isityouyesitsme

We assign fault precisely so that we know who to extract damages from. The burrito assembler is not going to be held liable for bad outcomes when they did everything right.

The mere fact that there are damages to extract means that someone was already damaged, not merely that we want to punish someone. If my neighbor is poisoned by food, I do not have standing to sue in my own capacity because my neighbor was poisoned. At this point, the moral question is whether or not you should be able to extract damages when you can show that you are damaged. Essentially every society has said "yes, of course," even though the specifics of what constitutes damage and recompense differs.

Why do people not universally (or at least generally) tend toward making Fail-Safe systems? I don't know, but they just do not. They must be compelled to.

Call it original sin or prevarication, the second law of thermodynamics, evolutionary inclination to save effort, whatever. But humans just default the opposite way of what you're saying.

I think I am closer to understanding you, but not quite there.

If, for instance, your burrito worker did something egregious, they could be held criminally liable, and depending on the specific situation, the employer could also be held civilly liable.

I say "depending on the situation" because it is the duty of the vendor to ensure best practices are followed: sanitary restrooms, soap and running, clean water for cleaning up, etc. And a nontrivial number of places do so because they know an inspector is coming at some point and they will suffer if they do not comply.

But it is harder to hold the vendor liable if all reasonable precautions and amenities are availed by the vendor, and all proper education, but the end of line worker decides to ignore all of it one day.

You do not need intent to find fault and have standing. Negligence is a thing.

If your farmer chose to ignore industry standard practices and agricultural regulations to prevent and contain such contamination at the source, they are indeed liable. And they can still issue a recall, and indeed must do so as soon as they learn of the problem.

Your vantage point is a bit too optimistic for reality. If it was not, we would not need courts.

your comment was excellent.

I couldn't read past the article's pretentious opening.

Agreed. your parenthetical comment explains the tension.

The only solution is to have a crystal ball.

I do not disagree that I may lack sufficient background for this. It was clearly written for "those in the know," people who already share a common viewpoint and vocabulary, and only differ on minor nuance. A bit like getting a bunch of mechanics to argue about cars.

In this regard, the writing is definitely rambling and incoherent. It's one big mutual academic exercise (I am avoiding the use of a sexual term here).

What did I just (halfway) read? This person is incoherent and rambling, raptured with their own brilliance.

There may be solid points in there, I will never know. I automatically cannot take anyone as serious who writes this way. They do not want to be taken seriously. They want to be congratulated on their keen observations.

I don't quite understand how anyone could actually compare systems from different vendors. The failure modes aren't something the vendors have been able to identify in advance of a cataclysmic event.

So I agree with your "delusional" statement, and also consider your remarks of the same caliber. You cannot determine a system's safety by watching videos.

Think how many videos there would be by now of the 737max taking off, flying, and landing if airplanes were as hip and new as robotic drivers.

I'm truthfully not understanding whether you've missed the point or if you're so interested in defending Tesla that you choose to look past it.

I'm not making a claim about relative feature capabilities (yes, having replied in this specific thread makes that confusing, but that's where your comment was). I'm making a claim that the vast majority of developers do not know how to judge a system's safety.

As an example of this from you, and for a more critical view of Tesla from me, I'll say that when I look at Tesla's capabilities, I could not make a claim that it does anything safely. Safety implies that the system knows its limits and refuses to operate outside of them. This is definitely not Tesla's way. Else it would be impossible, for example, to have sun blind spots make it not "see" a semi.

This is the same type of thinking that prevents most developers from working in safety-critical fields. The presence of a feature, or even its impressive capabilities, is/are not what constitutes "performance." It's also the same type of thinking that gets Tesla drivers decapitated or slammed into an abutment.

was brown vs board of education "activist?"

possibly. I don't think I know anyone who regrets it though.

SCOTUS is just one big game of political football. for centuries.

Well, what I'm not ok doing is arguing silly points steeped in what-about-isms. There are far more entertaining ways to waste time.

The context is that I replied to a comment where one knows.

While not really being one who cares personally about the example here, I would not give a tool a name that I full well know will offend the sensibilities of some who will use it. That would make me a jerk, no matter how funny or whimsical I may find it.

Even when poking fun at myself, I choose names of projects carefully. It's pretty easy to not be a jerk, at least in this way.

Cool. What's the opportunity cost to fix it?