• exanime@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, I do mean literally your family. Not because I’m trying to be mean to you, I’m just trying to highlight you’d agree with a contract when you think the price does not apply to you… But in reality the price will apply to someone, whether they agree with the contract and enjoy the benefits or not

    It’s the exact same situation with real life with the plane manufacturers. They lobby the government to allow recalls not to be done immediately but instead on the regular maintenance of the planes. This is to save money but it literally means that some planes are put there with known defects that will not be addressed for months (or years, depending on the maintenance needed)

    Literally, people who’d never have a loved one in one of those flights decided that was acceptable to save money. They agreed, it’s ok to put your life at risk, statistically, because they want more money

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If there are 20k deaths vs 40k, my family is literally twice as safe on the road, why wouldn’t I take that deal?

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The proposition is stupid. If you told me that ALL future accidents will be prevented if I agree to kill my family, I would still not do it, that’s just a bad faith trolley problem. Let’s alone just recuding it by half.

          I reduced it to a more realistic experiment, where my family migth be killed, with the same probability as any other.

          • exanime@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The proposition is stupid.

            Oh the depth of reasoning in social media

            If you told me that ALL future accidents will be prevented if I agree to kill my family, I would still not do it

            That is exactly the point… Anyone would be 100% happy taking any proposition as long as they don’t have to pay the cost. I was just trying to highlight that

            In this case, it was all about liability… We have not even come close to prove the current driverless tech is actually better than people’s skills… We all know that automated driving should be safer but we have no clue if we are even taking the right steps.to get there

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              But I am paying the cost. I accept that my family might be killed in an accident, with the same probability as anyone else.

              If that’s your point, that a stupid point, and you should do better.

              • exanime@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Again if you are not willing to engage in a discussion where there is more nuance than black vs one, move along

                • Tja@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Blacknor white, as in “kill your family without consideration of probability (aka grey zones)”?

                  • exanime@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I’m tired of explaining what a thought experiment is and the point I was trying to discuss… You can just disagree and move on with our lives

                    Have a great week ahead bud