The reality is that statement is largely untrue. The scales just tend to be very large, or very small. So, you either hear about the rich people doing it (for the tax break, or whatever other excuse people think they do it for), or you just don't hear about it at all. You have plenty of volunteers at soup kitchens, people donating small chunks of money, handouts to the homeless, and so on. It happens all the time, but it doesn't make the news.
I don't see any references to it being a law or regulation or anything that would require taxpayer money. That really isn't the point. The point is to determine whether announcing it being automated is better or worse than not announcing it.
Expectations mean a lot. In the case of the system handing off, I'm pretty sure the employee won't sound exactly like the automated system. It would be pretty obvious in that case. People can be spiteful about crap like that.
Further, unless you have an employee actively watching every single call, it won't be seamless or without delays. First, someone would have to see what is being done and then respond. It wouldn't take a lot of time to do so, but you would also need to have more employees manning the system than people using it at any given time for there not to be an extra delay due to volume.
Except I did, and you never bothered to argue against it. You just turned to fighting over the fact that the car isn't a fucking plane. Ultimately it still comes down to my point that the name is perfect valid for the functions it performs. It does not cause an unrealistic expectation of the feature set. The owners are also told how the feature operates, so there would be no confusion over the name vs the functionality. So, again.. You're arguing over the semantics of the name.. because you have no other valid argument.
You're not talking any kind of anti-science crowd. I'm not denying, anywhere, that inattentiveness is a concern. The point you don't get is that the problem exists for most any car now a days... Cruise control has been a thing for decades. Pulling you foot away from the gas/brake because of cruise control can also lead to slow reaction times. This just furthers the automation, but the overall driver engagement isn't drastically reduced... unless they choose not to pay attention. A good driver would keep themselves engaged, just like when using cruise control. If they cannot maintain safe driving conditions with the feature, they should turn it off. It's still on the driver to understand what they're doing and be in control of the vehicle.
As are, apparently, cruise control... brake assist.. parking assist.. etc. They facilitate the driver being less attentive to what they're doing behind the wheel and thus deserve every bit as much flak as people like you seem to think autopilot deserves.... and yet they don't get it. Autopilot isn't an exception from any other driving convenience/safety feature. It's more advanced, but mostly just a combination of the other features.
It is automatic, within the capabilities of the system. So, still a valid name. Further, the name itself does not matter at all. What matters is that the owners are told what the system is capable of when buying, so it could be called anything all and they should be aware of the limitations.
You're starting from a faulty assumption yourself. That a driver that is inattentive with autopilot, regardless of whether it's more likely or not, would be a safe driver otherwise.
You would think wrong. You made a statement. One that is only related to mine in regards to automobiles and accidents. You don't make any point with it at all, you just made the statement. Further, I say that drivers should be attentive. That is a fact regardless of what features the vehicle has. An inattentive driver with autopilot is safer than an inattentive driver without autopilot.
You don't turn him into an inattentive driver though. Some people are bad drivers, and will try to abuse the system. They would still be a bad driver without autopilot.
Their own materials state it's not a complete autonomous solution at this time. It just has the hardware to be fully autonomous when(if) the software is ready.
Obviously I didn't state why myself. Bad drivers will be bad drivers... autopilot has nothing to do with that. Someone not paying attention when using autopilot is the cause of the problem, not the autopilot itself. The problem isn't the autopilot.
Are you trying to counter my point with a somewhat related, but contextually irrelevant statement? I said people should be actively involved in the driving process, and you said they should also avoid having accidents. I can only assume you mean people don't avoid having accidents, and so they will not be an active participant in the driving process with autopilot. However, most drivers do in fact avoid having accidents most of the time. I would also venture that most people that use autopilot are also competent drivers.
Driving is supposed to be an active task, even with autopilot. And yes, I'm fully aware not everyone will see it that way. It doesn't make it any less true. The same concerns could be made for brake assist and cruise control. In the end, good drivers will be good drivers with or without autopilot. The same will be true of bad drivers.
Well, if they bought the car they know they should... It's up to them if they want to cause an accident or not. You can't stop people from choosing to be dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
A refund within the return period, sure. Otherwise, it's still on the customer.
You can earn a profit off of one transaction, while losing losing money on another.
The reality is that statement is largely untrue. The scales just tend to be very large, or very small. So, you either hear about the rich people doing it (for the tax break, or whatever other excuse people think they do it for), or you just don't hear about it at all. You have plenty of volunteers at soup kitchens, people donating small chunks of money, handouts to the homeless, and so on. It happens all the time, but it doesn't make the news.
