undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalphabettsy6y ago0 comments

In what world is preventing 4% of serious accidents trivial? That’s likely hundreds or thousands of crashes per year given the numbers involved.

0 comments

jessriedel6y ago

See "probably much, much less" (since diagnostic systems have many false negatives, and only work on some subsystems) and my argument about wet conditions (which causes greater than 4% of accidents). Furthermore, the absolute number of accidents is not a sensible number to look at unless you're also totaling up the absolute number of drivers inconvenience. Both the absolute number of accidents and the absolute number of downsides (wasted time, driver frustration, unnecessary repairs) will be proportional to the number of cars, so you should divide out by the number of cars.

alphabettsyOP6y ago

Probably much, much less is meaningless since it means nothing.

I’m pretty sure if there are 20,000 serious accidents per year and some lines of code alone prevent 100 (0.5%) that’s noteworthy.

jessriedel6y ago

First, you are not engaging with any of the points in my reply. (Do you disagree that the fraction of accidents that diagnostic systems can plausibly stop is <<4%? We can't tell.)

Second, you keep suggesting that I made claims about this being "trivial" or "noteworthy". I did not. I made a claim about what would be a good system, not the notability of the absolute number of accidents stopped.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jessriedel6y ago

alphabettsyOP6y ago

Probably much, much less is meaningless since it means nothing.

I’m pretty sure if there are 20,000 serious accidents per year and some lines of code alone prevent 100 (0.5%) that’s noteworthy.

jessriedel6y ago

First, you are not engaging with any of the points in my reply. (Do you disagree that the fraction of accidents that diagnostic systems can plausibly stop is <<4%? We can't tell.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse