I used Like because I was only stating one of the ways the original assertion is faulty.
Kind of like using 'for example', but it adds a level of sloppiness to the argument, which I found appropriate, as I'm still not clear on all that's involved.
I'm referring to a similarity in logical construction
To get someone off welfare it isn't nonsensical to continue giving them welfare so they can get things like assistance in job placements, financial planning, drug rehabilitation, and educational endeavors -- so that they will be able to get off welfare.
If someone is often in the hospital because they have problems with drugs, it makes more sense, to offer them both hospital care and support like drug rehabilitation, rather than offering them only one or the other, hospital care or drug rehabilitation.
"You don't get people off welfare by giving them more welfare. You get people off welfare by assisting them in job placements, financial planning, drug rehabilitation, and educational endeavors."
How about : You don't get people out of hospitals by giving them more hospital care. You get people out of hospital by assisting them in job placement, drug rehabilitation financial planning, and educational endeavors.
i.e. financial assistance or hospital care doesn't exclude other forms of assistance, and vice versa.
True, Waymo is in a different class and Way more security conscious, but still their 'miles driven between interventions' numbers are restricted to selected itineraries and destinations. This of course inflates the number of miles driven without intervention they can report, and that number also doesn't tell us about how badly the car would have failed without intervention, or what the consequences would have been.
"I wonder why they targetted just 5-HT2A as there is much more going on."
I'm guessing this kind of hyperbole plays a part :
"These results strongly suggest that the 5-HT2A receptor plays a fundamental role in the development of self-awareness"
"The current results demonstrate that activity in areas of the ‘social brain' can be modulated via the 5-HT2AR thereby pointing towards this system as a potential target for the treatment of social impairments associated with psychiatric disorders."
"Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree."
I'm taking about experts in autonomous cars and radar systems who said the autonomous system failed badly. The low resolution and low contrast video the cop saw is not what I'm talking about, and the cop surely isn't an expert in autonomous systems or an expert in the interpretation of low quality night time video footage.
"Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide"
I'm not trying to assign blame, the courts will do that.
In short, I think a j-walking person didn't notice the car was there or didn't care, the car driver was not paying attention to the road, and the Uber car's systems failed badly.
No, even if we don't know the exact cause of the failure, experts, quoted in various news stories, said there was ample time for the system to react long before the impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure how you mean, please elaborate
Yes.
I used Like because I was only stating one of the ways the original assertion is faulty.
Kind of like using 'for example', but it adds a level of sloppiness to the argument, which I found appropriate, as I'm still not clear on all that's involved.
No. These are both examples of false equivilancies:
"They're both living animals that metabolize chemical energy. There's no difference between a pet cat and a pet snail."
"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different from your neighbor dripping some oil on the ground when changing oil in his car."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
---
I'm referring to a similarity in logical construction
To get someone off welfare it isn't nonsensical to continue giving them welfare so they can get things like assistance in job placements, financial planning, drug rehabilitation, and educational endeavors -- so that they will be able to get off welfare.
If someone is often in the hospital because they have problems with drugs, it makes more sense, to offer them both hospital care and support like drug rehabilitation, rather than offering them only one or the other, hospital care or drug rehabilitation.
"Slaves didn't have to pay for healthcare, housing, or food"
Yes they did, maybe not with money but they still payed.
"Whoever pays for life's essentials is your master"
No, that doesn't follow.
"Some of us prefer to not allow the government to steal from us to pay for its slaves"
They don't.
No, my point was they're both nonsensical to the same degree.
Like why would "assisting them in job placements, financial planning, drug rehabilitation, and educational endeavors" exclude "giving welfare".
"You don't get people off welfare by giving them more welfare. You get people off welfare by assisting them in job placements, financial planning, drug rehabilitation, and educational endeavors."
How about : You don't get people out of hospitals by giving them more hospital care. You get people out of hospital by assisting them in job placement, drug rehabilitation financial planning, and educational endeavors.
i.e. financial assistance or hospital care doesn't exclude other forms of assistance, and vice versa.
"Actually Cambridge Analytica had very little if not nothing to do with Trump winning the election."
An assertion based on what?
and poisoning the well.
"Google's gift isn't generous enough to meet b0s0z0ku's standards."
Because corporations have a duty to maximize profit, I don't believe they can ever really be called generous.
"Targeted advertising is no longer the primary use of data. Now, it's being used to train AI"
What data is being used to train AI for what ?
Same reason I have to pay for part of your services.
True, Waymo is in a different class and Way more security conscious, but still their 'miles driven between interventions' numbers are restricted to selected itineraries and destinations. This of course inflates the number of miles driven without intervention they can report, and that number also doesn't tell us about how badly the car would have failed without intervention, or what the consequences would have been.
"The natural resources tend to get monopolized, often by violent thugs and juntas."
Who are helped, incentivized, or simply forced, by western governments and capital into taking away their citizens wealth.
"it wasn't particularly dark."
Exactly :
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
Uber released a video with a misleading contrast level, they also decided to show only a couple of seconds of video before the crash.
"I wonder why they targetted just 5-HT2A as there is much more going on."
I'm guessing this kind of hyperbole plays a part :
"These results strongly suggest that the 5-HT2A receptor plays a fundamental role in the development of self-awareness"
"The current results demonstrate that activity in areas of the ‘social brain' can be modulated via the 5-HT2AR thereby pointing towards this system as a potential target for the treatment of social impairments associated with psychiatric disorders."
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
After looking at that it's pretty obvious Uber's video is very very misleading.
No, not really like that at all.
That should be 'police chief' instead of 'cop'.
"Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree."
I'm taking about experts in autonomous cars and radar systems who said the autonomous system failed badly. The low resolution and low contrast video the cop saw is not what I'm talking about, and the cop surely isn't an expert in autonomous systems or an expert in the interpretation of low quality night time video footage.
"Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide"
I'm not trying to assign blame, the courts will do that.
In short, I think a j-walking person didn't notice the car was there or didn't care, the car driver was not paying attention to the road, and the Uber car's systems failed badly.
"It was expected to defy the laws of physics?"
No, even if we don't know the exact cause of the failure, experts, quoted in various news stories, said there was ample time for the system to react long before the impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Take a look at 0:30 and beyond, the robocar obviously failed and the driver had lots of time to react if they were paying attention.
No, because the system didn't perform at all as expected.
I don't understand your second sentence.
"In other words, expert*s* who have actually reviewed *the evidence*"
See my previous comments.
"I'm sorry, there is no possible way to convince you because you aren't interested in evidence or truth."
What are you trying to convince people of?
How come the radar didn't see what's coming up to the point of not even trying to slow down to reduce the impact.
It does not include suicides.
Guns per capita are at least 10 times higher in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...