this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
1095 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
2681 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1095
Tesla loses Autopilot wrongful death case in $329 million verdict (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
161 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] haloduder@thelemmy.club 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This isn't really something you can be 'too cautious' about.

Hopefully we can at least agree that as of right now, they're not being cautious enough.

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world -2 points 8 hours ago

As an exercise to remove the bias from this, replace self driving cars with airbags. In some rare cases they might go off accidentally and do harm that wouldn't have occurred in their absence. But all cars have airbags. More and more with every generation. If you are so cautious about accidental detonations that you choose not to install them in your car, then you're being too cautious.

I can't agree that they're not being cautious enough. I didn't even read the article. I'm just arguing about the principle. And I don't have a clue what the right penalty would be. I would need to be an actuary with access to lots of data I don't have to figure out the right number to provide the right deterrent.