|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2026 22:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties". It’s not a left right thing. Rayzda just made it that because that is what MAGA brained people do these days. There are acceptable casualties now, if those go way down that is a win for society. There are going to be lots of issues to work through and since humans will be involved in making all the rules, there will be lots of problems as the goal will be maximizing the profit and not making it best for society. But the possible end game of it would be pretty amazing. It is totally reasonable to be cautious as it all gets figured out. It was literally Nebuchad and Gorsameth... kinda last people I would suspect to be maga brained. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 21:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak. Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" . Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways Edit: Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 22:04 Silvanel wrote:
As someone who works for the automotive industry (in car software development, to be specific), I must say I do not share your optimism regarding fully automated cars. Nor does anybody I work with or have worked with. It is a very common sentiment in the industry to own old cars with as little software in them as possible.
Some level of "acceptable casualties" will always be there. The only way to limit traffic deaths to 0 is to remove traffic. There always will be traffic accidents; even if we assume that all cars are automated with perfect programming (lol!), there will still be problems caused by hardware defects, external causes, and indeterministic behavior (especially if you want LLMs to be involved).
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't try to lower traffic accidents, but you should realize that 0 accidents is not a realistic goal. At least not if our society works as it works now. I wouldn't say it is limited to people in the industry. It is more and more common among people who have to relay on cars daily, or hobbyist. From my observation (I do realise this is anecdotal) it is actually growing trend. Please, explain to me like i'm 5. how a self driving car vs a car you drive yourself removes your freedom.
The car still goes where you want it, when you want it.
what fundamental freedom does the self driving car take away?
|
Northern Ireland27041 Posts
I actually got hit by a car recently. Driven by a sweet old lady who was lovely and apologetic, the only downside being she apparently cannot see fucking shit in the dark anymore
Bring on the robot overlords!
I do think there are interesting applications, albeit I’m not sure we’ll see em.
Properly coordinated and interlinked systems of automated vehicles could really manage traffic gridlock a whole lot smoother if it all worked.
Equally it seems the idea is basically to just replace a single driver with a single robot so I don’t know how much improvement you’ll get in that specific domain, versus just having a ‘network’ of vehicles so to speak
|
On May 08 2026 22:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties". It’s not a left right thing. Rayzda just made it that because that is what MAGA brained people do these days. There are acceptable casualties now, if those go way down that is a win for society. There are going to be lots of issues to work through and since humans will be involved in making all the rules, there will be lots of problems as the goal will be maximizing the profit and not making it best for society. But the possible end game of it would be pretty amazing. It is totally reasonable to be cautious as it all gets figured out. It was literally Nebuchad and Gorsameth... kinda last people I would suspect to be maga brained. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 21:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak. Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" . Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways Edit: Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 22:04 Silvanel wrote:
As someone who works for the automotive industry (in car software development, to be specific), I must say I do not share your optimism regarding fully automated cars. Nor does anybody I work with or have worked with. It is a very common sentiment in the industry to own old cars with as little software in them as possible.
Some level of "acceptable casualties" will always be there. The only way to limit traffic deaths to 0 is to remove traffic. There always will be traffic accidents; even if we assume that all cars are automated with perfect programming (lol!), there will still be problems caused by hardware defects, external causes, and indeterministic behavior (especially if you want LLMs to be involved).
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't try to lower traffic accidents, but you should realize that 0 accidents is not a realistic goal. At least not if our society works as it works now. I wouldn't say it is limited to people in the industry. It is more and more common among people who have to relay on cars daily, or hobbyist. From my observation (I do realise this is anecdotal) it is actually growing trend.
They are making the point that it is generally the right that is taking away freedom not the left.
They know that the automated car industry is being led by major right wing figures.
|
On May 08 2026 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 22:34 Razyda wrote:
Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" .
Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways
My justification, as already explained, was that it is not an invasion on freedom, because this is not what having freedom or what taking freedom away means. Locking everyone in solitary cells would, on the other end, be an invasion on freedom, which indicates to me that you instinctively understand the difference.
Loss of freedom would come from ban of manually driven cars. Which is what I specifically referred to.
On May 08 2026 22:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 22:34 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties". It’s not a left right thing. Rayzda just made it that because that is what MAGA brained people do these days. There are acceptable casualties now, if those go way down that is a win for society. There are going to be lots of issues to work through and since humans will be involved in making all the rules, there will be lots of problems as the goal will be maximizing the profit and not making it best for society. But the possible end game of it would be pretty amazing. It is totally reasonable to be cautious as it all gets figured out. It was literally Nebuchad and Gorsameth... kinda last people I would suspect to be maga brained. On May 08 2026 21:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak. Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" . Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways Edit: On May 08 2026 22:04 Silvanel wrote:
As someone who works for the automotive industry (in car software development, to be specific), I must say I do not share your optimism regarding fully automated cars. Nor does anybody I work with or have worked with. It is a very common sentiment in the industry to own old cars with as little software in them as possible.
