I avoided the book after reading it high school and thinking along the same lines. I looked at the suggestions cynically.
A college program required I re-read it. That time, I read it as genuine suggestions of good faith actions. In that light, it was fantastic. Almost 30 years later, I still quote from it.
Your admirable openness to reconsideration reminds me of, "I could be wrong. I often am. Let's examine the facts."
Some people don't. I consider animals, at least the animals people mostly eat, to be conscious, sentient, and capable of suffering, so I don't eat them.
I do not, however, consider matrix multiplication plus randomness to be sentient or conscious, and I have absolutely no compunction about turning off the computers where I run AI models. And, I have no problem closing a Claude session that I will never come back to. I do that a dozen times a day.
The refutation of your point is in the article itself. The standard, by law, punishment involves jail time or home confinement. The judge explained how those punishments were not appropriate because of the exceptional circumstances.
> And there is precedent for the light manslaughter sentencing of an older driver. In 2003, George Weller, 86, killed 10 pedestrians at the Santa Monica Farmers Market after confusing the gas and brake pedals. He received five years of probation. The judge in that case said that Mr. Weller’s age and declining health had contributed to the decision.
This is the assertion. You can recognize it because the obvious reply is that it is not at all a representative example, but one that you just handpicked. You're question-begging.
Twin Cities, 2010-2014: 95 pedestrians killed in 3,069 crashes. 28 drivers were charged and convicted of a crime, most often a misdemeanor ranging from speeding to careless driving. ~70% of pedestrian-killing drivers faced no criminal charge[0].
Bay Area, 2007-2011 (CIR investigation): sixty percent of drivers that were at fault, or suspected of being at fault, faced no criminal charges. Over 40 percent of drivers charged did not lose their driver's licenses, even temporarily[1].
Philadelphia, 2017–2018: just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony in fatal crashes[2].
Los Angeles, 2010–2019: 2,109 people were killed in traffic collisions on L.A. streets... and nearly half were pedestrians. Booked on vehicular manslaughter: 158 people. The vast majority of drivers who kill someone with their car are not arrested[3].
I can literally do this all day. The original statement was correct, the case representative.
Now we’re talking. So much misinformation in this thread. There’s a reason that the saying, “if you want to kill someone, do it with a car” exists. Fortunately, it seems like judges are finally starting to wake up to the idea that it’s unreasonable for drivers to claim ignorance about the increased risks (and thus intent) of making poor/illegal decisions when being the wheel.
This thread talks about driverless cars; vehicular manslaughter requires negligence or intent, do you want to find narrowed statistics for driverless cars that are restricted to negligence or intent?
Criminality is basically just a checkbox for this stuff. Most of the time people wouldn't be going to jail for these sorts of crimes, it'd just be big fines and penalties. There's almost always administrative/civil infractions of the same or similar name that has the same or greater punishment but are far more efficient for the state to prosecute because the accused has fewer rights.
It makes for good appeal to emotion headlines to say these people aren't getting charged with crimes, but that's only half the story. They're likely lawyering up and pleading to a civil infraction that has approx the same penalties.
And this is true not just for this issue but for many subject areas of administrative law. Taxes, SEC, environmental, etc, etc, all operate mostly like this.
It's easy for a writer to pander to certain demographics and get people whipped into a frenzy by writing an easy article about prosecuting rates using public data. Actually contacting these agencies and figuring out what they actually did is hard and in the modern media economy doesn't offer much upside for the work.
Someone (i forget who) wrote that if someone invented a technology equally beneficial and equally harmful it wouldnt even be considered today but 100 years ago they wouldnt even question it. It was labor as usual.
Personally i would like to see a more granual permission to drive based on performance, need and demography.
I think it's not too surprising that the law treats people with diminished capacity differently. It's not a bug, it's a feature, even though it may feel upsetting. There's no winning solution in a case like that.
Well, if the law treats them differently when it comes to punishment, then maybe it should treat them differently when it comes to being able to drive in the first place?
Yup. And we do have some degree of safeguards here-- admittedly, less in California than many other states. They are: physician required reporting of disqualifying conditions, ability for other people to report concerns about capability to drive, and the requirement to show up and undergo vision testing and not flag other concerns in the process.
There's a tradeoff between reducing the very low rate of unsafe driving by the elderly and the burden added to the very old. People over 65+ are still possibly safer, overall, than teenagers.
You'd prefer to throw people with dementia and children in jail? Most of us agree that those outcomes are messed up, and the ability to form intent and/or understand the consequences of one's actions is important information to be considered in formulating whether to punish.
Someone got old and hadn't figured out they were unsafe to drive. It's not the same thing as me choosing to drive 100MPH in a city, operate a vehicle drunk, or keeping going after receiving clear evidence that I'm unsafe behind the wheel.
It has been a pet subject of mine for many years. I know a few farmers too. I deeply care about soil health. What I have found so far is that all of the 'if farmers only did x' comments tend to fall down against reality. Farmers tend to care deeply about their farms, and want to make a living, so would do things if they worked.
Have you thought about how these dashboards could be built for an eink screen?
For a while, I was thinking about starting a side project of selling E-ink screens with easily configured dashboards. The project would support hobbies who want to build dashboards powered by a raspberry pi or something. I never pursued it, but it seems like you are now halfway there.
The comments are why I prefer YAML for config over JSON. Of course, JSON is great for many purposes, especially machine to machine. For human to machine, I prefer YAML.
You have trouble with them when you are modifying them by hand or using an LLM to do it? The purpose of this project is having LLMs do it. I found they are about as good at writing yaml as they are writing anything else.
reply