I think it's surely safety-critical that the car hit _some_ objects. For instance, you don't want to be going 70mph down the highway only for the car to attempt to come to a screeching halt when a paper bag or some other litter blows into your lane. Behavior like that is liable to itself cause a pretty serious accident, since it's so unlike the reaction any of the drivers around you will be anticipating.
Likewise, unpleasant though it is to admit, it's probably (in many circumstances, especially inclement weather) safer to hit a squirrel or a raccoon that dashes across the road than it is to try to swerve to avoid them. On the other hand, there's going to be a good case from a driver safety perspective to avoid hitting a deer, and it is _critical_ that you attempt to avoid hitting a moose. Obviously, things here get much more complex when you're talking about a child or adult human being.
Point being, I think it's dismissive to just go "the car shouldn't hit anything it detects" - not all objects are equal, even assuming perfect detection (i.e. not mistaking a pothole for a giant rock).
You miss the point. If there is an object the size of a baby carriage in front of my car, I am going to avoid hitting it if at all possible. It doesn't matter what I think it is. It might damage my car if I hit or, or make me lose control (if the front of the car rides up on top of it), or possibly even deploy the airbags. But I am not going to even think of any of these things while driving -- I am just going to avoid hitting it. Tesla is unable to do that and I don't understand why that is ok with anyone.
As mikequinlan said, you're so close and yet thinking about it completely backward. Not knowing enough about what the object is to know whether it's an obscured human (or a boulder that will total your car and leave you in the hospital) is all the reason you need to not hit it. You decide whether to hit a squirrel after you determine that hitting it won't ruin your day, not before. Not hitting something needs to be the default unless determined that it's safe to do otherwise.
Do you ever find yourself wondering why people find it so hard to do a particular thing that seems, to you, trivial - possibly to the point of frustration? Alternatively, do you sometimes get confused when people praise your work on something that you think of as not having taken any real effort to produce? Is there any particular domain or skill where you occasionally hear people (e.g. coworkers) discussing their realizations or achievements, and you think to yourself, "oh, but is that not obvious?" or "hunh, I thought everyone knew that"?
If any of those apply, that's something you're good at, even if it doesn't feel it. Sometimes being good at something just means feeling like something isn't a challenge for you, when it is a challenge for most other people around you.
What if I never feel that way but often the opposite? I'm in college right now and it's mind-blowing to me how everyone else can understand everything so quickly.
This is an easy statement to make, but I think, empirically speaking, it just doesn't line up with reality. For payday loans, where the terms have historically been in excess of 36%, the vast majority of borrowers:
1. Pay the loan on-time (more than 90%; Community Financial Services Association of America, "About the Payday Industry: Myth vs.
Reality.")
I think fortunately/unfortunately, most HN readers won't be familiar with the benefits quick, easy access to capital can have for a person, especially those living on the margins of poverty, where missing one e.g. auto or phone payment can have cascading, long-lasting effects, such as losing a job. The nice thing about our distributed, relatively free-market economy though is that every person can act as an independent agent, analyze their own risk tolerance and ability to make responsible use of the financial products available to them, and make choices leveraging personal information that no centralized authority (or blanket rule, such as "loans with interest above 36% should not be permissible in any circumstance") could possibly have access to.
You'd probably be interested in Unison ( www.unisonweb.org ). It's a Haskell-style functional language, which aims to make the sort of distributed computing you're talking about easy. The central conceits are:
1. Functions are hashable
2. The codebase and runtime are deployed uniformly to every node
3. Networking these nodes allows functions to be cross-referenced and passed by their hash values
Alternatively: without this new source of revenue, auto manufacturers will be less able to compete on price and maintain the same margins. As a consumer, I don't get to decide whether I'd like a "repairable" car that doesn't harvest my data for $X, or am willing to settle for a data-harvesting, proprietary vehicle for $(X - Y) - the state has made that choice on my behalf and decided the latter should be illegal to sell to me (read: for me to purchase).
That $Y probably ends up being small enough that it doesn't matter to the average high-paid HN reader, but consumer prices do matter to people at the margins. There's a reason ad-supported Kindles exist, even if I personally would never buy one.
