my wild take of ‘maybe get mad at stuff that is actually real instead of reading a clickbait headline that is already detached from reality and then going even further making up even more stuff that isnt real to scare yourself with’
You see the issue is that you are doing the very thing that you think everyone else is doing here. This is a real issue around tech we own spying on us and the slide into a very bad place. Your the one making up a scenario in your head about tech making anything safer (car injuries and crashes per capita have not in fact gone down with new tech past the collapsing steering column), and then thinking that since 40,000 people die in vehicle crashes justifies anything. Here’s is a fun little stat: 12,000 us people die each year on stairs does that then mean we should make stairs have infotainment systems that block stairs if it thinks you are drunk or sleepy? I mean its all worth it right, even if all the data collected on those stairs is used to fuck the users of those stairs.
For a better look here is an example:
In 2008 12.32/100,000 people died in motor vehicles in the us
In 2022 12.76/100,000 people died in motor vehicles in the us
So that tech that spies on you did nothing?
In 2008 5,811,000 reported crashes happened
In 2022 5,930,496 reported crashes happened
Looks like it did not do that much, but boooooooy howdy did the amount of crap in our cars increased from 2008 to 2022.
No dumbass. Be specific. What part of a passive breathalyzer is ‘spying on you’. Stop trying to pivot to the abstract concept of surveillance.
Because literally the only actual fact behind this clickbait is that the NHTSA is supposed to mandate passive BAC detection. That’s it. The rule does not exist yet, the headline is pure fiction. The tech is pure fiction.
Any bullshit of ‘ohhh this is going to uhhhhh oppress me for wrongthink’ is pure fiction. There are no specifics behind this thing that isn’t real so you’ve just wrapped it up into this abstract blob of ‘spying’ because it’s something you can get mad at.
Also obviously the thing that doesn’t exist hasn’t influenced safety statistics what the fuck are you talking about.
Yeah, clearly that will be the only thing to come from this level of over reach. Clearly as long as your not doing anything untoward you have nothing to fear. Pre judgment of crime before it is committed just makes sense right?
Or your car will not start when you use the wrong mouthwash, or when you are the designated driver, or when in an emergency on the way to the hospital after using rubbing alcohol. Or you are drunk and get in your car for whatever reason and the doors lock and call the police when you had no intention of driving.
Or and here’s a fun one, not wanting to be treated like a fucking criminal with a item you paid many tens of thousands for!
And all that is off the top of my head before getting into the nightmare of who gets the data.
damn that sounds like valid concerns to raise if this tech was real and being implemented and you actually had real examples.
I bet this stuff that doesn’t exist would have a 5000% false positive rate and be based on a little camera drone that pops out of the car and follows you around to watch you to see when you drink
This regulation does not exist beyond the concept of ‘cars shouldn’t start if they detect that you’re drunk’.
Either they’re ignoring the actual directive to the NHTSA and using it as a surrogate to get mad at the concept of surveillance or arguing that a theoretical car that can tell you’re drunk should let you drive it anyway.
I mean I am getting pissed because it’s mostly the first one. People credulous enough to read this yahoo story and not get suspicious of ‘driver cameras in every car STARTING NEXT YEAR connected to AI that will decide if the car starts’. like yeah I probably would have first heard of this now and from a tiny article on yahoo that self-contradicts and doesn’t have any sources, seems legit. Or they literally just read the headline and they let the confirmation bias wash over them.
I thought the ragebait part of the yahoo post was so obviously bullshit that it wasn’t even worth calling out at first but apparently every lemming just took it at face value and thinks I’m defending ‘AI camera watching you and sending live video to fbi’.
