(Though for an insurer, it’s the same thing - whether you’re risky because you’re a bad driver or because you drive on poorly constructed roads or around other poor drivers is inconsequential to them)
Yeah well fuck insurers. We are supposed to get spied upon by our cars with their blackboxes, by our insurers, by Google, by national security services of various countries... and what do we get in return? Dinged for other people's bad behavior which we cannot reasonably control. Either you follow the car in front of you very closely and get hard braking events, or other people switch lanes in front of you and in the worst case slowing down during lane change, provoking yet another hard braking event.
Credit scores are universally hated but they make it possible to offer lower interest rates to more people. Without credit scores, fewer people would have access to credit.
Similarly, people often don't like it when insurers track and score their driving. However, this allows insurers to offer lower insurance fees to more people by _not_ offering lower insurance fees (or instead charging higher fees) to people that are driving in a risky manner. This does of course assume a competitive market for insurance but I think in most countries that's a reasonable assumption.
There's nothing fairer than user-pays, especially when users can choose to pay less by changing their behavior.
> Credit scores are universally hated but they make it possible to offer lower interest rates to more people.
That's probably true in theory, but not in practice, given how high US credit interest rates are compared to European countries for instance.
> Without credit scores, fewer people would have access to credit.
Too many people having access to credit is exactly how we got the worst financial crisis of the century, so it's not really something to brag about… People talk about US public debt a lot, but private debt is even more worrisome.
>There's nothing fairer than user-pays, especially when users can choose to pay less by changing their behavior.
If user pays is so fair why does anyone who could access credit or liquid assets in excess of their state's minimums have to pay hundreds to thousands per year for auto insurance?
Most states allow you to go without insurance by fronting the cash. It's called self-insurance. You put up some minimum amount, file a form with the state DMV, and keep the approval certificate in the vehicle like normal.
It's relatively unknown for individuals because most people have no desire to lock up tens or hundreds of thousands of spare dollars just to avoid car insurance. As far as I'm aware it's primarily used by rich collectors who need to insure large collections that don't fit more traditional insurance profiles. Much more useful for businesses.
>Most states allow you to go without insurance by fronting the cash.
That's BS on it's face. Most states don't allow it or they restrict it to big business and government agencies.
>because most people have no desire to lock up tens or hundreds of thousands of spare dollars just to avoid car insurance.
Most people's money isn't making a return greater than what insurance would cost them.
Second, this completely ignores my point about credit. I can easily get hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit secured against my house or tens of thousands in unsecured credit (credit card). Why must I pay to keep the lights on at some insurance firm?
And I'm not particularly rich. If the numbers pencil out for me then surely they must pencil out for millions of people.
That's BS on it's face. Most states don't allow it or they restrict it to big business and government agencies.
It's 11 states, covering roughly a third of the US population. There's a quite few more if you own significant numbers of vehicles. You can s/most/many/ if it makes you feel better.
Most people's money isn't making a return greater than what insurance would cost them.
You wouldn't be making money on a self-insurance bond either. It's locked up with the state or in a surety account. You can also expect to pay a significant fraction of your regular insurance costs to maintain a surety bond.
Second, this completely ignores my point about credit.
Credit lines expire when you die (say in an accident), they're not guaranteed to pay out the full amount at any particular time, and the courts probably shouldn't go around binding third parties to pay out on your behalf.
States' interest here is in guaranteeing that there will always be a minimum amount of money to compensate victims, regardless of what other financial shenanigans you have going on in your life. That's not a standard that lines of credit and investment accounts meet. Self-insurance is simply a terrible option for most consumers, so no one does it.
That's an entirely separate issue, isn't it? In my country (New Zealand) there are no requirements to have auto insurance. If you don't have insurance and you hit a million-dollar car you're gonna be in an awkward situation, but that's a risk you're allowed to take.
Note that you _are_ legally required to pay your annual ACC levies, which fund no-fault cover for injuries. However that doesn't cover property damage.
This. If you're nearly "perfectly" pricing risk on an individual level then you defeat the point of insurance which is to pool risk.
