Are you aware of any law enforcement agencies that would risk loss of life for material objects? Even in the case of harm prevention, it's a failure if the perp dies. That's still seen as a policy or op failure.
Random passerby are not law enforcement professionals, they're untrained and therefore can't be held to such standards.
The case of Daniel Penny cited above is straightforward: "Neely boarded the car Penny was riding and reportedly began threatening passengers. After the train had left the station, Penny approached Neely from behind to apply the chokehold, and maintained it in a sitting position until Neely went limp a few minutes after the train had reached the next stop."
That's exactly what a successfully stopped threat looks like. That the threatening person ended up dying is unfortunate, but they did ultimately bring that upon themselves. They were free to stop being a threat to others at any time.
But then I don't know what you're trying to imply with the loss of life to protect material objects comment. Seems like an attempt to troll, because nobody is talking about that.
> But then I don't know what you're trying to imply with the loss of life to protect material objects comment. Seems like an attempt to troll, because nobody is talking about that.
From the thread (edited for clarity):
-> I've seen a phone jacking in this exact scenario and nobody moved to stop the guy running. Nobody on the train can help cause the doors have closed, and nobody on the platform has any idea anything just happened, or if they do the guy is well gone before they can put two and two together.
-> I'm not worried about the laptop. Pretty much everyone knows that any valuable laptop is a tracking device anyway. You should be worried about getting actually robbed, or even being attacked for no reason, while you're not paying attention.
-> Are you looking for examples? Off the cuff, in the past 2 years we've had 2 high-profile incidents: Jordan Williams and Daniel Penny.
Theft -> examples of loss of life during "successful interventions".
> That's exactly what a successfully stopped threat looks like.
We might be getting caught up on how to define successful here. If by successful you mean that the outcome was legal then I agree, and would say the outcomes of these trials were likely the appropriate outcome.
But if by successful you mean the best outcome, which is what I take it to mean, then I disagree. A successful intervention would be one where no-one was injured. I've spent years riding trains in Chicago where there's a pretty regular cohort of individuals suffering from various mental illness. I even lived in a building that partially served as a half-way house for such individuals. I've seen people do what Jordan Neely was claimed to do a couple dozen times without altercation. I've also seen people assaulted and knifes get pulled. There are ways to de-escalate a situation that doesn't result in a lethal outcome. That should be the definition of successful here.
> Random passerby are not law enforcement professionals, they're untrained and therefore can't be held to such standards.
The standard is the law. Vigilantism doesn't get a pass on the law just because it was good natured. Perhaps the law gives good natured people caution, but the alternative is much worse. "Legal hell" as it was put, is appropriate when involved in the death of an individual. That's just a consequence of living in a society that values human life.
Exactly — if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier.
Regulators implicitly allowed the ambiguity to persist, and are now attempting to reframe or correct it retroactively.
It’s possible there were political or practical considerations — for example, a belief that successful autonomous driving would make future regulation easier, or at least postpone difficult legislative debates.
We can’t know what the internal reasoning was, but the long delay suggests more than simple oversight.
It's not like they weren't told multiple times to look into it. Lina Khan confirmed it was on their radar. She's one of the most pro consumer chairs we've had. She had 4 years to make a move if she thought a lawsuit was appropriate.
Yes — that’s one plausible explanation, and it still fits the same structural question.
Whether the delay came from optimistic expectations about imminent progress, political or economic incentives, or simple regulatory inertia, the core issue remains the same:
the terminology was tolerated for a long period, and that tolerance allowed ambiguity to accumulate.
My point isn’t about defending Tesla or trusting regulators’ judgment — it’s about asking why the shift happened only after years of implicit acceptance, and what effects that delay had on public understanding and responsibility.
> Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable?
Politics and/or incompetence. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Government agencies are very transparent (implicitly historically; these days were explicitly and you can also now add outright corruption to that) in general (not just regarding Tesla specifically)
It's not at all difficult for a scientifically literate person to be more up to date on the literature of something they have, or could have, than even a specialist in that broad area. There's too many disorders and not enough time.
I have something that about a quarter percent of individuals have in the US. A young specialist would know how to treat based on guidelines but beyond that there's little benefit in keeping up to date with the latest research unless it's a special interest for them (unlikely).
Good physicans are willing to read what their patients send them and adjust the care accordingly. Prevention in particular is problematic in the US. Informed patients will have better outcomes.
My PCP and I have a really good rapport, and so when I stated having weird confusing health problems they were quite happy to hear what I was finding in PubMed and then share their thoughts on it, and together we figured things out and got my situation handled. I thought it was a nicely complementary situation: they didn’t have the time to do a literature dive, and I didn’t have the expertise to fully understand what I was reading.
But I bet what happens more often is patients showing up with random unsubstantiated crap they found on Reddit or a content farm, and I can understand health care providers getting worn down by that sort of thing. I have a family member who believed he had Morgellon’s Disease, and talking to him about it was exhausting.
> Morgellons (/mɔːrˈɡɛlənz/) is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, scientifically unsubstantiated skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain fibrous material.[1][2] Morgellons is not well understood, but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis,[3] on the psychiatric spectrum.[4]
Your family member... mistakenly believed that he had a psychiatric condition involving a mistaken belief?
Yes, I'm calling that questionable. Says who? TCGs have entire formats designed in opposition to the high cost random booster shit. I think that's pretty good evidence that there's high negative sentiment.
Valve is simply larger and took legal heat for people misusing the API.
There's plenty of outrage about paid loot boxes and viewing them as terrible, terrible gambling that exploits consumers and ought to be regulated/banned. Not everyone agrees with this take, but it's still fairly widespread.
Now, you do see people pointing out that trading card games are basically still gambling -- and no one really disagrees with that -- you just don't see the same level of outrage about it. What you usually see is grudging acceptance, ala "what're ya gonna do, that's just how these card games are".
reply