Yet, new versions of Tesla Autopilot hit the road every week, and the public is used as beta-testers.
And to be honest, I agree. It's a tough balance to consider, and the death of any individual is going to be weighed much more heavily by their nearest and dearest than it will be for a dispassionate observer, but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified.
I don't think anyone has decided anything of the sort. If I shoplift from a store and I'm not stopped, that doesn't mean that "we" have decided that my theft is okay. It just means that I haven't got caught, or that the system isn't sufficient to hold me accountable, or that there isn't enough evidence to present a damning case against me just yet.
> but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified.
There's absolutely no evidence that Tesla's rushed and untested beta product is helping the "advancement of humanity" versus better designed and controlled research by organizations like Waymo.
The only evidence of FSD's "advancement" I see is the advancement of Tesla's profits. FSD serves as a vehicle for interest-free loans to Tesla directly from their customers.
> If I shoplift from a store and I'm not stopped, that doesn't mean that "we" have decided that my theft is okay.
Those aren't equivalent, though. Stores _have_ decided that _some_ theft is okay in the grand scheme of running a store.
Conversely, I think most of us agree e.g. that the incident where a woman was killed by an Uber self-driving Volvo[1] was _not_ okay, and that multiple negligent factors were at play that contributed to her death.
This doesn't mean that society thinks self-driving cars are _all_ not okay.
Similarly, the royal/societal "we" _absolutely_ have decided that collective driving is worth some quantity of deaths. We seek to minimize them, but there are extremely few people seriously advocating for the abolition of cars today, and they've been around for over a hundred years at this point.
Are you implying that automating it might somehow NOT be the most important innovation since the invention of penicillin, or are you implying that it can't be automated? Sorry, it may be that I'm dense, but I'm actually not clear what your argument here is.
Do people really think self-driving cars are anywhere near the same class of benefit as penicillin, let alone the most important invention since then? Hell, if self-driving cars came out tomorrow, they wouldn't even be the most important innovation in the last two years (that would be the COVID vaccines).
Yes, although it has been that way all along, and not just with self-driving cars. Driving is implicitly seen as either an inevitability or worth the risks, although few people want to explicitly say deaths are an acceptable tradeoff for, well, anything. Implicitly accepting a (usually small) number of deaths, or a statistical risk of death, for almost any activity is a part of life.
Eliminating accidental deaths entirely would generally make us pay through the nose in some other way, economical or otherwise, so almost nobody actually even wants what it would entail. It's socially and emotionally hard to say that, so it's easier to just consider it inevitable. (Frankly, that's just kind of a different way of saying the same thing, and understandable.)
Self-driving cars just turn it from an inevitable human error into something with a target on it. It's no longer an inevitable human error because there's a technology that caused the accident to happen.
Self-driving cars are supposed to reduce the total risks in the end, though, so if that happens, the more interesting question will be in whether people will be allowed to drive at some point in the future at all.
> The advent of automobile use in the early 20th century brought about a measurable rise in total numbers of highway deaths and injuries. However, the automobile's toll on human life and limb was probably not extravagantly greater than the toll exacted by the combination of steam- and horse-driven travel methods it displaced
From skimming the article, it seems like motor vehicle fatalities in NYC in the 1990s were similar to total traffic fatalities in the early 1900s, even though the population almost doubled.
I'm assuming motor vehicle fatalities includes pedestrians hit by motor vehicles. There could still be additional deaths today from things like streetcars, horses, or ox carts, but I feel like those would be low.
Government will like it that no one can drive a car. Works well with the expected IQ and competency of the future generations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
If you go looking you can find images of the burns on her groin. They’re pretty grisly.
All of these things contributed to the issue. Sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs while someone is driving is stupid, especially in that parking lot. Serving coffee so hot that it stays warm while you walk to class is also pretty stupid. The way McDonalds handled the issue is what made them the bad guys here. They could have easily helped this woman with her medical bills and it would have cost them far less money than the amount they spent on the their PR campaign and lawyers.
> "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[37][38] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[38] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C)."
Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. The NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day.
Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect to sustain third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly.
Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted.
Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me.
We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use.
Technically, it depends entirely on the tea. Black teas are universally recognized to require the highest steeping temperatures, to the point that high-altitude brewing is a problem because the boiling point of water is too low. Sweet, amino-heavy teas like a good gyokuro are definitely better done at lower temperatures. But most green teas are quite forgiving, and are commonly brewed at near boiling temperatures. Freshly boiled hot water is also often necessary for herbals, especially short-steeping acidic herbals like hibiscus.
