If tens of thousands (or really, even a handful) of people were dying from car crashes caused by, for example, brakes failing, then people would absolutely be attacking the manufacturer of the car. If you sell a feature that _does not work_ and it causes deaths, you should be held liable.
Reading the article or the NHTSA documents would clarify that blame is not placed on Tesla here for the crashes, but blame is placed for not ensuring the driver was paying attention. Drivers had plenty of time to react, but they didn't.
This is not trying to say the car quickly jerked into a pedestrian on the side of the road.
This article is about “FSD”/Autopilot and compares what others in the industry do with similar features. This isn’t Tesla autopilot vs Toyota camry drivers.
I'm sorry... this is ridiculous. I'm not vaccine-heavy (like I don't really think you need a chickenpox vaccine or a rotavirus vaccine if you're healthy or a Hep B vaccine at birth if you're low risk), but the idea of forgoing vaccines for illnesses like polio is just stupid. Too many kids died or were disabled for this. It's just stupid.
The injectable vaccine is safe and has been used for decades. There should really be no objection to it. The oral ones are a different story and I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near those (too high a risk of polio)
I'm not anti-vax, though but my daughter actually got chicken pox from the vaccine. It sucked - we had to get her vaccined to fly back east, so we did... flew and it was supposed to be a trip to chicago zoo but she got CP then night we got there and spent a couple days in the hotel bath with calamine.
I got the chicken pox twice. Once at 6 months. and at 14y.
Cutter incident - The mistake produced 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis—and of these, five children died from polio.[2] The exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths.
I already addressed this concern. I am categorically against live polio vaccines. Thankfully, today, only the oral one is live. There is no longer live injectible vaccine.
The inactivated injectible vaccine is very safe.
You reference an incident from 1955 when injectible vaccines were similar to oral ones today. Don't take these. Luckily, in 2024, you don't have to.
It is irresponsible TODAY to not get vaccinated. None of what I wrote above applies to 1955.
so? if they stop vaccinating it WILL come back. FAST. also the ONLY way to eradicate an infectious disease is through vaccination. even then we only manage to do it once with smallpox
You ignore hygiene and wealth that rised up significantly over the world during last century. All polio cases today are in countries where it is not common or even possible to wash hands regularly.
It wonders me why we are able to give them milion doses of vaccines but there is not same attitude with drinking water?
It's not only way, sure. But have huge impact. As well as access to clean drinking water.
Polio occurs naturally only in humans. It is highly infectious, and is spread from person to person either through fecal–oral transmission[1][6] (e.g. poor hygiene, or by ingestion of food or water contaminated by human feces), or via the oral–oral route.
even in countries with good hygiene and clean water ~ 1st world countries ~ when vaccination rates dip because of anti science anti vaxx nonsense, you get outbreaks of measles, rsv, whooping cough you name it. i don't understand why anyone would prefer to let their childs body be ravaged by all kinds of exotic viruses rather than protect them with the generally gentle and safe vaccines
- why anyone would prefer to let their childs body be ravaged by all kinds of exotic viruses rather than protect them with the generally gentle and safe vaccines.
If there is no reasonable possibility to get in touch with that virus, why should you "put" it in body of your health child by medical intervention that is based on irrelevant fear? But it's choice that every parent can freely make.
Should we all be vaccinated against for example malaria?
Regardless of how correct you are, or how persuasive you might have been up to this point, uttering this accomplishes nothing and is entirely counterproductive.
It is such a tired argument now. Firs of all, the magical internet gambling tokens are not an alternative to "fiat" or world financial system. The global financial system consumes far less energy per transaction considering that billions of transactions take place around the world per second.
I really fail to understand the fetish of the crypto crowd with the word fiat and whatever they think it means. I get it, people just want to gamble and want to be ultra rich without doing anything, I am sure there are ways of doing that (gambling) without wasting a ton of energy.
Fiat as opposed to crypto currency? Crypto is the most fiat currency imaginable. I know crypto bros tries to redefine reality to trick people into thinking crypto is somehow tied to real tangible value, but it’s just not.
Non-fiat currency is physically tied to the creation of real-world value, like say mining gold which has thousands of real-world applications. Traditional fiat currencies are fundamentally designed to be a proxy for real world value. In a well designed system it’s most of its creation is tied to debt issues to, say a gold mine or an oil well or solar farm. Cryptocurrency is - in its utter insanity - fundamentally tied to the destruction of physical value. That is, burning electricity while creating nothing useful. So: more fiat than fiat. Another huge step removed from the creation of real physical valuables.
Traditional currencies are far more efficient and a basic necessity for the economy to function at all.
Cryptocurrency is fundamentally unsuited to become a real currency by its very design. Every one I’ve seen so far has been made by people who seem to lack even the most basic understanding of what the main origin of currency is. (Hint: it’s not metal coins..)
> Traditional fiat currencies are fundamentally designed to be a proxy for real world value.
The US went off the gold standard in 1971. It's all just bullshit paper now. I'm not sure why you're talking about something that doesn't even exist today.
I'd love it if "traditional fiat" currencies existed as you describe, but they don't.
There's an interesting bit of complexity here though because a fair amount of Mann's status as a public figure is because of the climate-conspiracy community's singling him and his work out as a target to be attacked.
If a group elevates someone to be a public figure, and uses the fact that they're a public figure to defame them in ways that would not be permitted for non-public figures, should the group really be allowed the same protections that random members of the public have talking crap about people who are incidentally famous?
(I suppose it gets a bit complicated that Mann didn't retreat from the attacks, and used the notoriety thrust upon him to become a fairly prominent science communicator. Even so, giving his attackers any benefit of the doubt doesn't seem right somehow...)
If you are intentionally trying to cause harm by saying something that is provably false and succeed at causing harm, that's defamation. There are four tests and you have to prove all of them:
> To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Public figures have to prove "actual malice" (a technical legal term- don't use the casual conversation definition for those words) in order to get libel, which is a much higher bar than us regular schmoe's have to clear. But it still exists.
You're right. As much as I'd like to give a well-thought-out argument to the horribleness of this kind of thinking, I think my time will be more useful for people doing other more productive things than convincing bigots of the meaning of caring for others.
This is true. I was hoping my educated guess of the outcome would minimize the possibility of anyone attempting this. And yet, here we are - the only losing strategy in the technology sector is to not try at all.
Tens of thousands of people die from cars every year. Yet we are not attacking Ford or Toyota.