[satvikpendem]

I know they said self driving cars, I am talking about manual cars, it's two different points even though both are analogies about cars. I am not debating how people should behave, I am debating their thought that technology should just work without any sort of instruction or learning and if it doesn't then it's a tech error not a human error. My point is that many technologies require learning how to use them, and therefore it sometimes is human error.

[danaris]

> I am debating their thought that technology should just work without any sort of instruction or learning

But since that was not, in fact, the point I was trying to make, and you keep trying to put it into my mouth, I don't think it's particularly productive trying to discuss this with you.

[satvikpendem]

I am pointing out that your point, that tech should cater to how people generally operate, does not make much sense. It is flawed from the start, because people's general or natural operation can still be wrong and must be taught correctly, and that just because something is a natural operation does not mean it is how it should be. People have fundamentally flawed misconceptions all the time and it is foolish to cater to them, beyond improving UX where possible, but some things are simply not technologically possible to only improve via UX and not without teaching.

[danaris]

Very well then, O Fount Of All Wisdom About Humans, how does one go about teaching humans to operate self-driving cars that will drive for hours at a time with no problem, but 1% of the time will encounter an issue that the human needs to react to in under 3.5 seconds or crash and probably kill themselves and someone else?