I guess nothing is implied by saying ‘a fictional car that can tell you’re drunk should let you drunk drive’ or saying ‘my BAC behind the wheel is my business and nobody elses’
my wild take of ‘maybe get mad at stuff that is actually real instead of reading a clickbait headline that is already detached from reality and then going even further making up even more stuff that isnt real to scare yourself with’
You see the issue is that you are doing the very thing that you think everyone else is doing here. This is a real issue around tech we own spying on us and the slide into a very bad place. Your the one making up a scenario in your head about tech making anything safer (car injuries and crashes per capita have not in fact gone down with new tech past the collapsing steering column), and then thinking that since 40,000 people die in vehicle crashes justifies anything. Here’s is a fun little stat: 12,000 us people die each year on stairs does that then mean we should make stairs have infotainment systems that block stairs if it thinks you are drunk or sleepy? I mean its all worth it right, even if all the data collected on those stairs is used to fuck the users of those stairs.
For a better look here is an example:
In 2008 12.32/100,000 people died in motor vehicles in the us
In 2022 12.76/100,000 people died in motor vehicles in the us
So that tech that spies on you did nothing?
In 2008 5,811,000 reported crashes happened
In 2022 5,930,496 reported crashes happened
Looks like it did not do that much, but boooooooy howdy did the amount of crap in our cars increased from 2008 to 2022.
Rejoice, the user deleted his account after being banned here.
Wow, guess keep an eye out for a new account to keep up the argument then.
No dumbass. Be specific. What part of a passive breathalyzer is ‘spying on you’. Stop trying to pivot to the abstract concept of surveillance. Because literally the only actual fact behind this clickbait is that the NHTSA is supposed to mandate passive BAC detection. That’s it. The rule does not exist yet, the headline is pure fiction. The tech is pure fiction.
Any bullshit of ‘ohhh this is going to uhhhhh oppress me for wrongthink’ is pure fiction. There are no specifics behind this thing that isn’t real so you’ve just wrapped it up into this abstract blob of ‘spying’ because it’s something you can get mad at.
Also obviously the thing that doesn’t exist hasn’t influenced safety statistics what the fuck are you talking about.
The breathalyzer, how can you not see that?
muh right to drive drunk
Yeah, clearly that will be the only thing to come from this level of over reach. Clearly as long as your not doing anything untoward you have nothing to fear. Pre judgment of crime before it is committed just makes sense right?
woe is me, my car wont start when I’m drunk. I am so oppressed
Or your car will not start when you use the wrong mouthwash, or when you are the designated driver, or when in an emergency on the way to the hospital after using rubbing alcohol. Or you are drunk and get in your car for whatever reason and the doors lock and call the police when you had no intention of driving.
Or and here’s a fun one, not wanting to be treated like a fucking criminal with a item you paid many tens of thousands for!
And all that is off the top of my head before getting into the nightmare of who gets the data.
damn that sounds like valid concerns to raise if this tech was real and being implemented and you actually had real examples.
I bet this stuff that doesn’t exist would have a 5000% false positive rate and be based on a little camera drone that pops out of the car and follows you around to watch you to see when you drink
No one is arguing for that, you’re being dishonest.
Bull. Shit.
This regulation does not exist beyond the concept of ‘cars shouldn’t start if they detect that you’re drunk’. Either they’re ignoring the actual directive to the NHTSA and using it as a surrogate to get mad at the concept of surveillance or arguing that a theoretical car that can tell you’re drunk should let you drive it anyway.
I mean I am getting pissed because it’s mostly the first one. People credulous enough to read this yahoo story and not get suspicious of ‘driver cameras in every car STARTING NEXT YEAR connected to AI that will decide if the car starts’. like yeah I probably would have first heard of this now and from a tiny article on yahoo that self-contradicts and doesn’t have any sources, seems legit. Or they literally just read the headline and they let the confirmation bias wash over them.
I thought the ragebait part of the yahoo post was so obviously bullshit that it wasn’t even worth calling out at first but apparently every lemming just took it at face value and thinks I’m defending ‘AI camera watching you and sending live video to fbi’.
Please point to someone saying I want to drive drunk. Surely you can find one.
I guess nothing is implied by saying ‘a fictional car that can tell you’re drunk should let you drunk drive’ or saying ‘my BAC behind the wheel is my business and nobody elses’