That's a good point -- even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state.
So I guess taking the traditional Ancap question about free markets, and reapplying it, it's reasonable to ask: how can regulation that is the result of people's free voting choices not itself be considered free?
And then you can get into whatever responses people have to that question in general about whether free choices can result in coercive structures that are worth opposing, which is not really my point here. My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing. I don't see why one should inherently be viewed as more legitimate than the other.
If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community. It seems just as valid of a choice as anything else the free market could produce.
> … even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state.
Are you serious?
If you approach this from a "very strict Libertarian perspective" then the rights of the 25% (at least) who did not vote in favor of this rule are being infringed. It doesn't matter that a majority were in favor, because Libertarian ideology is not collectivist. Individual people have rights which are independent of what the majority choose.
> My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing.
In the former case, if someone does decide to produce the good for others to use they are free to do so, even if the majority disagree. And if you really can't find anyone willing to produce the good you want to buy (unlikely), you can at least make it yourself without penalty. The difference between "no one is obligated to produce what you want" and "other people can use force to stop you and others from producing what you want for yourselves" is perfectly obvious.
> If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community.
More collectivist nonsense. The rights of the voters favoring this measure, as a group, do not exceed the sum of the rights of the individual voters, and no individual voter has the right to use force to prevent other people from making or buying products the voter doesn't approve of. Ergo, the group also lacks any right to enforce their will in this matter on the minority who disagreed. They are not a party to the transaction and have no standing to interfere.
> If you approach this from a "very strict Libertarian perspective" then the rights of the 25% (at least) who did not vote in favor of this rule are being infringed.
No, from a Libertarian perspective, those 25% chose to live in that state and enter into a free agreement with their neighbors to participate in representative democracy. It's no different from them choosing to participate in a necessary market like buying Internet or a car, and the same forces that would make it too expensive/time-consuming to run for office or move to a different state also prevent them from forming their own automobile company or paying exorbitant prices for privacy-respecting products (if those products even exist in the first place).
Of course, they are "free" to start their own automobile company, just like they are "free" to make their own political party.
> Individual people have rights which are independent of what the majority choose.
Look, I agree with this statement, I think this is an important statement to make. But it's a perspective that's totally inconsistent with Ancap philosophy; by this logic the market itself can infringe on my freedom by refusing to cater to niche consumer wishes (which it often refuses to do). I'm looking at this issue through an Ancap Libertarian lens because that's what OP originally suggested in their criticism of the ballot measure -- regardless of whether or not I agree with Ancap philosophy, I'm examining the situation through their worldview.
From an Ancap perspective, people choose to participate in markets, and it's just as easy to move out of a state to avoid a regulation as it is to move out of a state to avoid a market.
> The difference between "no one is obligated to produce what you want" and "other people can use force to stop you and others from producing what you want for yourselves" is perfectly obvious.
No, otherwise agreements wouldn't exist. Do you think your freedom is being abridged when you sign a terms of service agreement? People voluntarily chose to take part in representative democracy. Even if you don't buy that citizens can move out the state, the companies choosing to sell in those states certainly have the freedom to move out. They have the power to even move to different countries. They voluntarily chose to enter into an agreement where people would have the democratic freedom to vote for regulations. They aren't forced to be here.
From an Ancap Libertarian perspective, this is the exact same scenario as you signing an agreement with Apple when you purchase an iPhone. That agreement may restrict what you can and can't do within Apple's ecosystem, but you chose to sign it. They chose to incorporate and sell in Massachusetts.
You mention this point as well:
> In the former case, if someone does decide to produce the good for others to use they are free to do so, even if the majority disagree.
But the analogy here is more like you going into Apple's ecosystem and saying that you should have the freedom to put any app in their store. You still have the freedom to build automobiles without oversight. You just don't have the freedom to infringe on other people's spaces and violate their collective agreements. The people of Massachusetts are not obligated to give you a platform to sell your goods in their community, you don't have the right to force them to do that.
> They are not a party to the transaction and have no standing to interfere.
