I may sound cynical, but protecting jobs is hardly ever a good argument for blocking new technology in my opinion. You’re at best delaying the inevitable. Society is more likely better off learning early how to use the workforce for new and better tasks. Of course, this needs a healthy and working society, so I of course understand the individual concerns.
Safety on the other hand is a very valid reason to hold back new technology.
Definitely agree with that, but the tech is definitely not there to handle all situations, and as long as that’s the case, a human should be there. He should’ve signed the law, and if self driving actually becomes viable enough they could repeal it then
I may have misunderstood, but afaik it’s still not generally allowed to use self driving trucks - each case / technology will need permission. Those are the once that should be withdrawn when necessary due to safety concerns, instead of giving a blanket ban on the technology for workforce protection reasons.
Thing is, the folks that are pushing these technologies don’t give rip about safety OR jobs, just profits. The government should be considering all these things, they mostly are concerned about getting re-elected and scoring culture war partisan points. Tech doesn’t work in a vacuum. It is naive and dangerous to think is neutral.
Definitely agree with that, but the tech is definitely not there to handle all situations, and as long as that’s the case, a human should be there.
I disagree. I think the bar should be "safer than a human." If our bar were "perfect," self driving would never be permitted without a human at the wheel.
I’m not really talking about avoiding accidents, I’m talking about what happens after something goes wrong (accident, flat tyre, load gets loose, whatever). Who’s going to deal with that? Does the company need to send someone to unblock traffic? What’s the SLA on that? What if the unblocking guy is stuck in traffic?
We’re talking about big rigs here, there’s already rarely anything a driver can do to “deal with” something like a load coming loose or a flat tire anyways. All you can really do is hope you’ve noticed the problem soon enough to get off the highway, which is obviously something that an AI would be better at with its many sensors and lack of distractability.
Even in situations where the truck ends up stuck in the middle lane of a big freeway, it’s not like the driver can just get out and push it off to the side of the road. Except for a few pretty rare cases, all the driver does is set up some pylons and then sit in the sleeper and wait for the heavy duty tow truck to show up.
As long as it doesn’t become another externality that places the expenses on the government/taxpayer, I’m okay with it. Someone in this thread mentioned there are teams to handle situations like that, and they sounds like enough for me.
I disagree that having a human there would actually help resolve any safety issues. Either the tech is ready or it’s not. Putting a human in the impossible position of needing to suddenly override the machine after hours of nothing happening is not the solve.
In a statement announcing that he would not sign the bill, the Democratic governor said additional regulation of autonomous trucks was unnecessary because existing laws are sufficient.
Newsom pointed to 2012 legislation that allows the state Department of Motor Vehicles to work with the California Highway Patrol, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “and others with relevant expertise to determine the regulations necessary for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.”
I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.
What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.
It literally is when we live in this day and age. If you aren’t living in a tribe somewhere, the bottom line is, you do this because you want to end something’s life.
I’ll be sure to inform my hunting friends we’re all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
No only responsible gun owners deserve the right. Responsibility means underwriting yourself or with an insurer the cost of the risks posed by your toys.
Right so only rich people, got it. Gotta spend money to prove your life is worth protecting after all, if you have no money you might as well go ahead and be victimized and die, good riddance!
Toys? This is the mentality that makes reform difficult. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are those of us who use these tools exactly as they are meant to and really get annoyed at both the “AR at the grocery store” crowd and the “Thousand dollar bullets will show them” crowd.
And those people get arrested. What aren’t we understanding here? Selling weapons of war should be easier than smokes or booze? What kind of logic is that?
Because you’re likely using it as a tactic to make them sound scary, and you likely don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you mean the Colt 1911 or m1 garand that were a gun of choice for the first and second world war, or the AR-15 that has been taken to no wars ever by anyone anywhere?
Their statement was I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that? You provided a single reference to an outlier - seemingly aware it’s an outlier e.g. calling-out deadliest.
It’s hard to see how a single data-point - an outlier, at that - is somehow the requested data let alone ton of.
