Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)US
Posts
9
Comments
233
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The idea is that you are not actually drunk but in some upset condition because of an emergency. And that condition might trigger the anti-drunk mechanism. A breathalyzer might work, but the drunk drive can always get someone else to breath into it. Also not sure how much calibration such device needs, can it last for a few months in a cold/hot car and still work correctly?

    Once you want something to validate the breathalyzer (to avoid asking your child to start your car for you while you are drunk) it get complicated and more error prone.

  • In 2021... The law requires a technology safety standard by November 2024 if the technology is ready.

    Still, NHTSA must be assured the technology works before it can require it, and then give automakers at least three years to implement it once it finalizes rules.

    “If it’s [only] 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives,” Carlson said. “Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency.”

    The article title is too much optimistic, not going to happen in the next few years

  • Because of this the reaction will not work outside of carefully controlled laboratory conditions, ruling out apocalyptic scenarios where the process runs away and destroys all available DNA by building versions of itself with it.

    This isn’t something that’s taking over the world just yet

    So there’s always that kind of uncertainty; you think you can build safeguards in, but they’re not necessarily a guarantee that it will be safe

    Very reassuring, nothing to worry about