And none of this has anything to do with catechins, which are not significantly more stable at 170 deg F than they are at 200. Theaflavins on the other hand are quite unstable, but they start degrading at temperatures lower than any accepted steeping temperatures, so losing them is unavoidable.
From https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2013/fo/c2fo3009...:
> In essence, the researchers found that in solution, both green tea catechins and black tea theaflavins are unstable and have a tendency for rapid degradation, especially at high temperature or basic pH.
> The thermal stability of catechins is better than that of theaflavins. For example, after a 3 hour open-air storage in a water solution, the amount of catechins and theaflavins was not found to have decreased at 24 °C, whereas catechins had a 25% reduction at 70 °C and a 29% decrease at 100 °C; theaflavins on the other hand had a 56% decrease at 70 °C and amounts were undetectable at 100 °C after 3 hours. The discrepancy in the aqueous stabilities of catechins and theaflavins can be postulated to be due to the large difference in chemical reactivity between the two groups of compounds: relative inertness and less steric hindrance of catechins vs. higher reactivity, especially anti-oxidant activity because of the ring-fusing, increased number of hydroxyl groups and steric hindrance surrounding the benzotropolone core.
There was a lot of BS said about that case by all sides. But, the claim that hot coffee was too hot is one of them.
I couldn't find a definitive "correct" temperature at which to serve coffee. It seems that people typically want it at 60 °C when they drink it [2], but since not everyone wants to drink it straight away, often coffee shops serve it hotter than that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_T...
The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.
The responder isn't telling the whole story though. The reason the coffee was so hot was because they wanted to limit the practical ability of customers to make use of endless refills on coffee. Not consideration for the average customer's wants.
In the future, maybe you'd be better served to trying asking the other person how they meant it, rather than jumping to correct them.
Unless your actual purpose is mainly to aggrandize yourself by dunking on someone else by correcting them... In which case you should just carry on, as you have been doing.
More specifically, if you put a cup of 180 degree+ tea between your legs and squeezed it, like Stella did, would you blame the tea shop when it predictably spills in your lap?
In that case, in order to keep you safe, you'll want to avoid all beverage shops and restaurants, since they all generally follow the the NCA recommendations that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is around the temperature at which Stella was burned. This would be very dangerous for someone like you!
And I hate to tell you this... but it's not just beverage shops and restaurants. Domestic coffee makers also follow the NCA guidelines. Your Mr. Coffee machine holds coffee at around 185 deg F, which will melt your skin just like it did to Stella. And definitely don't attempt to make tea, because the first step is usually involves putting on a kettle to boil.
You'll probably need to stay out of the kitchen altogether. Steaming vegetables is where I've gotten the most burns for some reason. You won't want to try to make pasta, which always involves large quantities of boiling water. And don't even think about using a stove or oven, where temperatures are easily double or triple that of boiling water. That's just a lawsuit waiting to happen!
This is just the temperature hazards. I imagine you don't use knives, which can be quite sharp, although I suppose you could always try suing the knifemaker if a kinfe turns to be unexpectedly sharp. And obviously you'll want to stay far away from the mother of all hazards: cars. Unfortunately, even though cars kill more people than any other machine in history, people like you have been largely unsuccessful in suing carmakers for defects such as excessive speed or ability to drive into objects.
Overall, my recommendation is that you hire someone for anything more complicated than watching TV.
So if you personally can't handle the risk of dangerously hot beverages, then you'll want to be sure to specifically ask, everywhere you go, for warm coffee. Starbucks has a procedure to accommodate people like you, which I believe involves simply setting the cup aside for a while to cool before they give it to you. (EDIT: I hear Starbucks actually has a more flexible process and equipment settings which can "officially" accomodate a range of service preferences, so that might really be the place you want to go).
If you want to make coffee for yourself, you'll need to come up with a procedure that's safe for you. Don't use a coffee maker; like I said, my Mr. Coffee machine holds coffee at around 185 deg F. So does yours. Look it up. Remember that this is right around the temperature that melted Stella's flesh.
I and most other people prefer coffee that has been brewed, held, and served at the proper temperature, which is why those standards exist and are almost universally used. And I'm extremely grateful that Stella's hot coffee lawsuit didn't ruin it for everybody; I felt really bad for her, and I don't begrudge her medical bills being paid, but I'm very glad her lawsuit had no lasting effect beyond sterner warnings on coffee cups.