I’m the one being told I should have a gun, not the one saying I have a gun! Besides, the right to self-defense is all about bullets it seems, so as long as I can chuck bullets at the guy, I’ll be legally protected!
Well, better than a knife that makes you get close to an armed attacker, and they don’t make holsters for baseball bats, tasers are 60% effective and that’s the ones the police can get that we can’t, and mace is for non-deadly threats, so you should have that too, but time and place
Ok fair, I worded that poorly, I should have said “is only effective when the attacker gets in close enough proximity to stab, which puts you at undue risk of harm” but I didn’t think the Pedantic Police would be out, my mistake.
Even if I was the world’s foremost knife fighter, and took them all out, I’d be in legal trouble because I have no rights to self-defense if I don’t have bullets.
Only rich people should be allowed to shoot up malls and schools. If you only use them in self defense, bullets are worth a grand each. This is an plutocracy, and such delights of mass murder should not belong to the common man.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that we’d be seeing much more innovation and availability if not for the sheer SOT sandbagging.
It continues to blow my mind that basic hearing protection is somehow restricted especially when the countries the restrict/ban crowd loves comparing the US to generally consider suppressors to be essential equipment because of the sound reduction.
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly.
Oh? I’m not sure how you interpreted their highlight of the sheer commonality of those legally carrying with no issue as either of these things.
It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others.
I’m not sure how you feel threatened by the mere existence of inanimate objects. Even extrapolating to the action - that of homicide - I’m not sure how you’d feel threatened by such a thing, especially so disproportionately to its lack of prevalence related to the other ways you can be killed and their statistical likelihood.
I’m also not sure how you interpret the right to bear arms - repeatedly highlighted for self-defense purposes in judgements and judge opinions - as somehow an inalienable right to kill others. Unless I’m missing something, that kill others part tends to result in the offender spending quite some time in prison.
It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
You may wish to take your own advice - you seem unable to think beyond your own preconceived and irrational views on a thing, even aside from your demonstrated inability to consider how your criticisms and suggestions might apply to yourself rather hypocritically.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
I’m not sure anyone - anyone - would argue police are “good guys”. If anything, they’re an active demonstration that those in power cannot be the only ones with firearms given the extent to which they maliciously misuse that power.
But sure - use the incompetence and cowardice of a given police department as some absurd emotional appeal.
You seem like a pleasant individual, wishing death on those you disagree with views on Constitutional rights.
FYI the powder used in manufacturing ammo is not explosive. Smokeless powder simply burns fast, and it’s generally safe and relatively easy to construct your own ammo at home. I have a couple of reloading presses at home, have made hundreds of cartridges of high quality ammo for cheaper than you can buy it. The cartridges that I produce with novice to intermediate level experience on the press are actually higher quality than factory ammo, unless you spend extra for the Match Grade stuff.
I get heart catheterizations at my yearly check ups for my heart transplant. Reading this made me feel sick. I’m so glad I go to a very well renown hospital for it.
So instead of looking into a more common ground in these issues, we see libral in social media labelling any conservative as “hater” “idiots” and then wonder why conservative get elected.
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
Instead, if they are religious we see comments saying they will do anything for their imaginary friend, and if they are conservative, they don’t know how to raise their kids, and the best is when talking about blocker thereby, comment will dismiss everything as being non harmful which doesn’t make sense.
I am also amazed that people with concern or question cannot say much because of the hate speech laws that are vaguely defined. So you end up with people “force” to be quite and only able to have conversations with like minded or extremist people. This also force academics/lawyers/medically trained individual to not say anything.
I always wonder if this is a work of trolls who aimd at dividing the country similar to what happens in the US and UK.
Edit: cool to see some of the replies actually prove a point.
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
Because their concerns are delusional.
You can’t have a “normal conversation” about kitty litter boxes being placed in schools for students who are furries. It never happened, but someone told them it did and now they’re angry about it. Try to tell them it’s not happening and they fell for a hoax and then they accuse you of being blind to the truth and hurting children.
Constructive discourse is impossible. All you can hope to do is limit their influence by appealing to people who have not already fallen for their fear mongering. Engaging directly is a trap.
