously used “ideal”. Which its seems now is what you meant with your original comment, instead of the “acceptable” you actually used.

                It’s not just pedantic. I’m not the only one who thought you said something you apparently now didn’t mean, because you used words you apparently don’t understand. The words you use are vital to your being understood.

                You could just humbly admit your original mistake in language, and nobody would give you a hard time.

                • Baggins [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m misusing “acceptable” because you think I mean something that I didn’t mean? Move along then.

                  • Steve@communick.news
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes! Exactly! And based on the vote counts I’m seeing 2/3 people misunderstood you. And when one is trying to explain something to another, if the other doesn’t understand, it can logically only be the fault of the person explaining.