Hacker News Reader

Comment by phpisthebest | Hacker News Reader

In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc

If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.

View on HN

Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it.

/sarcasm

Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?

anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.

Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.

i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature.

and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.

Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself.

(And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)

regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix.

i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever.

the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

> you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

> you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum.

We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy.

But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise.

> (cliche)

Are you trying to imply something there?

> you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.

Should we allow cars without seatbelt? Everyone knows cars with seatbelts are safer. If consumers don’t like it, they can just choose to buy the ones with seatbelts.

Do you look up the software security measures implemented by the keyfob too? That information would be very difficult for a layperson to find and make sense of.

This may be the "age of information", but information is only useful as your ability to find, understand, and evaluate it.

Lets see, oooo tiktok, heres the kia challenge. Or maybe google "are kias secure". Whatever format you can understand, you will be presented several sources that explain the situation quite clearly.

And if you googled that three and a half years ago when you were actually buying the car?

I bet you had to know exactly what to look for, and "problems with kias" wouldn't get the average person there.

Isn't there an aftermarket solution you can buy that would make the kia you bought three years ago more secure?

Sure, it sucks that you have to unexpectedly spend money on it, but when you bought a cheap car you knew you were taking the risk of having to deal with unknown unknowns.

If you googled kias at any time ever you would have seen they are absolutely riddled with issues. People on HN seem to think buying a car is like designing a CPU or investing in a portfolio of stocks, you could try doing some research.

Car thefts are extremely dangerous for everyone on or near the road. It's obviously better to just not allow car manufacturers to neglect basic security practices. There's also entire categories of issues you don't have to research anymore because they've been optimized out of every modern car. Soon cars being hacked with toys will be added to that list for you. Notably, "airbag explosion rate" wasn't on that research project of yours.

It's obviously better to just kill anyone that steals a car. I doubt anyone would try to steal a car after a few examples have been made.

> In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option

The age of information was great.

In the age of misinformation, knowledge outside your specialty is no longer cheap enough to reliably obtain.

What world do you live in? The statistics are pretty clear and accessible. Are you so obsessed with something you cant attend to your own basic needs?

so in what age was ignorance a good option?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com