• 1 Post
  • 192 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle





  • I haven’t noticed that at all for Tesla, and I did absolutely notice with BMW and AUDI for many years. Not so much driving fast, as driving like assholes. Yes an EV often starts quicker at a read light, but I’ve never seen anything wild here that I recall, and we have a lot of Tesla and other EV cars here now (Denmark).

    But to be honest, it may be different here, because ICE cars are generally manual, which is way more fun to drive. With A Tesla you just press the speeder like an Automatic. It just responds faster. But a Tesla can also be driven for comfort, and it seems to me that’s what just about everybody does here.



  • If there’s a systemic reason Tesla drivers have more accidents in a Tesla than drivers of other cars, that car is inherently less safe.
    You can’t simply put it down to “Tesla drivers suck”, that’s irresponsible and flawed logic.

    If it’s the acceleration, maybe we shouldn’t have cars that accelerate the way a Tesla can. But I very much doubt that is the reason except anecdotally. I suspect more that safety features may in fact serve to distract, or people “learn” to rely on them, and than they turn out to not be 100% reliable.

    We’ve all heard the weird tendency of Tesla breaking for no reason, that is hazard, also the turn signals are placed wrong, causing them to be impractical in some situations like roundabouts. Also the instrumentation in general of a Tesla is centered very much around the touch screen, another source of potential distraction. AFAIK even the speedometer isn’t placed where it should be to observe it quickly without looking away from the road for too long.

    A lot of inherent safety feature in traditional cars, have been shaved away in Tesla cars. Even getting out in an emergency can be a problem, as the handles may fail because they are electric, and the “real” handles are hidden.

    There a dozens of examples where Tesla is designed for less safety than traditional cars, and if (when) the safety features fail, I bet they are a lot less safe than if those features weren’t there to begin with.

    Tesla cars are designed with a VERY strong focus on reducing production cost, Elon Musk is even boasting about it, and how he has an uncompromising goal to simplify production. But Tesla also lack the experience about why things are like they are in traditional cars.




  • I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

    A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

    I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.

    But this part:

    Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

    I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

    From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

    In this case me being emotional.
    If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.



  • Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

    I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

    Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

    That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

    And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

    Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
    The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

    None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

    But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

    So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.





  • AI is already VERY successful in some areas, when you take a photo, it is treated with AI features to improve the image, and when editing photos on your phone, the more sophisticated options are powered by AI. Almost all new cars have AI features.
    These are practical everyday uses, you don’t even have to think about when using them.
    But it’s completely irrelevant if I can see use cases that are sustainable or not. The fact is that major tech companies are investing billions in this.
    Of course all the biggest tech companies could all be wrong, but I bet they researched the issue more than me before investing.
    Show me by what logic you believe to know better.

    The claim that it needs to be strong AI to be useful is ridiculous.



  • I think you are confused, this is not lemmy.ml, and lemmy is open source, which is the part where it definitely becomes a false equivalence.
    Because just because the developers may be communists, that has zero bearing on the content of lemmy.world.
    The developers do not own lemmy. And do not claim control of the platform.
    Musk is a fascist who owns and control twitter, and has used it to push his fascist agenda, spending $40 billion to be able to do that!

    Lemmy is by the people for the people.
    Xitter is owned and controlled by the worlds richest narcissist, who has claimed total control, and is using it to push fascism.

    So very much a false equivalence.