The problem isn't that it isn't fast, or cheap but that it's currently in a legal limbo. So if someone orders certain medications using that automated system, it'll get logged and probably be denied to reduce legal exposure to the company.
Afterwards, law enforcement could get a court order to release those logs if the judge deems the "crime" is severe enough.
This seems more like an ethical, philosopical, or even an legal issue. I doubt it can be resolved by using automation.
I guess you can put some tape over the warning light :)
In case they use a bit of force on the gas pedal, you can push slightly harder to override it. Depending how it's implemented and how good it works, I think the bit of push back of gas pedal is good idea. Then I can avoid looking at the dash to check my speed. If it's unreliable, I guess they'll probably opt for a warning light instead.
You have no problem when someone decides to kill someone and thinks the laws doesn't apply to them. To make matters worse, you think someone who tries to obey the laws makes a terrible decision by not killing anyone.
If killing someone doesn't give you a pause, I would be afraid to be a minority in whatever society you live in. The laws, which you so easily dismissed, gives some rights to minorities.
What's next? Here are five people who are dying... Let's kill someone in the minority to get their organs and transplant them. It's ok! Five people will survive, while only one dies.
Laws, whether or not you like them, are there to also protect minorities.
The crux of the dilemma is that there are two solutions. If there aren't two then it's a lemma and the trolley problem is solved.
I didn't introduce the convoluted idea of there being train tracks and a switch. If it was purely hypothetical, you could've asked: "Would you prefer to let 5 people die or let 1 die"
Here's another hypothetical:
"A train is on a track and you are standing on bridge above it. You spot a couple of kilometers further down the track 5 people who are going to be run over by the train. Do you push someone standing beside you over the edge and onto the tracks so the train will register a collision and stops in order to save those 5 people?"
This is the exact same scenario. Only instead of pulling a lever, you have a human interaction. The percentages of who would kill that 1 person change when the trolley dilemma is asked in that way.
If we're getting to the crux of the problem, then why does the response change when you provide the exact same scenario but replace the mechanical with a human-to-human interaction?
When you are certain your actions will result in the death of someone then I doubt the legal protections of helping someone is as clear cut as you think it is.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know all laws of all countries.
I would never criticise someone for making the decision to pull the lever. I understand that decision, I really do. I only said I wouldn't do it and explained why.
It's not as clear cut as you think it is. If you think it is, then write to a philosophy professor and say you've solved the trolley dilemma through an internet vote. I hope this sounds absurd to you.
You can play with numbers, but if I were to pull the lever, I would feel I would kill someone for the sole reason they were in the minority. Which is an extra reason for me not to do it.
No, it doesn't. How I look at it is those (legal) rules weren't made randomly. I don't think it's an option for me to overrule what millions of people have decided on over the course of a couple of centuries. Especially if I only have a couple of seconds to think about all the implications of my action.
The calculation for me would change if there was a choice between killing 5 people and potentially killing nobody. But that's not the hypothetical here.
If those rules needs to be changed, then change them through debate and well reasoned arguments and not a split second decision. The "good samaritan" law is an example of this. If perform CPR on someone who's heart has stopped, they can't sue you if you save their life but cracked some ribs.
If you factor in the legal implications, the trolley problem becomes trivial. Do nothing. I'm not qualified nor allowed to operate train infrastructure and the legal consequences will become worse if someone dies because of something I did.
If you're talking about inflation, we had a multi-year pandemic in which the western governments gave aid to struggling businesses, inoculated their population for free, supply chains were severaly disrupted, etc...
The war in Ukraine didn't cause the inflation (I think), although I admit it probably made it worse. I think it was the other way around. The prospect of inflation caused the war in Ukraine. Russia thought with all the challenges we would face, we wouldn't react to an invasion in Ukraine.
I'm not an expert in macro economics, so do you think there wouldn't be an inflation if Russia didn't invade Ukraine?
Then I can't comment on this. I don't live in the US nor know what it is like.
I was responding to this from an 'EU' perspective. For the tech companies who do bussiness globally, my objection still stands. In the country I'm living in, the data collected to determine whether someone is pregnant or had an abortion, is data collected beyond what they should be collecting to provide their service.
I have no idea why a company who provides: email, vpn, search, etc... should be able to figure out users health data.
The question is whether they have enough data to provide to law enforcement if one their users underwent an abortion. If they aren't collecting enough data to determine this then they could just state: "we can't and therefor we won't"
It's a huge red flag if corps think they have enough data about their users that they think they can provide this data.
edit: I'm not talking about social media where people might explicitly say this.
I think you're confused because you heard a lot of different goals of the sanctions.
For me, the sanctions aren't about stopping the current war, but about stopping future wars.
In your analogy...
Rusty doesn't know how to make a baseball bat. We supplied rusty with baseball bats because we thought he would use it to play baseball games. Instead he used it to threaten his class mates. We took that supply of baseball bats away from him because we can and don't want him to threaten Suzy like he did with Ursula. It doesn't matter to me what Rusty wants to trade to get those bats.
I don't supply bats or anything that can be traded to bats to Rusty in order to protect Suzy and I'll give Ursula whatever she needs to protect herself.
I hope nobody takes your idea seriously. Most people aren't super-spies who can go undercover and save society from a cult. Just go to law enforcement, report it and listen to what they have to say.
> the folks who were hurt because of a lack of privacy weren't us (young professionals), but rather the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the Vietnam anti-war movement
In the second world war, the germans went into the municipal buildings, raided the census data and eliminated everyone who wrote the "wrong" religion in the census data.
I think this is why Europeans care more about privacy than Americans. It's not only about why it should matter, but also it shouldn't be weaponized.
(Don't take this seriously): Suppose your country was under attack and foreign troops invaded. They take you and say: "Well, well, it seems you're a javascript programmer according to your linkedin profile... We don't like javascript"
That was WWII, privacy is also weaponized today. Rogue regimes will use whatever is put online to harass or even assassinate people in other countries.
I might be overly pedantic with this point but saying a shiny balloon fits the limited data we have, doesn't mean it was a shiny balloon.
The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of discussions is that it's all done on "paper"[1]. It would be helpful to actually release a balloon, or whatever object you think it was, and check if you can reproduce the glare and other sensor data.
If it's very easy to reproduce then we can be more confident in that explanation and probably nail down more detailed characteristics of that object. Once we have that we can look where this object could've come from. For example, if it points to a balloon, did a company/organization lose a balloon in that time frame? Once we have all this info we would have an explanation that's more robust than someone saying: "It might be possible this and potentially that"
This requires money, time and the hardware. So I guess it's unlikely that will ever happen.
[1] Not saying it's useless. Those calculations and/or simulations are very useful to limit the types of objects it could be.
I don't see how content policy, adhering to privacy regulations, etc... would be different when there's facebook person or an ex-cia person.