I'm not lack of control is the deciding factor here. People still accept car accidents even if they're not the ones driving the car, such as when you're riding a bus.
Busses are really heavy, so they tend to 'win' in a crash by sheer inertia.
A better example might be taxis, but there you kind of have the control of screaming "I want to get out NOW" if the driver seems incompetent.
If I slam on my brakes while driving on the freeway, throw my car into reverse, and manage to get home without hitting anyone, I’ve still broken the law. I think we want to sanction dangerous behavior regardless of outcome. That Shkreli didn’t lose his investors’ money is luck and should have nothing to do with his punishment for doing something that could well have lost people money.
Its something like this. Say a person burnt his house, the house is razed to ashes. There is nobody killed, nobody injured or let's say nobody was even present at home.
The house was insured, but the owner doesn't claim insurance either.
Despite all this. No insurance scam and no harm to anybody. But still the guy setting fire to his own home will considered a arsonist.
It's close enough that undetected/unreported murders could tip the scales. If you get away with making it look like an accident, isn't in the statistic of unsolved murders.
The utilitarian approach is such an interesting way to frame problems like this. It's obviously wrong for me to murder to my neighbor for their organs, even if those organs could save five other lives. But is it okay for a car company to roll out an AI program if it saves more lives than it costs? When viewed from afar the utilitarian mindset is always so alluring.
I think you're making a bit of a strawman here that people usually do with respect to utilitarianism. The utilitarian answer with 5 people on an island, where 1 is a doctor, 3 need organs, the remaining person has available organs, and the 3 are necessary to keep the group alive -- is to kill the one person and take their organs.
However, in a society where people can observe the actions of others and form motivations in response to policies, etc, you'll find that because society reacts fairly poorly to organ harvesting, because organ harvesting is implausible to do at scale without extra bad things happenning, etc, the utilitarian solution is actually not to go about doing it.
Only a naive utilitarian wouldn't try to also remain consistent with something like a Kantian imperative of global self-coherence.
Now, as for cars and testing self-driving on real folks, well, this may be something where the water is pretty murky. I think that society will react poorly enough to early bad events in self-driving that a measured approach is actually the best for saving lives in the long term.
The critique here shouldn't be that "well, utilitarianism sure looks good from afar, but would you murder your neighbor?" It should be "The problem is too difficult to address with utilitarianism because it involves complex societal factors and responses."
It's a bit contearian but if you will lose 100% of your population by not sacrificing 10%, then your scoiety is doomed in a way where normal ethics can't really apply. The guy refusing to give up his organs is going to be condemned as the naysayer nihilist who "wants us all to die".
One of my favorite quotes from Making Money, discussing the true power of gold:
"It’s in the city itself. The city says: In exchange for that gold, you will have all these things. The city is the magician, the alchemist in reverse. It turns worthless gold into…everything."
People have a finite amount of time and energy. How do you choose what to prioritize if not by saying that some things are worse than others? They didn't say that some things don't matter, just that it doesn't come close ethically.
Still, if it's a process as poorly understood as dying of old age, saying "made me wonder if any of her longevity can be credited to having a severely calorie restricted diet" seems like a reasonable response.
Some research on worms, mice, and monkeys has pointed at caloric restriction and/or a carb-free diets helping with longevity. If I recall correctly, these two strategies help with insulin sensitivity and other hormones that are known to serve as regulators in certain DNA repair pathways.
I think posters above are not supposing that caloric restriction could have helped at random. Rather, they have read about it helping with longevity -- unlike odd numbers of food.
The problem as I understand it is that the "rating space" is multidimensional (a piece can be funny with great plot but bad writing compensated for by a great lead and awesome special effects although the set design was inconsistent) but all of this has to be projected into a 1-dimensional system.
And the rub is that not everybody uses the same projection, which means the utility of one person's rating for another unknown their projection system (the weight they give to each sub-component of the overall rating) is completely unknown.
Yes, the whole thing is meaningless but atleast views offer some glimpse. I would have given Barb Wire 6/5 as I was a teenager with a crush on Pamela. How can that relate to a rating of a film that you could use?
The article lists https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:moment:20161019 as an example of a vulnerability (although not one that is tracked). Could someone explain how a Javascript vulnerability could cause a DDoS? Even if it does cause Moment to hang, how would that affect the server?
