My analogy was admittedly an imperfect way of at least improving upon your analogy. But sure, we could tweak it further to say that the guns that have “autonomous triggers” software will allow the gun to still fire but will ensure that the bullets fired miss, so that the number of bullets fired each year is exactly…

Agreed, which is why I asked why he found 10% unacceptable. If the response is “it’s simply too costly” then okay, that’s fair. But the initial point was that 10% simply isn’t a sufficient enough increase in safety to make it worthwhile. That’s a different position than you’re taking. Obviously, the issue in reality…

No offense, but that’s a terrible analogy. The 10,000 bullets you initially discuss are purposefully fired and do not result in deaths. So having them fired indiscriminately in a haphazard fashion is obviously a horrible change. Relating it to actual deaths from homicides, war, or accidents is completely ridiculous as…

Tesla didn’t have liability because it explicitly states that it’s system is not meant to take sole control of the wheel. The system you describe isn’t an autonomous vehicle, so it’s not really relevant to the discussion. If fully autonomous vehicles are never released, and if instead we keep the types of assisted…

That precise question is unique, but there is nothing inherently more complex in dealing with these issues than with dealing with any number of regulatory schemes currently in place. The questions of liability will be debated and answered and implemented, and schemes will be put in place to allocate who owes what and…

Fair enough. I figured it was clear that I was saying they would insure against liability tied to their software and the AV aspects of the car.

As a Wizards fan, I certainly remember that. It’s just ludicrous to claim that they whupped their asses so bad that the C’s are in Wall and Beal’s heads. The Wizards won one of those games by nearly 30 points, and another one by nearly 20. It was a hard fought series, and it’s not like the Celtics kicked their asses…

Wait, taking a team to a full 7-game series is getting your ass whupped? What are you talking about?

And I don’t think a multi billion dollar industry is going to pay out millions of dollars in damages in wrongful death lawsuits without realizing they should be insured against those losses. It’s basic risk allocation. When AVs are the drivers the software will be the responsible party for some of the accidents. The…

Ahhh, I think I see what you’re saying. You perceive yourself to be better than the average unassisted human driver to a level that means that the 10% safety improvement wouldn’t actually make your daily driving conditions safer. That’s fair.

Based off of Jenkins quote, this makes sense. Her movie was meant to be more of a standalone film, using a character that obviously has ties to the larger DCEU. But this movie will almost certainly be setting up a JL-2 where they have to fight Darkseid, so there’s a clear tie in to tease at the end of JL.

I’m still confused. The fact that other measures could increase safety more doesn’t seem like a rational reason to oppose a measure that still increases safety. Again, a 10% reduction in fatalities would save thousands of lives. Why not advocate for that 10% reduction AND the other measures that would also improve…

Sure, but that’s just an allocation of risk question. The car maker will insure against the risk of lawsuits, and the cost will be passed through to the consumer at the purchasing stage. Regulations and a legal framework will be constructed to address the liability of the manufacturer at the outset. It will definitely…

Why isn’t 10% acceptable? If there was a different way to increase the safety of a car by 10% would we object because it wasn’t improving safety by 50%? I can understand the objection if you’re saying “10% is hypothetical, and at that low of a figure we can’t be sure it actually provides any benefit at all in reality,…

I had the same initial thought as “Arggh!” did, but I think that the liability issue is addressed by who holds the insurance. So the automaker will insure the car, and then pass along the cost of the insurance to the consumer. The insurer will then provide pressure for the automaker to increase safety, providing…

I know this isn’t the point, but I did want to point out that worrying about breaking your neck AFTER you already contorted your body to get your head up your own ass is going to result in you having a bad time no matter what.

“more like don’t blame the thief if the store’s alarm system have a gigantic non monitored backdoor”

The reasonable person test makes no sense in this context. The tax code is incredibly complex, and is literally written out in voluminous detail. This isn’t some common law doctrine of behavior that addresses interactions everyone deals with- the tax code is very specific, providing immense amount of details, with…

Nobody is saying she shouldn’t be charged. Nobody is saying she is totally fine, or that what she did was praiseworthy. Please learn how to address real arguments and not strawmen. And please don’t sound so happy to have the opportunity to knock people out, or to praise officers for violence that causes significant…

Who the hell is giving her a pass? Your’s is another very stupid response.