undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbigiain5y ago0 comments

Taken to the extreme, what you're suggesting amounts to "large corporations should be allowed to kill people occasionally".

I can see a wide spectrum between my (admittedly over punitive towards corporations) ideas and this (somewhat intentional misinterpreted) idea of yours. But I do honestly think Uber and Tesla have evaded morally deserved punishments by blaming customers or contract staff who were pretty much doing what everybody would expect to be able to do using the technology as described.

"it's inevitable that even a responsible _person_ will screw something up" - but that doesn't mean we give them a zero consequence break if they kill or injure someone. (We do, however, distinguish between things like murder, manslaughter, and negligence-causing-death. And penalise differently, based at least partly on the ability of the punishment to discourage other people from doing similar things. Perhaps Uber was only guilty of negligence-causing-death for using minimum wage contractors as safety drivers. Perhaps Tesla was guilty of manslaughter by advertising as "autopilot" a thing that drives full speed into offramp dividers?)

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

bumby5y ago

We have already accepted this in other areas where low probability meets large applicability. We know probability is non-zero and given a large enough sample size there is an expected adverse outcome quite a bit higher than zero. E.g., a more trivial example is that the allowable number of insect parts in food is greater than zero because it’s impossible to mass produce food and never have contamination.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse