You Get What You Pay For..

[Gee-pah]

News flash, people die. Nobody gets out alive. People also get injured, been that way since the dawn of man and will continue to be that way until the last one checks out. Hand wringing and agonizing over it doesn't change it, not one little bit. Life is dangerous. It's very liberating to be an adult and take these simple facts at face value. Do I try and go run down pedestrians, no. But if I had to choose between one and myself, sorry dude its not personal but your time is over. I have had both family members and friends die naturally and in some of the most horrific ways possible. I think of them no differently, their time was over. I may miss them and their companionship but I don't grieve, grief is wasted energy and it's pure negative energy. I simply choose to not let emotional angst over human mortality ruin what little time I have on this earth, i'm gonna squeeze that orange for every last drop of sweet juice until it falls from my own cold dead hand. Life is way too short to cry over anything that isn't extreme happiness. So yea, i'm the one who said I don't care about what happens outside of my vehicle, and I absolutely meant it. Those are my opinions and I certainly will not be bullied, shamed, or socially contracted out of them so save your breath (or keystrokes).

Jim: people die and get injured, no doubt. But less people end up with this fate (before old age kicks in, that is) than in times past due to what others describe as the over involvement of government (which yes, sometimes is the case) in technologies like crash absorbing body design, computers that supplement the distracted driving experience, air bags, safety belts, and the requirements to use the latter, etc. that I'm sure you're already aware of.

That it's going to happen, I trust you agree, is to not a call to sit back and just let it happen. I believe that to some extent I am somewhat a master of my destiny and would wear my safety belt even if law didn't mandate that I do. I agree though that despite this, it is not an anti-mortality guarantee and when my time is up, it's up--but I don't process all death (and grief BTW is important for most of us though I respect not for you--and not because you're callus or oblivious to the difference between death from old age and death from trauma ) the same, nor do I believe we as a whole should. The death that could have been saved by the minimal actions of man--maybe a motorcycle helmet in some cases--should motivate us when we get annoyed/mad, and not simply accept it, to effect change to, for example, mandate their use. And to all those crying the reduction in liberties, my answer is that if you want to forgo the helmet's use, certify to the State that must pay to maintain your coma vegetable status that might have been avoided if your wore said helmet, that you have previously acquired at your expense, the convalesce/palliative care insurance in the private marketplace to obviate the State (other tax payers) from paying the resulting medical bills from your more riskier life choices.

I agree with you that acceptance can be liberating. Knowing that I and those I care about will die someday not only makes their passing easier for me to process when it happens, but serves as motivation to live each day to the fullest and appreciate what I have while I have it.

Sponsored

 

[Gee-pah]

*******BRAKING NEWS ******
Antifa supporters advocate the use of all auto braking systems so that when they attack drivers in cars , the cars can not mow them down.

I trust the reference to braking versus breaking news was by design. : - )

 

[Yogi]

Since this IS on the topic of the thread, maybe we can get back to it.

What do you feel is "very very wrong" about that? Do you think future cars will be programmed to swerve, do you not think that swerving frequently results in more damage, or is there something different?

Just going by memory here since I don't have a lot of time ... a couple years ago there was an accident in Arizona involving a self driving vehicle (SDV) and a pedestrian. The pedestrian lost, even though she stepped immediately in front of the SDV, the car did have time to conclude it's calculations and choose a path. It was destined to hit the pedestrian, even though it applied all of the braking force it could muster.

According to Asimov's laws, the only law in question, in this case, is the first one " A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. ". The caveat being that in this case the SDV's prime motivator was its own occupants.

Back to the story. The SDV had made its calculations, and had elected to impact the pedestrian instead of maneuvering to avoid it as it is quite capable of doing. The reasons are simple...
1) The pedestrian in front of it was an object, not a human. SDVs and their computers cannot make that distinction ... yet.
2) In the oncoming lane was a bigger object. A class 8 truck travelling at speed (that means the speed limit, not speeding).

The algorithm simply said "In this unavoidable situation, in which we are going to hit something, chose the path of least resistance that is likely to cause the least damage to your occupants.".

 

[Strommen95]

..and I applaud you....but it's barring, for example, road or vehicular conditions (like disrepair you weren't nor could reasonably be aware of) that effect your ability to control situations via your driving skill, highly competent though I assume it to be....

Unfortunately the unexpected does occur and we are all prone to falling victims to it including myself. Driving defensively, obeying the speed limit and "aiming high" on the road mitigates that risk though.

My point is even with safety features being in almost every car nowadays I will still trust a good driver with zero features than a bad driver with every safety feature imaginable. Unfortunately there are more bad drivers on the road than good.

 

[mgroeger]

Yeah so here's what I don't get... A bug can fart on my windshield and send out a crack that looks like a tree root system but you run a Wrangler into a brick wall and everything on the front end EXCEPT the windshield is totaled... wth.

 

[nostatic]

Some people just happen to forget humans are prone to making mistakes. And no, not only because of making poor decisions, but because it is in our nature. We are wired to make mistakes, human error is 100% unavoidable and we try to mitigate it as much as we can.

I assure you all of you. The feeling of being in complete control is an absolute illusion. We make mistakes on a daily basis and a lot of times we arent even aware of them. Nobody can guarantee that they will never hit a pedestrian, that is arrogant, unrealistic, and honestly short minded.

Machines dont make mistakes we do. When a machine makes a mistake the underlying cause is a human error. Even when talking about A.I.

