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

  • 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.