what about software? I'm reminded of what farmers have to go through with John Deere tractors [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8JCh0owT4w]. Isn't that going to start happening with cars (I thought this was already happening). Are they going to reverse engineer that too?
The problem here is not the law, it is the people who think the fact that one person (out of over 100 million families in America) got arrested for doing a thing that sounds reasonable is a reason to change your behavior.
actually it is the law. We can't expect parents to gamble their parenthood and their lives - even if the odds are 1 in 100 million. And i suspect the odds are not that small, just in this thread there are multiple stories of social services being called for what used to be common place attitudes towards children and their autonomy. There's even a person fully admitting they would also put in a report if they witnessed such a thing.
I'm not saying your arguments are bad. In fact, they are on point. But perceived danger vs Actual danger is, from looking at the whole anti-vaccer movement, the big contributor here. But if parents are getting put in handcuffs for having their kids play outside then yeah, they need to be protected from a systemic standpoint.
>We can't expect parents to gamble their parenthood and their lives - even if the odds are 1 in 100 million
Every day when you strap your kid into your car seat, you are rolling those dice, at odds considerably worse than 1 in 100 million.
You can't face risk by saying "we need to stamp it out, no matter how small the chance or how great the cost" It doesn't help me if you protect me from meteors if I'm millions of times more likely to be killed by a traffic accident, and the same resources could drastically reduce the chance of that death.
You need to look at what resources you are willing to spend on risk mitigation, and then look at where you can spend those resources to most effectively mitigate risk.
It's pointless to discuss if it makes sense mathematically because humans don't function that way, we're just not very good in probability. Everyone is looking at eliminating the risks with the simplest possible solution. When you strap kids in your car seat you use special kid seats to insure that they'll be protected as much as possible. If there's a chance that you loose your kid because you've let it go play on its own outside, you will not let it go anymore. It's as simple as that, perfectly normal human reasoning.
You're basing your argument entirely on probability, and assuming all risk must be mitigated. Or I'm taking you too literally, in which case I apologise. However. Risk exposure is more than probability - it's probability multiplied by impact. And only then does one consider an approach - accept, transfer, manage, and so on.
In this case if one chose to manage the risk, the mitigation would require (one possibility) enshrining something in law, so that parents of these kids DON'T get prosecuted. That's a one-off, and possibly no more expensive than the cost of a single prosecution/incident.
Given that, doesn't it make sense to do this, making it just go away, and giving people that peace of mind? Regardless of the low probability? Cost is clearly less than protecting a populace against meteors.
Actually i would argue the opposite. Not to the extent of genocide but the lid has really blown on Hollywood's sexual harassment problem (read: rape culture). Let's not forget Uber's contribution there and of course the whole gamer gate scandal which is still fresh in the minds of the people involved in the community. Racism, classism, and authoritarianism's roaring 2017 comeback. Then there's Madoff, Exon (classic) , various kickstarter scams, Nortel (Canada represent! ) etc
I mean if you think about it just a bit, there are many examples that would indicate we actually live in those cultures. Sure they might say those cultures are inferior, but let's take a cold hard look here.
Oh but I didn't say our society's hands are clean. My money simply goes to the odds of what "cultures" most in ours might find reprehensible.
And as for those in our society who do those things? My money is on most people in the home turf saying that's not their culture, that these are bad eggs.
This is a form of Nimby: "well I don't do those things and it is reprehensible that people in my society do!". That's cute and all but what are we doing about that? Look at the Weinstein scandal - that dude was on a 37 year streak. Or Pixar's Lasseter with a history dating back 15 years. NYT quoted Rashida Jones:
“There is so much talent at Pixar, and we remain enormous fans of their films,” they continued. “However, it is also a culture where women and people of color do not have an equal creative voice.”
Racism, Sexism. _But not me, not in my backyard, those people exercise reprehensible behaviour! shame on them_. Come on.
I'm just saying: we gotta own up a bit, we live in this society too, we also make it what it is and we can all strive to make it better. I don't see bad eggs, I see bad systems that foster bad eggs.
my 2c
Didn't sound like the real race had any except 13th/14th? but I watched a bit of the video and there was tons of excitement and I can't say I've ever cared for F1