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
When conservatives learn to present their arguments in a non-hyperbolic fashion that doesn't ignore science and reality, and to have an adult conversation about the merits of those arguments, and to be honest about what is motivating those arguments, then this complaint will hold some water.
Where is the common ground between ‘trans people are people’ and ‘trans people are abominations that should be relegated to the backwash of society until we find a socially acceptable reason to kill them.’?
if they are religious we see comments saying they will do anything for their imaginary friend
I mean, yeah, usually the religious people demonstrating have things saying “you will burn in hell” or similar. Thats not an argument at all, other than they doing it for their imaginary friend.
Indeed, discussion between the left and right no longer seems possible. Both sides focus on the extremes. The far-right arguments and the far-left arguments instead of the centrist povs.
I think that any controversial point that people have different takes works like this… Vast majority of people, free of influence from their others, are centrist. A bell-curve of dividing opinions. Most people would either not care, or not find a big issue about it. Few will take it to the extremes. But over time in political discourse, we move from a bell curve of opinions to two very divisive sides.
Since the main topic is apparently too hot of a take, I’ll take pineapple on a pizza for example (Perhaps I’m getting into even hotter waters). Free of external influence (i.e. memes), I think most people will eat it without much thought. Some might like it, some might not, and I doubt it’s all that controversial–likely less than anchovies. If you don’t like it, you just don’t have to eat it.
But if one extreme said we must ban pineapples from all pizzas, and the other end of the extreme said we must put pineapple on all pizzas, we have a very different scenario. I myself enjoy Hawaiian pizza and find pineapples to be a fine topping. But I certainly don’t want to eat only pineapple pizzas all the time. So, I’d look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever. That seems better of the two options. I can no longer be a centrist because the idea of having only pineapple pizza seems horrible. But I don’t really eat whole pizzas by myself, I eat it with others. And if others are such great lovers of pineapple pizza, I’d be influenced to side with the other extreme of always having pineapple due to peers.
I want to highlight that both of these extremes are authoritarian. One forces you to eat pineapple. The other forces you to not eat pineapple. Neither are true libertarian choices. They are forced viewpoints one forces on the other. That’s what forces people to have such strong negative emotion towards it. No one wants to be forced into things. This is important and I’ll come back to this later.
Just look at every other reply to the comment I’m replying to. They highlight how the extreme right is horrible. Yeah. They are. It seems there’s no arguing with them. They seem to have extreme authoritarian views. How do you deal with them as a left leaning person? You can’t. The ones that can deal with them, are not you, but the centrists or the non-extreme rights. You can only bring them to your side by shunning your own extreme left. Vice versa the other way around too for rights bringing in the left. You need to recognize extremism and learn to shun them. But we don’t do that. We get into team mentality and think your side is right and the other is wrong. The more people think like that, the more divisive people get because they associate the extreme with the rest. Just because I want to eat pineapple pizza doesn’t mean I want to force everyone to eat pineapple pizza.
Look at this article. It constantly highlights how some members of the organization are extreme leaning. Yes, I’m sure there are. It’s a team game after all. But then we’re intentionally ignoring the vast quantity of people who aren’t.
The right is seeing authoritarian regime from the left as their children are now forced to learn about things they don’t approve of. Whether or not you think learning of LGBT+ in school is right or wrong is what you will be fixated on, but it is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not I want pineapple on pizza is irrelevant. Problem is forced. Problem is whether or not I’m forced to eat pineapple pizza. This is why you get such push away, why the centrists find themselves having to side with one or the other. They’re siding with the one they feel less repulsed to. Though people love to (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance and how they must intolerate the intolerant, they don’t realize this is said on both sides of the spectrum. Both sides feel forced by the other to suppress them, and then we continue to speculate on what is the other side through the extreme responses. This is why both sides keep saying they’re victims. This is why they both claim the other is a fascist. You might not be the extreme authoritarian so you probably think the argument is idiotic, bigotry, etc. because you brought a sensible argument. But some of the people on your team are. You probably don’t realize they’re behind you. But they’re the face the other side sees.
