From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 2/15/2026 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   > On Feb 15, 2026 at 8:49:47 AM PST, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/14/2026 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>   On Feb 14, 2026 at 3:15:40 PM PST, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   On 2/14/2026 5:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>     On Feb 14, 2026 at 2:11:23 PM PST, "moviePig"    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>     On 2/14/2026 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       Reason number 491 that I drive an old 1998 4Runner with none of   
   this   
   >>>>>>>     Orwellian   
   >>>>>>>       garbage in it, and will drive it until its wheels fall off rather   
   >>>>>>> than buy   
   >>>>>>>     one   
   >>>>>>>       of these new surveillance systems on wheels. Even Orwell didn't   
   envision   
   >>>>>>>       people voluntarily purchasing the spy tech to be used against   
   them.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     Yes. For better or worse, we humans tend to choose autonomy over   
   safety.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     You apparently weren't paying attention to the thread. There's   
   nothing   
   >>>>> safe   
   >>>>>     about this crap.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   In accord with the principle I stated, we tend to focus   
   >>>>   disproportionately on horrifying malfunction scenarios.   
   >>>   
   >>>   Because they're... wait for it... horrifying.   
   >>   
   >> Yes.  And our disproportionate reaction to them   
   >   
   > There's nothing "disproportionate" about objecting to my car shutting down   
   > when I want or need to drive it because-- through relentless spying on me and   
   > invading my privacy-- it has determined I "shouldn't" drive until I book a   
   > therapy appointment (and presumably take an Uber to get to it since my car   
   has   
   > bricked itself).   
   >   
   >> can lead to objectively inferior choices.   
   >   
   > It's not an inferior choice to hand the keys to our own autonomy and agency   
   to   
   > Skynet.   
   >   
   >>    E.g., the image of someone fatally trapped in his own   
   >> car can easily outweigh an overall lowering of mortality.  It's a   
   >> principle well-understood by all politicians ...back to Stalin, iirc.   
   >   
   > Well, when you use Stalin to bolster your position, how can I possible argue   
   > with that?   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_death_of_one_man_is_a_tragedy,   
   the_death_of_millions_is_a_statistic   
      
   You *do* get that I'm no more immune to this bias than anyone else.   
   E.g., when motorcycle helmets (for drivers) were mandated, I resisted   
   the very valid statistical persuasion, in the interest of "autonomy".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)