Some level of "acceptable casualties" will always be there. The only way to limit traffic deaths to 0 is to remove traffic. There always will be traffic accidents; even if we assume that all cars are automated with perfect programming (lol!), there will still be problems caused by hardware defects, external causes, and indeterministic behavior (especially if you want LLMs to be involved).
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't try to lower traffic accidents, but you should realize that 0 accidents is not a realistic goal. At least not if our society works as it works now. I wouldn't say it is limited to people in the industry. It is more and more common among people who have to relay on cars daily, or hobbyist. From my observation (I do realise this is anecdotal) it is actually growing trend. Please, explain to me like i'm 5. how a self driving car vs a car you drive yourself removes your freedom. The car still goes where you want it, when you want it. what fundamental freedom does the self driving car take away?
Currently you can drive manually driven car, or autonomous driving car. If, as you suggested manually driven cars will be banned, you loose the freedom to choose which car you want to drive and freedom to drive manually driven car. It really is not that complex.
|
On May 08 2026 22:55 Razyda wrote:
Loss of freedom would come from ban of manually driven cars. Which is what I specifically referred to.
It wouldn't, no, because this is not what freedom means. When games are published on a PS5, you do not lose the freedom to play them on your PS2. When your factory decides to use a robot to do your work instead of you and fires you, you do not lose the freedom to exercize this job for money. This is not how words work.
|
On May 08 2026 21:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak.
Just for context, in the US, this did happen. They literally put freeways on top of Black neighborhoods and explicitly used them to prevent poor/predominately Black people from being able to freely cross into the white parts of town.
In Atlanta, the intent to segregate was crystal clear. Interstate 20, the east-west corridor that connects with I-75 and I-85 in Atlanta’s center, was deliberately plotted along a winding route in the late 1950s to serve, in the words of Mayor Bill Hartsfield, as “the boundary between the white and Negro communities” on the west side of town. Black neighborhoods, he hoped, would be hemmed in on one side of the new expressway, while white neighborhoods on the other side of it would be protected. Racial residential patterns have long since changed, of course, but the awkward path of I-20 remains in place.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/traffic-atlanta-segregation.html
|
On May 08 2026 22:55 Razyda wrote:Currently you can drive manually driven car, or autonomous driving car. If, as you suggested manually driven cars will be banned, you loose the freedom to choose which car you want to drive and freedom to drive manually driven car. It really is not that complex. You also no longer have the freedom to paint your nursery in lead paint and you can't buy asbestos pants.
The ability to operate dangerous machinery at unsafe velocities is not 'freedom'
|
Many of us are probably aware of the far right talking point that "low emission" or "zero emission" zones were left wing concepts that lead to limiting the rights or freedoms of poor car owners. These zones usually limit or ban older vehicles from entering certain areas, such as city centers. It's not done directly, they just demand your car to meet some kind of low emission standards.The far right often focused on controversial examples, such as banning tiny but very old cars owned by poor elderly people while allowing massive modern SUVs owned by stereotypical wealthy people.
I am sure similar arguments will be used when someone attempts to ban traditional cars from city centers or highways because "they're more dangerous" or because "there are no drunk AI drivers".
|
On May 08 2026 22:42 WombaT wrote:
I actually got hit by a car recently. Driven by a sweet old lady who was lovely and apologetic, the only downside being she apparently cannot see fucking shit in the dark anymore
Bring on the robot overlords!
I do think there are interesting applications, albeit I’m not sure we’ll see em.
Properly coordinated and interlinked systems of automated vehicles could really manage traffic gridlock a whole lot smoother if it all worked.
Equally it seems the idea is basically to just replace a single driver with a single robot so I don’t know how much improvement you’ll get in that specific domain, versus just having a ‘network’ of vehicles so to speak
You would realize marginal gains by shortening driving distance in the long run. Since you would get out where you want to go and the car would drive to floor 10 on a parking lot somewhere nearby. Meaning places you want to go doesn't have large parking lots and when you chain that effect there is less travel distance and thus less opportunities for grid lock.
You would also free up more lanes due to not parking on the street. Or at least make it nicer with more trees instead of cars standing there.
|
Need a lot less cars too. It could drop me off at work, go home pick up my wife drop her off. Pick up kids for practices and activities and so on. Multiple families could share one car even. Or like me and two families could go down to 2-3 cars instead of 6. Car shares would go through the roof.
|
Razyda and other "muh freedom" guys would fight tooth and nail against seatbelts and tons of other safety regulations if they wouldn't have grown up with them and therefore get a "common sense" free pass. It's ridiculous.
Also having a Robo-Taxi wouldn't change your freedom to go wherever, whenever you want so whats left is "i like driving for fun", which I do too but it isn't really an argument...
|
On May 09 2026 00:03 Sent. wrote:
Many of us are probably aware of the far right talking point that "low emission" or "zero emission" zones were left wing concepts that lead to limiting the rights or freedoms of poor car owners. These zones usually limit or ban older vehicles from entering certain areas, such as city centers. It's not done directly, they just demand your car to meet some kind of low emission standards.The far right often focused on controversial examples, such as banning tiny but very old cars owned by poor elderly people while allowing massive modern SUVs owned by stereotypical wealthy people.
