Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjftsjthsd-h | Hacker News Reader

> 2. There's too much technology in modern products (cars, tv, etc)

Bad technology. Nobody would object to smarter cars with usable controls that didn't spy on you and have security holes. People, even here, would love smart TVs if they started as fast as the dumb ones, didn't have ads, didn't spy on you, and were generally actually in the user's control. People aren't against tech, they're against awful tech that's a straight downgrade from what came before.

Actually, this goes for the rest of your points, not just 2.

View on HN

Exactly this - most people here aren't in any way anti-tech, they've just read enough bleak sci-fi novels to know an approaching dystopian hellscape when they see one.

Subjective.

My comment was in reply to someone who said they expected HN to be tech apologists. People down voted me because they took it as a standalone comment complaining about HN.

Quite annyoing

>Bad technology.

I've seen many people complaining about modern safety features such as back up cameras and collision detection, I wouldn't call that bad technology.

So your complaint is that those (here) with an intimate understanding of tech and its capabilities are sharing their qualified and often nuanced opinion about tech implementatiioms without exclusively following the market's "everything is flawless and there are no anti-features" rhetoric? A love of tech should mean people care to point out the problems seen from an educated vantage - what do you expect? Are backup cameras flawless? Is collision detection flawless? Do humans lose anything by permanent delegation of their skills? What exactly are you saying is a problem here?

No they are not perfect, but they do have a proven track record. I expect a better reason than "I am a really good driver and don't need those things so they should not be mandatory" which I've seen here several times.

> back up cameras

I have literally never heard a complaint about reversing cameras in my life

Me neither, but I have heard plenty of complaints about backup cameras being required in all new cars.

The idea is that the cameras require a large display on the dashboard. If you could sell a car without them, we might have a cheaper class of small street-legal vehicles with simpler controls.

Sadly, with electric vehicles being thousands of kg heavier than ICE vehicles, kei-style cars would probably get a lot of people killed if they were introduced to the US today.

I think the objections to things like this is the tech for tech sake.

Like with backup cameras that we just don't want to pay for. I've been driving for 20+ years and never once bumped my car. So the safety aspect isn't really relevant. But when I get told "We added this backup camera for free, so you're saving 500$". Honestly I'd rather have you shave 500$ off the price of the car.

I've actually had that conversation about bluetooth in my current car. 8 years old and I've never used the bluetooth. It was tech for tech sake. It adds no value.

Back up cameras are not there to stop you from bumping into things but stopping you from running over a kid

ya and those that work in tech know its flaws and dark sides and can most accurately predict where things could go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com