718 karma · joined April 9, 2018
Gooood luck!
Statements like this seem to be trying to make the point that any amount of increased public risk is unacceptable unless everyone opts in to accept it.
No, statements like mine reject the notion that sacrificing lives today for the possibility of an unproven improvement sat some unspecified later date is morally reprehensible. My answer is to invite the person endorsing this to put their own life on the line instead. If we were talking about medical testing on humans instead of cars, maybe it would be easier for some to understand. “It’s so bad today, the only course of action is to act recklessly to improve things as fast as possible!” is a thoroughly rejected argument.
Companies should not be allowed to punt this way, when lives are on the line. This really is a problem in need of a regulatory or legislative solution, as multiple companies prove they don’t have anyone’s interests at heart, but their own. Worse, every pedestrian, cyclist, and other driver on the road who didn’t sign up for this in-the-wild alpha is being drafted to enrich the likes of Tesla and Uber.
Most damning to me is that the case against cryptocurrency takes two sentences to clearly outline, while the case for them is yet to even emerge.
Transactions are slow and costly, prone to congestion, and cannot scale with demand. The decentralised consensus behind the technology is also fragile and consumes vast amounts of energy.
Nailed it.
“Who, upon victory, mass murdered 10's of thousands of their own citizens...”
Proofread! Or at the very least, try not to include outright contradictions in your outlandish claims. Claiming that the US won in one sentence, and in the very next declaring the opposite is baffling.
That’s a serious, if delusional claim that requires a loooooot of support. “Handily” in particular seems like a ridiculous way to state it, even if you only look at US casualties.
They’re a profitable business, and became one in three years less than Tesla, without the need to tackle a hard problem like manufacturing cars.
So they’re not a profitable business, and not a charity. What are they exactly?
I suspect that’s the key right there. From friends who are the same, I get the impression that in Japan if you’re of Japanese descent the expectations had of you are very different than the typical gaikokujin.
Above all, accept this as an ongoing process that only ends when you die.
/s/guns/drones
Yes, and psychopaths like your aunt exist, but if we design society around authoritarian ideals designed to totally eliminate their ability to do harm society breaks every time. A balance has to be struck that acknowledges the presence of a significant minority of criminals, while protecting the rights of the majority. A thousand anecdotes will not change that.
Meanwhile your counterpoint is a very vivid fantasy of what Tesla wants to be beyond a car company, which is something it’s not doing particularly well. You’re engaging in just the kind of fantasy “Future assumptions” in question, and really just buying into empty PR and marketing. The evidence suggests that Tesla is a car company, and struggling to be just that. It’s an act of intense mental gymnastics to say that no, they’re not just a car company, they’re a whole economic sector that started as a car company... before they’ve even pulled off step 1. Maybe they will be, but the odds are not in their favor, and it’s going to be a moot point if they can’t even turn a profit on their cars.
Arguing from an imagined future should be the job of marcom, not you. It’s not a failure of imagination or a lack of faith for rational people to look at what is, not a vision of what may or may not ever be.
Is it about what people demand, or what they promised when taking deposits?