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’
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
try real fucking hard. Why would somebody be fine with all of the other surveillance in modern cars but draw the line at a passive BAC detector that would stop the car from starting. What might that imply about what they really really want to hide.
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
try real fucking hard. Why would somebody be fine with all of the other surveillance in modern cars but draw the line at a passive BAC detector that would stop the car from starting. What might that imply about what they really really want to hide.
Basic rights? Not being considered guilty in advance? Come now this is just getting silly.
You should just turn yourself in for diddiling children as we are making up quotes no one said as you clearly have the ability to be a child preditor and all that. Actually let’s just install a device that checks your arousal every time a child is within 50 meters of you, I mean unless you can find me a good reason why you should be able to live as a child molester.
wow imagine if you didn’t have the right to operate a car. they might even make you put yourself in a database and put some kind of identifiable marking on the outside of your car.
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’
Please find me someone who wants to drive drunk.
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
Please find me someone who wants to drive drunk.
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
try real fucking hard. Why would somebody be fine with all of the other surveillance in modern cars but draw the line at a passive BAC detector that would stop the car from starting. What might that imply about what they really really want to hide.
Please find me someone who wants to drive drunk. 4th time’s the charm?
Find me a good reason that cars should start for people who are drunk.
“I deserve to be able to hide, very specifically, my BAC from an inanimate object that would only prevent me from starting a car while drunk. I pinky swear I have a reason to want this other than wanting to drive drunk” come on
try real fucking hard. Why would somebody be fine with all of the other surveillance in modern cars but draw the line at a passive BAC detector that would stop the car from starting. What might that imply about what they really really want to hide.
Basic rights? Not being considered guilty in advance? Come now this is just getting silly.
You should just turn yourself in for diddiling children as we are making up quotes no one said as you clearly have the ability to be a child preditor and all that. Actually let’s just install a device that checks your arousal every time a child is within 50 meters of you, I mean unless you can find me a good reason why you should be able to live as a child molester.
wow imagine if you didn’t have the right to operate a car. they might even make you put yourself in a database and put some kind of identifiable marking on the outside of your car.