If I violate Apple's TOS and sell pornography on their app store, can I say that Apple isn't party to the transaction between me and the buyer, and that they have no standing to interfere? Communities have the same rights to set up rules about how they will operate as companies and platform providers do.
Now, separately, we can get into an argument about how free transactions can actually result in less free outcomes, but that's approaching this issue from a different lens than the Ancap lens that OP was using. And part of the problem of using that lens is that as soon as we do venture into questioning whether free transactions universally result in more freedom, we're left evaluating the market through the lens of market outcomes, and regulations like this tend to look really good when you're approaching the market through the lens of encouraging free outcomes rather than purely guaranteeing free processes.
But my point is not to convince you that Ancap Libertarianism is good or bad, it's to take Ancap Libertarianism at face value and apply it to the situation, and I don't see how voluntarily built communities, interacting with companies that have voluntarily entered into those communities and signed agreements with them, is any different at all from you signing a contract to publish your apps on the Apple store, or buying a tool under a license. When you argue that communities have no right to set rules or regulations, what you are effectively arguing is that the people who make up that community don't have the right to form a voluntary contract with each other. Which is obviously an anti-Libertarian sentiment.
The forces of expense/resource-availability that keep you inside of a state with rules that you disagree with are literally the exact same forces of expense/resource-availability that keep you locked into market-wide abuses and that keep you from going away and forming your own markets that better serve your needs. It is impossible to criticize one without criticizing the other.
> No, from a Libertarian perspective, those 25% chose to live in that state and enter into a free agreement with their neighbors to participate in representative democracy.
Yet more nonsense. They were born there. They never agreed to abide by whatever rules their neighbors choose to impose. Leaving is not zero-cost and no one has the right to force them to choose between acquiescing to others' demands and leaving their home—as if there were even anywhere else they could be expected to go where they won't face the same unreasonable demands.
> But it's a perspective that's totally inconsistent with Ancap philosophy; by this logic the market itself can infringe on my freedom by refusing to cater to niche consumer wishes (which it often refuses to do).
Again, more nonsense. Your rights are not infringed upon by other people not giving you whatever you happen to want. They are infringed upon when other people step in and threaten you with harm (for example loss of property, imprisonment, or capital punishment) when you attempt to provide the things you want for yourself, or through voluntary cooperation with others.
> Do you think your freedom is being abridged when you sign a terms of service agreement?
No, because that is a voluntary arrangement. If I don't agree to the contract we go our separate ways and no one loses anything that already belongs to them. People do not "voluntarily chose to take part in representative democracy"; their participation is compulsory. It's not just "take it or leave it" (which is already getting into contract-of-adhesion territory) but rather "take it or give up your entire life up till now and hope, against all odds, that you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have exactly the same problems". And that applies just as much to companies as to individuals.
> When you argue that communities have no right to set rules or regulations, what you are effectively arguing is that the people who make up that community don't have the right to form a voluntary contract with each other.
More nonsense. The individual people who make up the community have every right to enter into voluntary contracts with each other. They do not, however, have the right to compel anyone to enter into those contacts as a condition of living near them, or to make anyone who doesn't agree to the contract move somewhere else.
The rest of your reply is just more of the same. It's clear you have no idea whatsoever what "Ancap" Libertarianism actually means. You're approaching it from a collectivist mindset which is diametrically opposed to the actual ideology, and confusing voluntary interaction with laws based on force.
> People do not "voluntarily chose to take part in representative democracy"; their participation is compulsory. It's not just "take it or leave it" (which is already getting into contract-of-adhesion territory) but rather "take it or give up your entire life up till now and hope, against all odds, that you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have exactly the same problems". And that applies just as much to companies as to individuals.
How can you possibly understand this concept in regards to citizenship and not understand the concept of wage slavery, coercive markets, and abusive contracts? How is it possible for you not to draw a line connecting the concepts of being born into a bad market and being born into a bad government?
Every principle that you are talking about with government coercion also applies to Capitalist markets. People don't choose to get born into poverty or into coercive structures where they're forced to take bad deals, bad jobs, or to buy bad products.