But the reality is. the facts are. When we program machines to do what we want, or when we properly train and test a machine learning algorithm to do what we need, we vastly reduce human error. Statistically, a machine will always do better and that is the reason why we rely so much on them. Self driving cars will eventually be much better drivers than all of us here.

Robots dont mess up. we do. At least robots are consistent.

100% agree that control is an illusion. Humans crave control but at the end of the day, nature wins. It's one reason conspiracy theories are so popular - the idea that a human meant to do something is more comforting that it just happened by random chance.

The problem with the terms "reality" and "facts" is that those are dependent on point of view. There is no absolute reality, and there really aren't a lot of facts outside pure math. Everything is relative. And if you delve into quantum mechanics then all bets are off

We're moving into an era where Machine Learning isn't limited by human error - the algorithms are modifying themselves based on training data. The human who set things into motion at some point has no idea why the algorithm is behaving in a certain way. While I suppose you could tie that back to some human "error", the chain of impact gets pretty tenuous.

No doubt self-driving cars will be safer. But that begs the question of what constitutes meaning to a human. Climbing Everest is clearly not safe - but thousands are driven to undertake that very action. End of the day it is always about balance, but different people weight things differently, hence the diversity of behaviors. One person's crazy is another person's meaningful.

 

[mgroeger]

b/c now EVERYONE has a vested interest in your, your sex life, your recreational activities, etc.

Dang it, I thought I took that video down.

 

[entropy]

The problem with the terms "reality" and "facts" is that those are dependent on point of view. There is no absolute reality, and there really aren't a lot of facts outside pure math. Everything is relative. And if you delve into quantum mechanics then all bets are off

As a data scientist myself, I can pinpoint exactly where and why a machine learning algorithm fails when it does. It is not entirely a black box. Yeah they train themselves, but we do rigorous testing for its intended use and statistics heavily come into play. Through understanding the machine learning algorithms you can understand its limits and downfalls and add complexity, or bias to the model as needed.

When they fail, it comes back to the designer, or not enough meaningful and proper testing. We are a lot more in control of the machine learning models we build than popular science and elon musk makes you think. Or are we .

 

[Toycrusher]

We are a lot more in control of the machine learning models we build than popular science and elon musk makes you think. Or are we .

Just ask Harold Finch!

 

[mwilk012]

If you hit a pedestrian that ends up in the morgue, you'll start caring very quickly.

nope

 

[Deleted member 53226]

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

― Ayn Rand

I suppose that is true . . . unless the individual's perceived rights endanger other people or infringe on their rights unfairly. For instance, I feel like I have a minority of one right to sit naked in a movie theater and yell at the screen while the movie plays. The other 200 people in the theater may disagree, and try to deny my individual right by calling the cops. So according to Rand, I guess they are in the wrong. Or does it just mean whatever rights somebody else has decided I deserve? That doesn't seem very nice at all.

Oh well, maybe I am getting too philosophical, which does happen after I have eaten my third or fourth Tide Pod.

Anyway, it's a decent quote I guess, but I still hate that guy. Such a douche.

 

[sf5211]

The comparison has no credibility.
if you rewatch the video the Mercedes is jettisoned into the edge of the “wall” and at the midpoint of the hood. Causing it to hit and bounce to the side.
The Jeep front is sent perfectly into the solid wall making it seem like it’ll handle a crash better..
I love my Jeep but that video is bulls**t.

 

[wibornz]

I understand the check thing, but in a different way. Last Black Friday sale, I was buying my wife some diamond earing. Get a Kohls card and save 15% + a 50% off coupon. No big deal was just going to pay for the dam ear rings, but hey, 15% was close to $300 dollars. Figured, get the card, walk over to customer service, pay the card off and cancel it. Yeah, with a 800+ credit score, and no real debt, they denied me a Kohl's card. I was like what the fuck, a 17 year old with no job can get a Kohl's card, but not this guy. Still can't figure that one out. now back to the regular broadcast.

 

[Shaved Ice]

When they fail, it comes back to the designer, or not enough meaningful and proper testing. We are a lot more in control of the machine learning models we build than popular science and elon musk makes you think. Or are we .

The only part of this that needs clarification, in my opinion, is that the “designer” isn’t a single entity. The machine’s design is influenced/controlled by input from the government and the organization’s shareholders. Both direct changes that can actually degrade a machine’s performance and ultimately cause it to fail sooner or more frequently.

 

[wibornz]

I think that many in this thread have made a huge jump of faith in what they believe vs reality. So my general observation, life is precious, well not all life, just yours. If all life was precious, we as a society would act completely different. We as a society do not act like life is precious. After all life is created in a brief moment. Some of you may take 9 seconds and others 30 minutes, but hey what ever.

Outside of law enforcement, military, firefighting and a few other professions, there are very few people in society that put their lives in second place. VERY FEW.

Everything in life is risk management. Some are comfortable with high levels of risk, others are crippled just by the mere thought of risk. Me I would drive a Wrangler without airbags and seatbelts over say a Volvo any day. Why because the top down and doors off with the sun shining and the wind in my face is living. Driving a Volvo is just existing. I would gladly knock ten years off my life for an adventure of a life time vs 10 more years sitting on the couch watching bullshit TV.

In the end of the Day, give me that Wrangler to drive, and pass that Benz to someone else. I need the top down and the doors off experience.

Sponsored