I want an electric micro van so bad 😔 but I hate the look of the the buzz. And I’ve lived out of a VW before.

Then get an eqv / eVito? Or an e-spacetourer / e-traveller?

the UN gave them money to research ways the UN could use AI, so that is what they did.

That’s kind of my point… They didn’t. To research ways the un could use ai, you could have workshops and interviews with various groups, experts and non-experts alike. You don’t just pick one, utterly insane use case (that is called out beforehand as such) and implement that. You do research on the options and pick either the best ones or, if there’s no good one, none!

To come up with a research project, it has to go through various pitches, drafts and proposals. I can’t imagine every single control instance failing so utterly that this kind of project with this high school level of arguing (“well, we could do this, so why wouldn’t we?”) passes each of them. There has to be a better reason why they did this. And if there really isn’t, a lot of people should ask themselves what the fuck they’re getting paid for if they let this happen - and some other people if they’re the ones who should fire the former.

Those are kind of non-answers… “Why the fuck are you doing that?” and the answers are all “Well, somebody’s probably doing it at some point, so why don’t we do it now?” or “you gotta try stuff” as if that explains anything. Like, no, there are some things that don’t need to be tested. This is arguing on the level of “Caaaaarl, that kills people!” You don’t need to punch people in the face to know that’s a dumb thing to do. You don’t need to spill milk to know it’s a dumb thing to do. And you sure as fuck don’t need to date somebody you dislike to know that fucking them is a dumb thing to do or create ai refugees as the UN to know it’s a dumb thing to do! Like, what argument is that? We’re not talking to three-year-olds that have never touched a candle! The UN should be able to anticipate the consequences of their actions! ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAD WORKSHOPS WHERE PEOPLE TOLD THEM IT’S A FUCKING DUMB THING TO DO!! So, no, those aren’t answers.

In early tests at a workshop attended by humanitarian organizations, refugee aid groups, and nonprofits, Albrecht and Fournier-Tombs said the reactions were strong and that many were negative. “Why would we want to present refugees as AI creations when there are millions of refugees who can tell their stories as real human beings?” one person said

I love how the article then proceeds to not answer this question. What a dumb idea. What a waste of UN funds.

If you can bear the cringe of the interviewer, there’s a good interview with Penrose that goes on the same direction: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9484gNpFF8

It’s not a single bit worse than before the announcement.

No no no, you don’t get it! Humans only have eyes, so cars that only have eyes should perform just as good as humans! Disregard that humans don’t perform well in fog or rain or generally anything that isn’t good weather and also disregard that to match our eyes’ resolution you’d need extremely high resolution cameras that produce way too much data for current computers and also disregard that most of the stuff isn’t happening in our eyes but in our brains and also disregard that the point that is usually being made to advocate for self driving cars is that they should be better than humans!

unless I am kissing something from the animated series

Well, are you?

Yeah, same here.

Fair enough.

• i actually think that if pickups had lower hoods, they would be more moral, yes, because they would be less dangerous. (see above)

Fair point. I agree.

I always assumed that the bonnet height was one of the reasons why you couldn’t really drive one of those in Europe anyway. But if that’s not the case then yes, adjusting that should be done.

(Also I drive a van and I think it’s cool since obviously I’m cool and so my car kinda has to be, too, so I’m not sure if I agree with your first point.)

But isn’t that already part of regulations 78/2009 and 2019/2144?

I mean, I’m all for it, but if it’s just that it seems the goal is to get more detailed regulations for the bonnet then that’s great, but I fail to see how that would get rid of SUVs or other larger cars.

Also don’t misunderstand me there… Reducing bonnet height to protect pedestrians on impact is a good thing and should be done. I just don’t think it’d reduce car weight or size, so if that’s the goal then it won’t help.

We’ve had station wagons for a very long time now. A big Ford Mondeo we had was a relatively low car, without an enormous bonnet.

Cars continue to get wider, longer and higher off the ground (there’s this Kia that looks like you’re driving around in a fridge), whilst the stuff we move within them isn’t exactly increasing. it’s just bigger for the sake of being bigger, and that’s causing issues in the streets.

You are missing my point. To turn this into a law, there need to be clear rules of what is or isn’t allowed.

The Kia you’re talking about is this one I guess? The EV5?

Unfortunately, the size comparison site I used doesn’t have that, but it is apparently similar to their “Sportage” SUV, so I took the long wheel base version of that one to compare it against your old Mondeo…

… which is longer than the SUV…

… and only 5cm less wide …

whilst the stuff we move within them isn’t exactly increasing

… and has much less cargo volume.

So, what kind of rules do you come up with to get rid of the one but not the other? Height? Then what about the vans? And how is height making a car more or less unethical?

So far, the 3.5 ton weight limit seems to have worked well for keeping the most ridiculous American cars off European streets. But it seems that’s not enough, so what other rules could be used to define which cars shouldn’t be allowed to drive around? It’s obviously not weight because we already have that. It’s apparently not the size because despite most arguments, SUVs aren’t always much bigger than other cars that are usually perceived as fine. So what is it??

I hate how this needs to be read right-to-left. First thought that the ui took up less and less space.

Hm. Don’t know.

This one?

Yeah, can be banned.

But this one?

Don’t know. While it’s a fair bit shorter than an f150, it’s still a big-ass car. But is it an unethical car? It fits a lot of stuff or a lot of people or a fair amount of both, but I guess the same thing is true for the f150. Visibility is much better I guess, but would pick ups be more moral if they had a lower hood?

Like, yeah, I hate pick ups, too, but what’s their defining aspect? What’s the law that gets rid of large SUVs but keeps station wagons? Or is the law just going to get rid of all larger cars?

I’m not trying to argue against the idea of banning dick comparison cars, this is a genuine question.

I only started to look at it and am already pissed. So I stopped because it would probably only make me exen more angry. What a lying piece of dirt.

I don’t know. Maybe he still has a chance to become private jet guy’s third wife?

Hindsight is always 20/20

DS9 is waaaay better than voyager.

That’s debatable. Both had their flaws, but I really preferred Voyager’s idea of “dang, it’s going to take us decades to get home and we’re in uncharted territory, so let’s explore the hell out of our way back” over DS9’s “were sitting at the galaxy’s newly discovered traffic junction and our new enemies look like anything, so our major conflict is that anybody could be a traitor and our utopia is turned upside down into a surveillance state”.

Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder