That’s not whataboutism - I’m saying it’s the job of elected government to make exactly these determinations even when actual lives hang in the balance, and in fact many thousands of regulations make these sorts of risk/reward trade offs in all sorts of ways in our daily lives. Most of them are in fact significantly more risky than allowing self-driving cars on the road in return for significantly less potential reward.

My point is primarily that the claim like “I didn’t consent to share the road with this nascent technology” — as if that means the technology should not be allowed — is not actually how our society functions. We don’t actually get to veto technology that minutely increases our risk of injury when we venture out in the world.

I’m surprised to see your ad hominem attacks and accusation of shilling. You’re relatively new here so please allow me point out that kind of response is against HN guidelines.