I said "And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me."
You said "So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence."
No, I suspect his off the cuff interpretation may not be a completely accurate interpretation of events, and that there may be other evidence that needs to be taken into account also, before conclusions can be reached.
He may be mistaken on the speed limit, kind of his field though, and if his ability to get that right is put into question then the rest of what he said becomes even more questionable and leaving pretty much nothing to helps us find out if there was anything the uber car, or its driver, should have done but didn't.
"You can't drive assuming that all places that someone could step out from are likely to produce such a result. You'd never get anywhere."
Humans can take that into account emotionally and slow down a corresponding degree if they're paying attention. But the car didn't, it was even driving over the speed limit.
Doesn't decide sex in the way you're thinking it does. Development from DNA through biology and epigenetics in the womb make a clear or comprehensive distinction impossible.
"But you're really talking about the.00001% corner case, aren't you?"
That's one in 10,000,000 but it's more like one in a couple of thousand for genetic/biological facets to be ambiguous, and one in 100 once the genetics and biology get played out through growth and development into various behaviors that don't conform or fall into clear male female categories.
Obviously biological sex doesn't determine gender which is typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.
"if you are so mentally ill you can't recognize the image in the mirror"
Assuming you mean 'you can't recognize biological sex in the mirror', you'll probably need to look at more naked humans to realize it's not always that easy or even possible to determine sex visually.
Interesting. Sex is often a facet of gender but I don't think it can determine it. There are so many factors that fall under biological sex that changing some facet(s) by surgery or other means, will always be change but it will never be a comprehensive or complete biological change, likewise philosophically as one's biological sex isn't a binary expression (genetically).
On seriously messed up shit, assuming that's a thing, I guess that depends on who's doing the judging and what they're judging, likewise for gender change, which includes things like a women wearing pants, a man a skirt, or things of similar nature today, and surely that falls close to the mundane for most everyone.
"The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation"
Sure and they can start with simple data like the number of bombs falling from the sky, and the number civilians dying, which both went way way up after the US invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
"All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable, by even the best possible driver (Human or computer)."
But why then didn't the car or driver break or do anything?
I said "And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me."
You said "So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence."
No, I suspect his off the cuff interpretation may not be a completely accurate interpretation of events, and that there may be other evidence that needs to be taken into account also, before conclusions can be reached.
"All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable"
My criteria for calling something evidence of something isn't as loose as yours.
And I'd expect the vehicle's speed would be measured more accurately than by 'looking' at a speedometer as humans do.
He may be mistaken on the speed limit, kind of his field though, and if his ability to get that right is put into question then the rest of what he said becomes even more questionable and leaving pretty much nothing to helps us find out if there was anything the uber car, or its driver, should have done but didn't.
"So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence"
No. That's in no way implied by what I wrote.
And it wasn't about 'the people' or 'the evidence', it was about one person and his thoughts about one part of the evidence.
"So in other words, the car was driving at least as well as, and probably better than, a human driver would."
No. What follows from what I wrote was: The car was driving as badly as *some* drivers would be in the same situation.
Do you think the car should have been driving above the speed limit?
"You can't drive assuming that all places that someone could step out from are likely to produce such a result. You'd never get anywhere."
Humans can take that into account emotionally and slow down a corresponding degree if they're paying attention. But the car didn't, it was even driving over the speed limit.
All we really seem to know clearly is the car was going over the speed limit.
"So do you think the cop was lying?"
He didn't say that.
I get the impression that the cop voicing how he feels about it is inappropriate especially considering the context.
And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me.
Doesn't come close to explaining the size of the disparity.
"If they can prove to the authorities there is no way to put child pornography in the coin, I see no foul done."
Why would they have to prove that, isn't it like asking for a vendor to prove their encryption software can't be used to encrypt child pornography.
But why is there so much more criminal gun use in the US.
They'd buy the illegal ones anyway to better hide their actions.
Traceability.
"If it's that hard, take a DNA sample"
Doesn't decide sex in the way you're thinking it does. Development from DNA through biology and epigenetics in the womb make a clear or comprehensive distinction impossible.
"But you're really talking about the .00001% corner case, aren't you?"
That's one in 10,000,000 but it's more like one in a couple of thousand for genetic/biological facets to be ambiguous, and one in 100 once the genetics and biology get played out through growth and development into various behaviors that don't conform or fall into clear male female categories.
"it's pretty darn easy for me"
Is your sample too small? Because it's not always easy for qualified scientists and medical doctors to assign a sex based on visual appearance.
And it gets even harder when more than external appearances are taken into account.
https://www.nature.com/news/se...
Obviously biological sex doesn't determine gender which is typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.
"if you are so mentally ill you can't recognize the image in the mirror"
Assuming you mean 'you can't recognize biological sex in the mirror', you'll probably need to look at more naked humans to realize it's not always that easy or even possible to determine sex visually.
Interesting. Sex is often a facet of gender but I don't think it can determine it. There are so many factors that fall under biological sex that changing some facet(s) by surgery or other means, will always be change but it will never be a comprehensive or complete biological change, likewise philosophically as one's biological sex isn't a binary expression (genetically).
On seriously messed up shit, assuming that's a thing, I guess that depends on who's doing the judging and what they're judging, likewise for gender change, which includes things like a women wearing pants, a man a skirt, or things of similar nature today, and surely that falls close to the mundane for most everyone.
"gender changes is some seriously messed up shit"
Don't you mean sex change?
I live in a town that contains an unusually high number of people who like to label others and claim everyone who gets a particular label is the same.
This
"Can't you just make some bot accounts and open any locked door because then you'd be the most trusted person?"
As far as I know, no. They take a specific number of points off your starting score per type of infraction.
"Yes, they can."
I agree, it isn't hard to find solid references, just look up the two data points I mentioned. Go to a library and ask for help if you need to.
"am unlikely to respond to your future posts."
No problem.
"The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation"
Sure and they can start with simple data like the number of bombs falling from the sky, and the number civilians dying, which both went way way up after the US invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
You need to show why the carnage caused by US interventions would have happened anyway.