I don't see any references to it being a law or regulation or anything that would require taxpayer money. That really isn't the point. The point is to determine whether announcing it being automated is better or worse than not announcing it.
Expectations mean a lot. In the case of the system handing off, I'm pretty sure the employee won't sound exactly like the automated system. It would be pretty obvious in that case. People can be spiteful about crap like that.
Further, unless you have an employee actively watching every single call, it won't be seamless or without delays. First, someone would have to see what is being done and then respond. It wouldn't take a lot of time to do so, but you would also need to have more employees manning the system than people using it at any given time for there not to be an extra delay due to volume.
Except I did, and you never bothered to argue against it. You just turned to fighting over the fact that the car isn't a fucking plane. Ultimately it still comes down to my point that the name is perfect valid for the functions it performs. It does not cause an unrealistic expectation of the feature set. The owners are also told how the feature operates, so there would be no confusion over the name vs the functionality. So, again.. You're arguing over the semantics of the name.. because you have no other valid argument.
Autopilot systems aren't exclusive to aircraft... so yeah.. you're being fucking pedantic.
You're not talking any kind of anti-science crowd. I'm not denying, anywhere, that inattentiveness is a concern. The point you don't get is that the problem exists for most any car now a days... Cruise control has been a thing for decades. Pulling you foot away from the gas/brake because of cruise control can also lead to slow reaction times. This just furthers the automation, but the overall driver engagement isn't drastically reduced... unless they choose not to pay attention. A good driver would keep themselves engaged, just like when using cruise control. If they cannot maintain safe driving conditions with the feature, they should turn it off. It's still on the driver to understand what they're doing and be in control of the vehicle.
So, we're back to you being a pedant asshole... ok...
As are, apparently, cruise control... brake assist.. parking assist.. etc. They facilitate the driver being less attentive to what they're doing behind the wheel and thus deserve every bit as much flak as people like you seem to think autopilot deserves.... and yet they don't get it. Autopilot isn't an exception from any other driving convenience/safety feature. It's more advanced, but mostly just a combination of the other features.
It is automatic, within the capabilities of the system. So, still a valid name. Further, the name itself does not matter at all. What matters is that the owners are told what the system is capable of when buying, so it could be called anything all and they should be aware of the limitations.
You're starting from a faulty assumption yourself. That a driver that is inattentive with autopilot, regardless of whether it's more likely or not, would be a safe driver otherwise.
You would think wrong. You made a statement. One that is only related to mine in regards to automobiles and accidents. You don't make any point with it at all, you just made the statement. Further, I say that drivers should be attentive. That is a fact regardless of what features the vehicle has. An inattentive driver with autopilot is safer than an inattentive driver without autopilot.
You don't turn him into an inattentive driver though. Some people are bad drivers, and will try to abuse the system. They would still be a bad driver without autopilot.
Bad drivers are bad drivers, autopilot has nothing to do with a persons driving habits.
No, blaming the driver for not paying attention to the fucking road is common fucking sense.
And that has anything to do with how the feature is named, how?
Their own materials state it's not a complete autonomous solution at this time. It just has the hardware to be fully autonomous when(if) the software is ready.
So, your point is that you're a pedant?
Obviously I didn't state why myself. Bad drivers will be bad drivers... autopilot has nothing to do with that. Someone not paying attention when using autopilot is the cause of the problem, not the autopilot itself. The problem isn't the autopilot.
Are you trying to counter my point with a somewhat related, but contextually irrelevant statement? I said people should be actively involved in the driving process, and you said they should also avoid having accidents. I can only assume you mean people don't avoid having accidents, and so they will not be an active participant in the driving process with autopilot. However, most drivers do in fact avoid having accidents most of the time. I would also venture that most people that use autopilot are also competent drivers.
.... to be able to drive a car.
It's the driver's job to drive their car properly as well. It also requires them to be trained and licensed, though the hurdle isn't nearly as tall.
Driving is supposed to be an active task, even with autopilot. And yes, I'm fully aware not everyone will see it that way. It doesn't make it any less true. The same concerns could be made for brake assist and cruise control. In the end, good drivers will be good drivers with or without autopilot. The same will be true of bad drivers.
Well, if they bought the car they know they should... It's up to them if they want to cause an accident or not. You can't stop people from choosing to be dumb.