Folks like yourself who for whatever reason don't want to be exposed to that danger are in a difficult position, and you need to take responsibility for your special needs, as it were. You will not be successful in suing for "excessively" hot coffee; Stella's lawsuit was pretty much a one-off, and personal injury lawyers have mostly moved on to suing over defective lids instead of excessive temperatures [2].
My comparison with knives and other common hazards is not merely academic. I've come very close to losing fingers and my eyesight to knives and other cutting tools. And you will not be successful in suing the maker or seller of knife that turns out to be "excessively" sharp. Just an example.
1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
2 - https://www.eater.com/2017/5/19/15662790/starbucks-hot-coffe...
You talk about that coffee as if it was magically hotter then water. It was not.
> "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability"
In other words, Stella's lawsuit was sort of a one-off success for aspiring hot-coffee lawyers, and the only effect it had in the long run was maybe a few more warning labels on paper cups.
But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses.
The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards.
The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity.
And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.
> But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist
No, in my comments I have explicitly stated that I empathized with Stella and that I'm glad she got her medical bills paid. She didn't deserve what happened to her, and she definitely didn't deserve the hateful publicity she received.
I furthermore freely admit that I'm fully capable of doing the same idiotic things that Stella did. Putting hot coffee between my legs and squeezing it to fiddle with the lid is exactly something I would do, and I'd probably be on the fucking phone or driving while I did it. I recognize that Stella probably didn't understand just how dangerous this is, and I accept that McDonalds may have been negligent in the nature of the warnings it provided.
> Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals?
This is an appeal to emotion. Yes, I've seen some horrific injuries in my time. I'm also a vegetarian with a deep abiding hatred of McDonalds and their ilk. McDonalds makes, markets, and sells shit food that is poisoning generations. But the magnitude of Stella's injury is orthogonal to the issue of McDonalds culpability for it. Clearly the judicial system has settled into some recognition of liability for merchants of hot coffee, but excessive service temperature is not part of that consideration. And it's a damn good thing, because coffee needs to be hot.
Here's a simple question for you, based on an actual experience I had years ago. If I accidentally stab myself in the eye with a paring knife (yes, long story), will you support me if I sue the knife maker or the merchant for selling me a knife that was excessively or unexpectedly sharp and pointy?
But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Manufacturers are held to surprisingly high standards in the US, and McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern.
Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. Legal hypotheticals are sometimes useful analytical tools, but you have to actually construct the hypo case to distinguish a relevant legal principle or fact pattern... Your example does none of that. It's just an obvious tautology, and there's not really any argument contained in it.
Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.
Go ahead and cite some of that scholarship. I would genuinely love to see it. Explain how the current designs, which are still subject to coffee spill lawsuits, differ from those before Stella's lawsuit. Then explain why, if the lid was inadequate for its purpose, Stella's lawyers specifically cited her difficulty in prying off the lid as the proximate cause of the accident.
Otherwise, your detour into lids and cups is a bit of a distraction. The primary allegation, and the one most parroted by sympathetic media and trial lawyers to this day, was that McDonalds' coffee was a defective product due to outrageously excessive temperature, far beyond industry standards or best practices. Nowadays the trial lawyers like to claim that the lawsuit forced McDonalds to drastically lower the temperature of their coffee. I don't know whether you also believe these easily debunked claims, but you sure seem eager to redirect the debate in a direction where you know I don't disagree as strongly. It's kinda weird.
> But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law.
Guilty as charged!
> McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern.
Right, I definitely remember personal injury lawyers and opponents of tort reform acting "shocked". They still do. No surprise there. And almost every single one of them lies about the temperature issue.
> Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything.
I don't expect it to prove anything. I'm simply curious how you feel about strict liability as applied to other dangerous but common products, where the the issue of whether the product is safe for its intended or anticipated use is in dispute. It's a simple if unimportant question, which you appear unable to answer.
> Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.
Hmmm, I sure don't feel very emotional about this. My strongest emotion is, like I said, contempt for McDonalds' influence on peoples' health. And again, I was happy that Stella bill's were paid.
EDIT:
Seriously though, please cite that "scholarship" on lids and cups you mentioned. I'm skeptical, and it's somewhat tangential to the more sensationalized allegations made by Stella's lawyers, but I'm also genuinely curious.