volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@hasani wow, it sounds like you're striving to ignore the simple fact of drivers driving their cars and being responsible for doing so, apparently because you don't like a public figure?

FSD didn't decide to drive. A driver decided to drive and turn on that feature.

One reason it's so important to hold drivers responsible for driving is specifically to caution them against causing exactly this sort of accident.

I personally don't care about Musk, so it's not compelling to ask someone like me to ignore the simple facts in the course of trying to make some point about that troll.

If that's your hobby horse, then great! But it seems pretty antisocial to me, and it will result in more crashes.

@CivilityFan Roe, which was absolutely not ignored in SCOTUS deliberations.

Rather, because they respected precedent, both Roe and generations of precedent that came after and even because of Roe, they wrote extensively about precedent in arriving at their ruling.

The tumult around Roe speaks exactly against your conclusion: it was a great example of how important precedent is to this court.

Should they be ignoring precedent as suggested above it would have been much easier to have settled the question. Instead, they respected precedent in their opinions, addressing precedent front and center.

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@hasani

Again, if you want to blame Tesla for false advertising, great! If the advertising was as misleading as you say, then Tesla is to blame for false advertising.

But they didn't sell customers an autonomous vehicle, and they warned every driver not to treat their purchase as if it was autonomous.

The car did what it was sold as doing. No half baked defect there, the driver got what he bought, and some chose to misuse the product despite warnings not to.

Tesla is responsible for its advertising. It's not responsible for customers choosing to misuse what they bought.

@rhys the key is that a huge swatch of the country think the president's record is incredibly bad, rightly or wrongly.

It's all about perception these days. Facts are a bit out of reach for our society.

So it's looking far too close of an election, with Trump and Biden both being very unpopular, and whichever party chooses a different candidate is almost guaranteed the win.

It's amazing that both parties are willing to roll those dice instead of just taking the win.

@rhys one thing to keep in mind is that Musk didn't directly buy, and doesn't own, Twitter. He needed financing and other backers to raise the cash to buy it.

So now it's owned by a series of corporations that Musk holds stake in.

The point is that offloading Twitter can be kind of under the radar as he quietly lowers his own stake in the company, more turning a dial than flipping a switch.

@hasani If you want to charge Tesla with false advertising, then great. But keep the false in false advertising.

If they falsely advertised a product that they weren't selling that just highlights that the customer bore responsibility to use the product that they did buy as per warnings and instructions, not treat it as if the false product was what they purchased.

I blame the drivers because at the end of the day, on the road, we need to emphatically put the responsibility on drivers to operate their vehicles safely. Anyone getting behind the wheel must bear responsibility for their decisions as they operate their multi-ton, high speed machines.

Tesla's product seems to have done exactly what it was sold as doing, including relying on drivers being prepared to take over at a moment's notice.

You can charge Tesla with false advertising, but it's ridiculous to go down this road of decrying a product as not doing something it wasn't supposed to do based on advertisements that you say were advertising something not being sold.

Yeah, let's blame the driver because at the end of the day they made bade decisions.

@OkayKay@ottawa.place

I think it's one of those things that depends on what experience a person wants out of the platform, one of those minor ways in which a person can influence their interactions.

Personally, I think it's too much of a firehose around here to keep track of different people, so I don't look for personalities, but substance.

If an account is publishing interesting things, then it doesn't really matter to me who might be running the account. It's just a faceless account in the river of posts.

But if the posts are worthwhile or informative or thought provoking, I want to see more of that.

And if the stream posts uninteresting stuff later I un-follow.

But I know others want different things out of their time.

@TimWardCam well, it's mainly something politicians have to say when they have to say something but have nothing substantial to say.

@fkamiah17

@jpetazzo I've been watching the company--and occasionally owning stock in it--forever. I was and am a big fan.

And what you're saying is exactly the picture I get.

They broke on to the scene with some really clever innovations, some approaches to machine control, some algorithms, really interesting solutions to problems that go beyond simple product engineering.

But now the rest of the world caught up, and their areas of innovation are no longer the ones that really matter. And that lightening didn't strike twice--they didn't find a new way to tackle a new problem.

That doesn't take away from what they did.

One way to think of it by analogy is as if someone invents an amazing algorithm to operate computers with limited memory but a few years later the market is churning out RAM so cheaply that it becomes effectively limitless.

Still a brilliant solution, just to a problem that no longer looms.

@tess

@hasani but not as it was sold or as instructed.

A person overlooking their particular instructions as they try to emulate their own interpretation of some advertisement is, if anything, still their own bad decision, and not the product going off to kill them.

@CivilityFan

You left off the rest of the sentence, " for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

So their consideration here is not to speak generally and tackle all possible circumstances, but only the situation as they describe it.

That doesn't mean it's not precedent setting. Other similar situations would be expected to follow the same disposition.

By cutting the sentence in half and only looking at the first half, much less the following paragraph that lends further clarification, people are able to twist the meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@CivilityFan the amount of time these justices spend citing precedent would suggest that precedent does, indeed, mean something.

They don't ignore precedent as meaningless. Quite the opposite. They spend a ton of time and ink addressing it because it has such meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@hasani Tesla FSD didn't kill customers.

Customers misused FSD to their own detriment, against warnings not to use it that way.

I know the description of FSD killing customers is sexier and gets more clicks, but the facts matter sometimes.

@jikodesu one problem is that so many stories that scare us and get us so excited end up debunked by the actual investigations when they come out months after the fact.

But by then the narratives and conclusions have been set in concrete, so nobody goes back to revisit them.

Boeing in particular has been dealing with that, and it's not clear what any company PR department can do to ask the public to slow down, ignore the rushes to judgement of reporters, and wait for the real investigations to conclude.

@PChoate with what we've seen so far, what makes you think Trump is going to be toast?

To be clear, I don't think he's going to win. But I'm not so sure. Why makes you certain?
@lauren

@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com there's an awful lot that Eric Swalwell doesn't understand...

@MugsysRapSheet when I search the opinion, the phrase "specific to this one case" turns up no hits.

It's not in there.

@CivilityFan @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@lauren part of my point in saying that Trump voters are not monolithic and often have exact opposite viewpoints is to emphasize that they're not all cultists, and the non-cultists can be pealed off for the greater good.

But that peeling off is much more difficult if nobody's engaging with them due to buying into the stereotype of them all being the same, all in the same cult.