'Technologists are implicit authorities on how we build the future. They have a unique responsibility to the public to represent the best of what the world could be.'
It is human nature to be risk-averse*, but over the last 40-50 years we as a society have become more so. We equate slow movement with safety, excessively discount the risks of "do nothing", and freely externalize the costs of safety. Those costs are real and significant and, like other externalities, are a form of costly pollution.
I am not saying we should not do our due diligence. What I am saying is that we should not be captured by "analysis paralysis". No lawyer or insurer is going to recommend doing something risky--that's their seat at the table. But they need to stay in their lane and not commandeer the whole road or call all the shots. Too often we let them unilaterally make decisions concerning risk. Let them call out and quantify risk, and then make the informed decision.
If computers had been invented during the Progressive Era 100 years ago, you'd have to have an operator's license to have one and it would be "computing is a privilege, not a right".
Maybe we need tort reform. Maybe we need to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, shut down the ISO, and bust up the insurance monopoly.
Bankruptcy law has done wonders for society and innovation, and has taken the edge off of purely financial risk. Maybe we need a "bankruptcy law" for other kinds of risk.
You think we're controlled by Wall Street? It's more like we're controlled by Hartford, Connecticut and the insurance industry, who for some dumb reason have grabbed the mantle of being "society's conscience", which they most certainly do not deserve.
If there one takeaway here, it's recognizing that SAFETY IS NOT FREE.
*Vegas wasn't built on winners, and neither was Hartford. The extended-warranty people have made billions exploiting this.
With the recent news about the social media companies getting coerced by the govt. to censor political speech, it is obvious that the Anti-Trust laws must be repealed.
It is human nature to be risk-averse*, but over the last 40-50 years we as a society have become more so. We equate slow movement with safety, excessively discount the risks of "do nothing", and freely externalize the costs of safety. Those costs are real and significant and, like other externalities, are a form of costly pollution.
I am not saying we should not do our due diligence. What I am saying is that we should not be captured by "analysis paralysis". No lawyer or insurer is going to recommend doing something risky--that's their seat at the table. But they need to stay in their lane and not commandeer the whole road or call all the shots. Too often we let them unilaterally make decisions concerning risk. Let them call out and quantify risk, and then make the informed decision.
If computers had been invented during the Progressive Era 100 years ago, you'd have to have an operator's license to have one and it would be "computing is a privilege, not a right".
Maybe we need tort reform. Maybe we need to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, shut down the ISO, and bust up the insurance monopoly.
Bankruptcy law has done wonders for society and innovation, and has taken the edge off of purely financial risk. Maybe we need a "bankruptcy law" for other kinds of risk.
You think we're controlled by Wall Street? It's more like we're controlled by Hartford, Connecticut and the insurance industry, who for some dumb reason have grabbed the mantle of being "society's conscience", which they most certainly do not deserve.
If there one takeaway here, it's recognizing that SAFETY IS NOT FREE.
*Vegas wasn't built on winners, and neither was Hartford. The extended-warranty people have made billions exploiting this.
With the recent news about the social media companies getting coerced by the govt. to censor political speech, it is obvious that the Anti-Trust laws must be repealed.