How can you possibly understand the concept of free association in regards to building a company with corporate leadership, and not understand that communities can also form free associations with each other via formal agreements? You don't get mad that Facebook has a governing board that votes about things. And how can you possibly not understand that the same barriers to free association in regard to location under governments also exist for markets?
This is a wild comment to read, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why a localized monopoly/duopoly/coordinated-market over goods and services is a free outcome, but a government isn't. Both structures in effect have the same coercive power.
----
> They do not, however, have the right to compel anyone to enter into those contacts as a condition of living near them
The people living in that state who built the government own the land, they formed an organization that leases the land to citizens under a contract. It's no different from an apartment complex; I can be born to parents living inside of an apartment, and I'll have to obey those rules too. The people of Massachusetts set up an organization that provides public goods and services (including access to land) as part of a contract of residency. What gives you the right to force the people of Massachusetts to provide access to public goods and services to companies? You think you can force the Massachusetts government to provide access to public advertising space, legal recognition, road access?
These are cars that drive on public roads that are owned by the people of Massachusetts, you don't own those roads, you don't get to take them away from the state. Build your own roads on private property if you want to drive unlicensed vehicles.
> and confusing voluntary interaction with laws based on force
Our market is based on force. All of these companies use the force of law and the threat of state violence to enforce contracts. All of them are willing to drag you to court over contract violations, and all of them are willing to use state apparatus to enforce those contracts. There is no difference between a company using state violence to enforce a contract and a state using state violence to enforce a contract.
----
In general, it just kind of blows my mind that people can be so in-tune with how collective governments can go wrong, and not realize that corporations are collectivist organizations, and that the "market" of governments and states is not fundamentally different from a "market" of companies who maintain ownership over natural resources.
> as if there were even anywhere else they could be expected to go where they won't face the same unreasonable demands.
The same people who make this argument will also argue that the market isn't being coercive when industry-wide abuse happens, when the only two functional cell phone OSes both collect spyware data, when every landlord in a community imposes unreasonable demands on their tenants, when every job demands arbitration agreements, when every car company starts collecting driver data.
Why not? They’ve been making cars for 100 years and margins go up and down, no data sales during they heydays. Anyway, it’s not anyone’s job to protect their margins.
> "Domestication" is just a word for a natural evolutionary processes in a symbiotic system. The concept that "domestication" is like, actually a thing apart from evolution is a vastly more difficult idea to parse than it appears on it's face.
In mammals, there is a well-established "domestication syndrome" with a specific proposed underlying mechanism and associated symptoms, including many observed in humans in comparison with other hominids (smaller jaws/muzzles, smaller teeth, smaller brain, greater docility). See https://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795#skip-link for more information.
The concept that some animals are able to be domesticated, generally, while other's are not, lends itself to the idea that drift toward docile qualities is probably working in the domesticator's favor, and is not an inherent quality of domestication as a concept.
The idea that we have an idea of a thing we can readily point at, does not mean that thing is the driving force behind it. It's just a post hoc argument. We can't domesticate zebras, we can domesticate horses. The idea that 'domestication' is a force, rather than a result of evolutionary pressure of a symbiotic relationship shows that the domestication can't be the driving force. It's just evolution.
I'm not arguing the concept that domestication syndrome doesn't exist. I obviously defer to these experts, I'm just arguing that the concept that free, independent humans 'domesticate themselves' is effectively nonsensical on it's face, as domestication, as such, requires symbiosis and controlled breeding, and is simply not possible for many species.
Sometimes the metric you use for the loss function is not the best metric for eval. Think BLEU for translation, for instance (not that BLEU is particularly great).
Likewise, unpleasant though it is to admit, it's probably (in many circumstances, especially inclement weather) safer to hit a squirrel or a raccoon that dashes across the road than it is to try to swerve to avoid them. On the other hand, there's going to be a good case from a driver safety perspective to avoid hitting a deer, and it is _critical_ that you attempt to avoid hitting a moose. Obviously, things here get much more complex when you're talking about a child or adult human being.
Point being, I think it's dismissive to just go "the car shouldn't hit anything it detects" - not all objects are equal, even assuming perfect detection (i.e. not mistaking a pothole for a giant rock).