Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)J

jsomae

@ jsomae @lemmy.ml

Posts
2
Comments
497
Joined
2 yr. ago

polite leftists make more leftists

☞ 🇨🇦 (it's a bit of a fixer-upper eh) ☜

more leftists make revolution

  • Apparently a right-wing deacon said this

    Jump

  • "apparently a right-wing [person] said this" is low-quality content, gets my downvote. Such an unspecific comment serves only to outgroup people.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • If he's gay, for sure no problem

  • Why dating is hard

    Jump

  • Every single one of those girls is clearly an arrowhead-repeller. (Men have it so easy.)

  • One in five Americans want their state to join Canada amid escalating trade war: poll

    Jump

  • I think CA probably wouldn't vote to join Canada. But Washington state might.

  • One in five Americans want their state to join Canada amid escalating trade war: poll

    Jump

  • If Trump wants us to have a referendum on joining the U.S. as the 51st state, we should ask him in return for a binding referendum in any one state of our choice on joining Canada. Which state should we choose?

  • After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers

    Jump

  • I don't know anything about how autonomous vehicles work. As far as humans doing unusual things, well assuming the human driver only steers the wheel and controls the gas and breaks, it should be possible with existing technology to avoid crashing into them at least as well as any human can. So that leaves really unusual things, like the human hopping out of their car in the middle of an intersection, as the high-hanging fruit to model. I would imagine for most of these really strange cases, even if the autonomous vehicle can't understand what's happening, they can at least realize that something strange is happening and then pull over.

    Obviously there will be truly unusual situations that cause fatal collisions. So long as that is at a lower rate, then what's the safety concern?

    Safety is a red herring IMO, as better code can fix it. There are much worse potential problems that autonomous vehicles will cause than rare collisions. NotJustBikes has a lot of points I'd never considered before in the second half of this video. (The first half, though, I found aggravating; it's just about solvable safety risks.)

  • After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers

    Jump

  • Ah. Sorry. There are some truly braindead takes on autonomous vehicles so I couldn't tell that apart from what some people have said earnestly. My bad. 👍

  • After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers

    Jump

  • Okay, I'm sorry. Let me clarify how it's easy to account for the kind of bias you're talking about. Simply divide by the population count. So, they divided the waymo crash count by the number of waymos, and the human crash count by the number of humans. This gives the waymo crash rate and the human crash rate. (In reality, it's a bit more complicated, since the human crash rate is calculated independently each year.)

  • After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers

    Jump

  • They accounted for that in this report. I believe you are a troll.

  • After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers

    Jump

  • it's hard to change humans. It's easy to roll out a firmware update.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • is this a reference to something

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • and women

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Yeah, it's a different implementation. One has an escape hatch for the wealthy; the other doesn't.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I don't really see a strong difference ultimately between "heavily disincentivizing" and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it's eugenics, it's probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.

    Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it's not needed, since the birth rate is so low.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • What do you mean? What did I get wrong?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Why is that surprising?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • This argument applies just as well to libertarians who oppose "regulation." There are some truly insane libertarians who want all regulation gone, but a lot of people who say they are opposed to "regulation" really mean that they want to add more barriers to adding regulation, and repeal some known-to-be-problematic regulations. I'm sure that when this person says "ethics" is holding back scientific progress, he means the latter. To assert he just means getting rid of "ethics" entirely is absurd. There is only so much detail you can put in a tweet.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • "Illegal experiments on babies" is a user-provided note, and is not really an accurate label. For one thing, no experiments were done on babies.

    Another thing -- unlike "murder," there is a gradient of what constitutes an "illegal experiment." The phrase "illegal experiments on babies" sounds terrible, but if you imagine a volume dial on this crime, one could lower it until one finds the minimum violation possible which could technically be described as an "illegal experiment" -- for instance, flicking a baby with your index finger to check its reflexes. So it should not be of any surprise that there are such things as "illegal experiments" which are so mild as to warrant just 3 years in prison.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Then why isn't the speed limit 0 everywhere? Speed limits are a balance between two opposing concerns.

    In this case, ethics is holding back life-saving treatments. Ethics boards should approve gene editing more than they currently do.