SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-long-could-they-last-in-Boston? dept.
A little while back, I saw the following tweet:
I can print mostly. My wifi works often. The Xbox usually recognises me. Siri sometimes works. But my self driving car will be *perfect*.
The tweet has since been deleted, so I won't name the author, but it's a thought-provoking idea. At first, I agreed with it. I'm a programmer and know full well just how shoddy is 99.9% of the code we all write. The idea that I would put my life in the hands of a coder like myself is a bit worrying.
[...] The reality is that self-driving cars don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better than the alternative: human-driven cars. And that is a much lower bar, as human beings are remarkably bad at driving.
[...] Self-driving cars don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get distracted by friends or a crying baby. They don't look away from the road to send a text message. They don't speed, tailgate, brake too late, forget to show a blinker, drive too fast in bad weather, run red lights, race other cars at red lights, or miss exits. Self-driving cars aren't going to be perfect, but they will be a hell of a lot better than you and me.
Related: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 05 2016, @08:33PM
If Z is evidence from god there is no way for anybody to tell Z comes from god vs Z comes from a sufficiently powerful non-god implementing unknown tech or mind manipulation. Unknown tech is always possible because there is no way to say "i discovered everything discoverable" from the inside of a system.
So, the idea of god can only be object of belief or disbelief.
You were not addressing the existence of god but you were still say "they believe something with no evidence other than personal testimony" as if it were a bad thing. In the case of "meta" things (transcendent) it's the only plausible position.
For all things that are not meta, instead, evidence is potentially possible and it is either shown or not, still no need for the verb "believe".
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:47PM
If Z is evidence from god there is no way for anybody to tell Z comes from god vs Z comes from a sufficiently powerful non-god implementing unknown tech or mind manipulation.
Honestly, at that point, does it matter? Anything with tech that advanced is effectively a god, per Asimov's quote ("any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic").
Also, it's really beside my point, because no one's presented any actual evidence Z anyway. If there really were some evidence Z (like some guy magically appearing and performing miracles while TV crews film it, and then touring around the world to show more and more people in person), *then* this would be a good debate. At this point, we don't even have that, we just have ancient stories which have less veracity than a fantasy novel. For all we know, they were made up by people who were high on hallucinogens, then twisted around even more through oral storytelling, before finally being written down centuries later. How do you think all those crazy Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse myths came about? Some druggie had a vision about a river with a boatman, someone retells the story and the boatman becomes skeletal, someone else adds that he demands payment, someone else adds that the underworld is on the other side, someone else adds an island in the middle with a snake-haired woman....
You were not addressing the existence of god but you were still say "they believe something with no evidence other than personal testimony" as if it were a bad thing. In the case of "meta" things (transcendent) it's the only plausible position.
No, it's not. You can simply refuse to believe fantastical things unless presented with better evidence that some delusional half-wit spewing nonsense, or worse, some guy demanding you pay him 10% of your income so that God will love you more and he can buy a private jet.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 08 2016, @02:10AM
Actually, evidence Z has been presented lots of times, from the first smart guy predicting eclipses and pioneering priesthood telling people what to do to make the sun reappear, to today, with the 'you are god, unlock your power through spiritual practices' implying spiritual is always divine.
Honestly, at that point, does it matter?
you bet it does, an infinitely powerful non god is still not able to escape reality, so in the end he's not any smarter than you for what concerns ultimate meanings. It's like a simulated living organism that gained root on the system where the simulation runs. No way to get outside it.
we just have ancient stories which have less veracity than a fantasy novel. For all we know, they were made up by people who were high on hallucinogens, then twisted around even more through oral storytelling, before finally being written down centuries later. How do you think all those crazy Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse myths came about? Some druggie had a vision about a river with a boatman, someone retells the story and the boatman becomes skeletal, someone else adds that he demands payment, someone else adds that the underworld is on the other side, someone else adds an island in the middle with a snake-haired woman....
You should document yourself about this, because you simply translated the modern idea of written story to the oral tradition. It's a bit like looking at an old painting that describes an event and proclaim "look how those people are all lined up, look at that stuff lying there, there is no way any of it happened obviously", while the painter in fact inserted more meaning that a photographer could have, so the event is real, fictional or altered? who knows, what is certain is that you can't tell from the lack of photorealism.
No, it's not. You can simply refuse to believe fantastical things unless presented with better evidence
My whole point is that you become fallacious when you add the "unless..." clause.
For impossible to verify event X, you can believe it didn't happen, but when you say "i won't believe it until you show me the smell of purple" it's my duty to inform that your requirement makes no sense, even if some religions considers that "believing the works" is a good backup strategy (see john 14).
As for the "god is real and needs money", I did not imply you have to believe so why should I suggest a particular model.
Account abandoned.