Though I did bring the solution, I doubt it’s a plausible one. I don’t think any significant number of people in the moderate political climate is interested in doing so. As seen by number of downvotes. Frankly, I think we’re fucked.
So, I’d look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever.
We can’t be friends anymore. Go die with all your anti-pineapplist friends!!
Anti-pinapplism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic toppings in Marinara history has been committed by Anti-pinapplists. Nearly every act of mushrooms, green peppers, onions, and even anchovies ever committed in Dipping Sauce history has been committed by Anti-pinapplists.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with Anti-pinapplists. Marginalize hate by marginalizing me. Wait wut?
Frankly, I think we’re fucked.
Sadly, I think you are probably right. The US and several other major democratic powers seem to be trying to find their own recipes for civil war.
WOW, it really sucks that the government is just going to let her murder her child. That’s what’s going to happen. Kid will definitely be dead within the year because of gross negligence by the criminal justice system.
If you think these people don't have any impact, you've not been paying attention to your neighbours to the south (or to us over the pond, or to anywhere where trans and other queer people are being targeted, really)
I feel like I need to defend us a little: US is pretty well split between two extremes right now, and you mostly read about this in the 1/3 of states that are highly conservative.
Even in Florida, with all its faults, all its hatred, it’s corrupt government, it’s attacks on education …… a buddy in mine living in a community with a high percentage of lgbt folk, says it really doesn’t affect them directly. I’d worry more about raising kids there
US is pretty well split between two extremes right now
I'm curious what you think the extreme is on the other end of the spectrum from right-wing bigotry, because usually folks who say this label the "trans and gay people exist, are people, are not all pedophiles, and deserve the same human rights and basic decency as anyone" contingent as the other extreme, somehow.
At the risk of showing my bias, the other end of the spectrum is “people”. Just people. Normal people, different people, special people people of varying attributes, ethnicities, and preferences.
You’re probably correct that “extremes” was not the best choice of words, but I meant that as in opposing. We have people on one side and right wing bigots on the opposite, and they are bound to clash
Lmfao, do as much mental gymnastics as you like, that doesn't change reality, nor make the US defensible in any way shape or form.
says it really doesn’t affect them directly
and that right there is the problem - that you (and your friend) only see an issue once it does.
Maybe try taking your head out of that rotten "standing up for my country" sand and actually try listening more to those already impacted, because I guarantee there are many, they wholeheartedly disagree with you, and it isn't stopping with them.
Would it help to rephrase for my I tended meaning?
— Yes it’s a problem but we’re not all like that. Most of us are not.
— Even in one of the most bigoted places, with politicians spewing hatred, even as one of the targeted groups, a lot of it is just bluster and the hatred doesn’t always translate to real life
— Hatred toward x, is mostly “riling up the base” and you don’t always encounter them, but attacks on education use the force of law to apply the bigotry everywhere, impacting the future of our children and our society
I meant these marchers, which seem disorganized and relatively few people. The overall trend, rightwing extremism, is a worldwide problem whose flames were fanned by Russia and China. The American brand of right wing BS is particularly destructive and infectious though. I know it, I moved from a place getting infected by it to a place where people like me (bi) are safer.
UK seems to be on a similar path, unfortunately. Though it’s a slightly different take on it.
I've said for the longest time, the world needs wiping. A hard reset.
Technology comes to the masses and shit like this is some people's first thought? Constantly figuring out how to better kill each other, humiliate, bully. It blows my mind, even at the old old age of 34 how utterly deprived people can be.
Tell a family member you love them today, give them a hug - create your own net positive.
This is the more reasonable and realistic approach, I'm just not even sure how that'd come about. Although I feel education is an important factor from a young age on the do's and don'ts - tools? Maybe need to be developed that somehow doesn't intrude on the right to privacy.
It's concerning, after reading this this morning then speaking to some of the lads about it, me Mrs - even with me Mum when I was out for a walk with her.. It's leaving people feel hella vulnerable. Nothing to stop anyone right now taking a pic of any one us and slapping it on some weird shit, some incriminating shit, racial hatred shit. Anything.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.