I am sure similar arguments will be used when someone attempts to ban traditional cars from city centers or highways because "they're more dangerous" or because "there are no drunk AI drivers".
In this scenario they probably wouldn't be banned anyway, they would probably be phased out. New models will only have the new technology, and the percentage of people with old cars will slowly die down until it becomes socially acceptable to ignore them.
|
On May 08 2026 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 22:55 Razyda wrote:
Loss of freedom would come from ban of manually driven cars. Which is what I specifically referred to.
It wouldn't, no, because this is not what freedom means. When games are published on a PS5, you do not lose the freedom to play them on your PS2. When your factory decides to use a robot to do your work instead of you and fires you, you do not lose the freedom to exercize this job for money. This is not how words work.
Your examples addressing something no one argues for. To apply them correctly:
I would be banned from using my PS2 because you consider PS3 better.
When factory decides using robot to do some job, you would be banning other factories from doing those jobs manually.
Edit:
On May 09 2026 01:31 Velr wrote:
Razyda and other "muh freedom" guys would fight tooth and nail against seatbelts and tons of other safety regulations if they wouldn't have grown up with them and therefore get a "common sense" free pass. It's ridiculous.
Also having a Robo-Taxi wouldn't change your freedom to go wherever, whenever you want so whats left is "i like driving for fun", which I do too but it isn't really an argument...
Dont know about others, but I didnt...
It is not about having additional option it is about removing the option you have.
|
On May 09 2026 01:51 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 22:55 Razyda wrote:
Loss of freedom would come from ban of manually driven cars. Which is what I specifically referred to.
It wouldn't, no, because this is not what freedom means. When games are published on a PS5, you do not lose the freedom to play them on your PS2. When your factory decides to use a robot to do your work instead of you and fires you, you do not lose the freedom to exercize this job for money. This is not how words work. To apply them correctly: I would be banned from using my PS2 because you consider PS3 better. When factory decides using robot to do some job, you would be banning other factories from doing those jobs manually.
We do not need to ban you from the PS2, just let all the new games out on PS3. If you still play the old games on PS2 that's the same as driving your old car on a circuit designed for that in the analogy.
That's for the nitpick, what I would like you to understand is that if we ban you from having a PS2 and we give you a PS3 instead this is still not your freedom being taken away!!!!
|
On May 09 2026 01:51 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 22:55 Razyda wrote:
Loss of freedom would come from ban of manually driven cars. Which is what I specifically referred to.
It wouldn't, no, because this is not what freedom means. When games are published on a PS5, you do not lose the freedom to play them on your PS2. When your factory decides to use a robot to do your work instead of you and fires you, you do not lose the freedom to exercize this job for money. This is not how words work. Your examples addressing something no one argues for. To apply them correctly: I would be banned from using my PS2 because you consider PS3 better. When factory decides using robot to do some job, you would be banning other factories from doing those jobs manually. Edit: Show nested quote +On May 09 2026 01:31 Velr wrote:
Razyda and other "muh freedom" guys would fight tooth and nail against seatbelts and tons of other safety regulations if they wouldn't have grown up with them and therefore get a "common sense" free pass. It's ridiculous.
Also having a Robo-Taxi wouldn't change your freedom to go wherever, whenever you want so whats left is "i like driving for fun", which I do too but it isn't really an argument... Dont know about others, but I didnt... It is not about having additional option it is about removing the option you have.
You don't have the option to drive in a car without a seatbelt. Where is your FREEDOM? And you don't have the option to buy a new car without ABS and collision detection. CONFIRMED SLAVERY!
|
Well, one of my favorite American political figures, Ralph Nader was demonized by the car industry because he wanted to make wearing seat-belts a law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unreasonable_Man
The arguments, as always, were "they want to take away our freedoms". The scourge of individualism and putting your own personal wishes and habits above anyone else brought us the current political crisis and really metastasized during COVID, the resistance to even a notion of a word where we sacrifice some individual freedoms in order to prevent uneccessary deaths seems anathema, which, in my opinion is the reason why the world is going to shit.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries#:~:text=Approximately 1.19 million people die,adults aged 5–29 years.
1,9 million young people die, world wide due to car related deaths. That is the leading cause of death for young people. If we can reduce this number by 90 % by increasing the insurance rates for cars that are driven by humans is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, at least to me.
|
In these situations it’s spelled freedumb
|
I don't think manual driving would be banned. I just think if you want to drive manual and 90% is driven by AI you will pay a premium on insurance that is likely 20 times what the others pay because the risk of an accident with a human drivers is 20 times higher. You then have the freedom to drive manually.
On the case with "who pays for an accident automated vs automated" : Documentation is all there, so that would be an easy case for insurance companies. And for the "drive through a old grandma, a kid or 3 adults" there will have to be a fixed ruleset.
|
It's Eurovision time again!
Denmark was OK, Germany kind of sucks, Israel also not great.
|
On May 17 2026 04:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's Eurovision time again!
Denmark was OK, Germany kind of sucks, Israel also not great.
Hi there! Unfortunately I won't be watching this year, but I hope you enjoy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
