It's also a problem that the camera could have degraded vision that's inadequate for self driving yet report no problem at all and continue driving as if everything's fine.
I'm pretty sure your situation isn't the only way the vision can be obstructed, maybe liquids, or even bird poop can also degrade vision.
This is what I would expect as well. Some kind of visual self-test, and if/when it fails, the driver gets an obvious warning and autopilot does not engage - you get some kind of clearly visible warning so that you can contact Tesla to investigate / repair the obstruction.
This does happen, but maybe not in all cases. I've had it happen where lane change is no longer supported (and you get a notification) because the sun is blinding one of the pillar cameras.
The point of the criticism of "disinformation" is to allow Facebook to increase their censorship. It's like the caricaturial movie scene of someone screaming "somebody stop me". Facebook want to be criticized of "disinformation" so that Facebook gets the excuse to employ censorship and "fact checkers". Those fact checkers will always conveniently focus on exactly the political issues with the most controversy. The value of political censorship is quite higher than normal ads.
They are just selling political censorship in some corrupt way (you'll never see an official transaction, but there are deals behind the scenes).
I'm from Israel. I got the vaccine. The goalposts here shifted to a third booster shot. They already admit the first two doses become ineffective very fast, contradicting the early research that actually got me to trust and take the vaccine in the first place. The stated effectiveness of the vaccine also went downhill. I also had some unusual vaccine side effects that I will not discuss here because I prefer my privacy and nobody believes random internet anecdotes anyway, I'm only going to get criticized for sharing.
I'm not going to get any booster, even tho they are heavy handedly mandating it here, with absolutely zero data. They don't even allow you to confirm a healthy antibody count, strengthening the suspicion that this isn't about "waning antibodies count" at all.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I had my suspicions that this medical tyranny would keep on going on even when the medical data is non-existent, and that most people will not even notice the difference. That suspicion was fully confirmed. I personally apologized to my anti vaccine friend that he was right.
It's going to take a detailed research on why the original Pfizer trial was wrong on the effectiveness, what is the amount of antibodies required to be safe, and then I would see if I meet the criteria, if being recently vaccinated meets the criteria, if they understand the causes of the effects, if the booster actually gives reasonable advantage. And maybe then I'll consider it. If they don't put the side effects and the errors of the phase 3 trials under investigation I might not even vaccinate me or my future kids against other diseases as my trust of this industry was broken by the Pfizer experience.
1) It's impractical to test everyone for antibodies. There's enough empirical data to suggest that immunity wanes over time for most people that it makes sense to just give everyone a 3rd, booster shot.
2) It was always expected that vaccine immunity would wane over time. Nobody (of any relevant repute) ever suggested otherwise.
3) I don't doubt that you had side effects from the vaccine. But there's a strong probability that the side effects of an actual infection would have been much, much worse for you. You may potentially have an undiagnosed health issue that could have potentially been a comorbodity in an actual infection.
1) It's quite worrying since having a high antibody count can imply an increased risk of side effects. This is why we don't give 2 shots to people that have already had covid in the last 6 months.
2) You've got to agree that 6-9 months is a pretty short window of immunity for a traditionnal vaccine. We may maybe rather call it "prophylaxy" then, just like the dewormer you put on your cat every 3 months.
3) Do you have a source? This could be a very interesting pro-vaccine point.
There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead. And it's not like that option is unfathomable to the media. When the truth is aligned with their agenda, they are already experts in "fact-checking" and pointing out where their opponents are wrong.
The rules of debate say it's always better to refute the main argument and to address their issues. If you resort to ad-hominem attacks, appeal to authority, or just plain censorship, to me it is a confession that you do not have better information to add to the debate. Which implies that I'm right.
>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead
A good faith discussion between opposing parties requires establishment of some common ground and a set of rules of engagement (eg 'claims must be supported with facts/data'). Cult leaders foster a sense of paranoia among their followers which makes a good faith debate virtually impossible.
You aren't after a good faith discussion and the vast majority of people with reasonable knowledge, myself included, accept that in general, vaccines save lives.
Ideally, a debate would be best. The challenge is that it's very easy to make false statements. It takes very little effort. You can "Gish gallop" your way through a discussion and the other side is forced to refute every single false statement. A lot of conspiracy theories spread and are believed because their narratives are so simple and easy to understand. Showing that they're wrong takes a lot of explaining, which often strengthens the conspiracy. I can't say I have a solution to it, but it's worth recognizing that discussion doesn't, unfortunately, always work to educate the masses.
Censor someone because disagrees with your position is plain stupidity. Keep the conversation going is a healthy path. The problem is that currently social platform want to CONTROL full the discourse in their platforms. By the way, it's the pandora's box of censorship. Hold my comments.
The most important part of censorship is the censorship about the extent of censorship. The most important propaganda is the propaganda that justifies propaganda itself.
As part of that propaganda, the most important modern propaganda is the "fake news" narrative. The narrative that somehow everyone who gets their information outside the mainstream media is a conspiracy theorist who is too dumb to think critically and probably as dumb as people who think 5G causes coronavirus and earth is flat. The narrative that even speaking about vaccines or coronavirus is "dangerous" in itself and that the best way to deal with vaccine / lockdown / covid policy criticism is to bury the head in the sand and fill your ears with wax and cut their tongues. People are being trained to firewall themselves to true information coming against the mainstream consensus. They are being trained to consider their friends - who they personally know to be smart and rational - as conspiracy theorists and stick to the narrative of the media.
People who are convinced in their truth do not seek to silence a dialog. You only seek to silence conversation when you know the results will be against you.
Door opening is common, I had several cats do it. One cat learned to vomit in the sandbox. We didn't train him to do it, he somehow understood the general vibe that we don't like him vomiting and decided to go to his sandbox to do it (and picked up on the positive feedback from that).
I wish we knew how to make them do that because he wasn't the only vomiting cat.
Cancel culture is out of control. It's disgusting. This isn't some Nazi. People who are against abortion think that it is murder. You can disagree with them but it's not like they are coming from some morally unjustified position. A person speaks out against what he thinks is murder, and ends up cancelled and resigning.
I love eating meat, I don't see it as murder but I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder.
> I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder.
There are relatively few vegetarians and vegans, so they aren't a real threat. I doubt you know what you would do if the number of vegetarians and vegans in your country were the same as the number of anti-abortion theocrats and the former were actively pursuing a long-term goal of establishing legally that all animals have personhood.
After all the propaganda from big tech talking about the dangers of misinformation, they don't care a little bit when their misinformation actively hurts people's lives.
It's Rate of death for vaccinated * probability of catching covid < Rate of death of vaccinated * probability of catching covid-19 + probability of dying from vaccine.
As probability of catching covid-19 decreases, it makes less sense to vaccinate, and if the probability of catching covid-19 is 1%, the vaccine death rate needs to be 100 times smaller than the reduced covid-19 death rate. For young people I think the numbers are against the vaccine.
If it significantly stopped spread that would be different - but the new variants statistics make it pointless at 39% only efficacy.
At this point the numbers are just sadly against vaccines. I'm saying this as a disappointed vaccinated young person. I wouldn't have taken it with the currently known numbers.
> In 1876, as a young student in Austria, Sigmund Freud dissected hundreds of eels in search of the male sex organs. He had to concede failure in his first major published research paper, and turned to other issues in frustration.
What a Freudian story, looking for male genitals. I wonder what would Freud say about that...
I'm pretty sure your situation isn't the only way the vision can be obstructed, maybe liquids, or even bird poop can also degrade vision.