Well said. These SDV threads are getting pretty annoying that we keep cycling the same arguments at each other and there is no substantive change to how good SDVs are yet.
In general you're just seeing different people make different arguments, and the proposals which solve the most recent problem are the ones being suggested loudest right now.
I'm just saying there's no point flat out stating that things must improve when a) for a lot of people they're good enough right now, and it's about effort invested vs additional numbers of people to reach, and b) real experts are already constantly working on this.
Then the argument would be "let us transition smoothly to the new mode". But all we're seeing in these threads is "bad bad no good very bad" with relatively little nuance.
I didn't say the concerns are wrong, just that repeating them again and again, mostly within an echo chamber of tech people, will do nothing to change the facts.
I don't think people should sit there and go meh. They should just be realistic about what actions will and will not make an actual difference.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. I think the community benefits from people expressing counter-arguments far more than grey-ing out minority opinion.
I'd hope a majority of users here feel the same way and act accordingly - pg's comments not withstanding.
The valley being an echo chamber doesn’t necessarily mean those implementing this have their heads in the sand.
It can’t be all perfectly achieved, but to do nothing, as they were before, could be now determined to be a worse case than providing these annotations to flagrant misuse by the highest impact profile that they can’t do away with entirely.
i don't know or (in this case) care what would be different. (and i say that as a fan of RCV and similar).
i'm just tired of people positing counterfactual worlds, and assuming whatever tiny little change they make will have no ramifications except for the one that they want. it is sloppy thinking.
There are no good outcomes in the current noise. People on both extremes will misread and misuse it.
Silicon Valley's achievement in the last 10 years is to make sure ambiguity is profitable. Resolution of anything or even a path to resolution just produces less clicks, talking heads and outrage.
The proof is in the pudding. Who wants to bet 2-5 years from now the status quo wouldn't have changed? Replace the issue with gun control, climate change or universal health it hardly matters.
If you guys want to see change the noise levels have to reduce.
Yeah - individual changes will never change anything - I think the discussion has been poisonned, and we are blind to the actual solutions, which all seem unthinkable even though they are self evident
I've also found those discussions to be extremely frustrating. Yeah, I understand feeling that as individuals we're not able to make much of a difference, but that's all the more reason we should be advocating for structural changes.
Look, I get the idea of "Hey, here's something new, it could change something in a bad way, so lets test it." Fine, I hope someone does that. But the fact that these kind of concerns are the first thing that come to people's mind and make it to the top of this thread means the discussion is bad. Every time someone mentions something revolutionary like a self-driving car, we could spend the discussion talking about that super unusual situation when the self-driving car is more dangerous than a normal one. Or when Amazon starts drone deliveries would could imagine that one time it crash and kills a dog. But this is just a distraction.
reply