“Yep, the most bullshit garbage baby vomit strategy in the book.”

Well I’m a fire starter guy in general (4 gen out of the 6 released, the other two I chose water) but for the first time, the grass starter final form looks so cool that I don’t even care the fire one kind of sucks, I’d have picked the grass one anyway it even if the fire one was as cool as Charizard.

First, thanks for Robin Hoot, I now consider it the official denomination.

I’ll give you that he isn’t dapper, but he’s a mysterious woodland archer! I’m sorry, but that’s cool, just in a different way.

You’re wrong, but heres a rec for “Robin Hoot.”

On point 2 its not just ethical or moral obligation its also a legal obligation

Yeah its also a crime to not brake for jaywalkers or people crossing against lights. You never have the right to just run over people and if you do you can and likely will be both civilly and criminally liable.

You’re doing 25MPH down a 30. There’s been 8,257 incidents logged for the global AI to show that that is the safest speed down Mid-Size Main Street. All incidents have been successfully mitigated without an injury at that speed. Suddenly, a drunk stumbles from behind an SUV and falls on the road 10ft in front of you.…

Just for starters, trams can’t derail themselves. At least, not in my understanding. Is there some magic button I don’t know about?

We could spend a lot of time arguing about “walking legally.” And the issue of kids might take the whole legal aspect out of consideration. It depends on the kid, of course, but kids are why we have to have fences around swimming pools - they aren’t masters of judgment. Sometimes they just cannot take into account…

You can opt-in to taking the risk by getting in the car. Pedestrians dont get a choice, they are just automatically put at risk but a car on the road? Nope, sorry. If you dont want to trust a computer to make the choice that you die then you dont get to trust a computer to drive for you. Autonomous cars are not some…

I think it gets trickier when you consider that this probably isn’t a simple binary trolley problem, but a probabilistic one.

I disagree that the car occupants should always have the priority. In a situation where the options are 1. stay on the road, hit something, and probably die and 2. swerve off the road, probably survive, but mow down pedestrians, I think cars should be programmed to do the former. Cars should not be going off road and…

The problem with this is that it’s not necessarily the best possible outcome.

Why in the hell is this an issue? If you would rather not be responsible for driving yourself, move to an area with a well-developed public transportation system and take the bus or the train. It is so damn stupid that being distracted by a mobile device or other activities in the car has become such an acceptable…

Yes, I know, altruism, gasp. Sorry, but almost twenty years of handling claims has shown me that this is statistically the case when dealing with pedestrian-automobile interaction.

I hope Mercedes enjoys having to self-insure all of their cars, and having their high-end major loss bond backers raise rates, as well as seeing very painful margins on the claims they will be paying through the nose on when the autonomobiles start whacking pedestrians.

The truly stupid part is that this is not even…

Because you inside a car are infinitely safer than the pedestrian about to be mowed town by a ton of metal at high speed?

The answer is always to protect pedestrians. I have a few reasons for this: