The mere fact that there are damages to extract means that someone was already damaged, not merely that we want to punish someone. If my neighbor is poisoned by food, I do not have standing to sue in my own capacity because my neighbor was poisoned. At this point, the moral question is whether or not you should be able to extract damages when you can show that you are damaged. Essentially every society has said "yes, of course," even though the specifics of what constitutes damage and recompense differs.

Why do people not universally (or at least generally) tend toward making Fail-Safe systems? I don't know, but they just do not. They must be compelled to.

Call it original sin or prevarication, the second law of thermodynamics, evolutionary inclination to save effort, whatever. But humans just default the opposite way of what you're saying.

If, for instance, your burrito worker did something egregious, they could be held criminally liable, and depending on the specific situation, the employer could also be held civilly liable.

I say "depending on the situation" because it is the duty of the vendor to ensure best practices are followed: sanitary restrooms, soap and running, clean water for cleaning up, etc. And a nontrivial number of places do so because they know an inspector is coming at some point and they will suffer if they do not comply.

But it is harder to hold the vendor liable if all reasonable precautions and amenities are availed by the vendor, and all proper education, but the end of line worker decides to ignore all of it one day.

If your farmer chose to ignore industry standard practices and agricultural regulations to prevent and contain such contamination at the source, they are indeed liable. And they can still issue a recall, and indeed must do so as soon as they learn of the problem.

Your vantage point is a bit too optimistic for reality. If it was not, we would not need courts.

I couldn't read past the article's pretentious opening.

The only solution is to have a crystal ball.

In this regard, the writing is definitely rambling and incoherent. It's one big mutual academic exercise (I am avoiding the use of a sexual term here).

There may be solid points in there, I will never know. I automatically cannot take anyone as serious who writes this way. They do not want to be taken seriously. They want to be congratulated on their keen observations.

So I agree with your "delusional" statement, and also consider your remarks of the same caliber. You cannot determine a system's safety by watching videos.

Think how many videos there would be by now of the 737max taking off, flying, and landing if airplanes were as hip and new as robotic drivers.

I'm not making a claim about relative feature capabilities (yes, having replied in this specific thread makes that confusing, but that's where your comment was). I'm making a claim that the vast majority of developers do not know how to judge a system's safety.

As an example of this from you, and for a more critical view of Tesla from me, I'll say that when I look at Tesla's capabilities, I could not make a claim that it does anything safely. Safety implies that the system knows its limits and refuses to operate outside of them. This is definitely not Tesla's way. Else it would be impossible, for example, to have sun blind spots make it not "see" a semi.

possibly. I don't think I know anyone who regrets it though.

SCOTUS is just one big game of political football. for centuries.

Even when poking fun at myself, I choose names of projects carefully. It's pretty easy to not be a jerk, at least in this way.

When someone announced that their cell battery is dead, I have never once in my life heard someone ask for clarification on whether the battery was incapable of charging or is simply depleted. I have also never once heard a correction of the person with the depleted battery when they announce that they have charged their phone.

I have also heard these same speech patterns pertaining to vehicles. It is odd to demand that a written work that is authored for popular consumption not to use the popular parlance.

This area sees these temperatures for a total of, I'd guess, 3 weeks (non-contiguous) annually. There's usually a couple days of around 0F each year (and if it goes lower than that, it sticks around for several days). Some years, we get 4-6 weeks of such cold. Basically everywhere from Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and north of New York will see the same or worse.

Sorry for the long explanation. I want to calibrate on what "very cold" means to an EV.

I suspect you do not want your car's brake controller to do this.