If my hypothetical cost over an N decade period is within a fraction of a percent of payouts in that time what do I gain by paying for insurance other than creating a principal-agent problem?
The goal is not to drive in all conditions; it is to drive in all drivable conditions. Human eyeballs also cannot see through dense fog clouds. Operating in these environments is extra credit with marginal utility in real life.
But humans react to this extremely differently than a self driving car.
Humans take responsability, and the self-driving disengages and say : WELP.
Oh sorry were you "enjoying your travel time to do something useful" as we very explicitely marketed ? Well now your wife is dead and it's your fault (legally). Kisses, Elon.
Amateur. Opus 4.6 this afternoon built me a startup that identifies developers who aren’t embracing AI fully, liquifies them and sells the produce for $5/gallon. Software Engineering is over!
A bit of humour doesn't hurt. But if this crap gets upvoted it will lead to an arms race of funny quips, puns, and all around snarkiness. You can't have serious conversations when people try to out-wit each other.
They're still out there; people are still posting stories and having conversations about 'em. I don't know that CmdrTaco or any of the other founders are still at all involved, but I'm willing to bet they're still running on Perl :)
Wow I had to hop over to check it out. It’s indeed still alive! But I didn’t see any stories on the first page with a comment count over 100, so it’s definitely a far cry from its heyday.
For the unaware, Ted Faro is the main antagonist of Horizon Zero Dawn, and there's a whole subreddit just for people to vent about how awful he is when they hit certain key reveals in the game: https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTedFaro/
The best reveal was not that he accidentally liquified the biosphere, but that he doomed generations of re-seeded humans to a painfully primitive life by sabotaging the AI that was responsible for their education. Just so they would never find out he was the bad guy long after he was dead. So yeah, fuck Ted Faro, lol.
Ack, sorry, seemed like 9 years was past the statute of limitations on spoilers for a game but fair enough. I’d throw a spoiler tag on it if I could still edit.
FSD won’t stay engaged for very long if you’re not paying attention. It’s getting pretty smart about how much attention it wants you to pay in different situations, but there are no situations where it will let you just sleep.
Define safe? Would be interested to see you provide a benchmark that is reasonable, and lock it in now so we can see if this statement is falsified in the future.
There are driverless Teslas roaming Texas giving rides _right now_. It happened. It was late, and there will be some fallout for HW3 compatibility with unsupervised FSD, but it happened.
Or a third option - an economic success that economies of scale have made massively capable hardware the cheapest option for many applications, despite being overkill.
The materials that go into a chip are nothing. The process of making the chip is roughly the same no matter the power of it. So having one chip that can satisfy a large range of customers needs is so much better than wasting development time making a custom just good enough chip for each.
They really aren't. Every material that goes into every chip needs to be sourced from various mines around the world, shipped to factories to be assembled, then the end goods need to be shipped again around the world to be sold or directly dumped.
High power, low power, it all has negative environmental impact.
ultra pure water production itself is responsible for untold amounts of hydroflouric acid and ammonia , and most etching processes have an F-Gas involved, and most plants that do this work have tremendously high energy (power) costs due to stability needs/hvac.
The claim was that "the materials that go into a chip are nothing". Arguing that that is not that case does not really put someone on the hook to explain or even have any clue how to do it better.
Maybe. They have the potential for faster semiconductors, but only after adequate modifications. Graphene isn't a semiconductor, and it isn't obvious that we'll find a way to fix that without (or even with) rare resources.
I'm not sure why you're asking this or what you're insinuating. The site is called Hacker News, it should be open to anarcho- and eco- hackers too. Not all of believe in infinite growth.
Do you want to expand on why you're on this site?
I've been here for more than 15 years and I'm not the person I was when I signed up or when I went through life in a startup.
It’s the opposite. Using an off the shelf MCU is much more efficient than trying to spin your own ASIC.
Doing the work in software allows for updates and bug fixes, which are more likely to prevent piles of hardware from going into the landfill (in some cases before they even reach customers’ hands).
reply