Ignoring the no true Scotsman-ism of your post, what's odd is that you are telling someone who actually wrote it what was intended. You've made it completely clear you misunderstood it. I've pointed out exactly where you made the mistake. Yet you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that just maybe your biases made you infer more than what was actually said. The "explicitly mentioned aspect" is the unpredictable behavior. You can tell that, not just from the wording, but from the fact that has been the consistent throughline of the entire sub-thread. And not to beat a dead horse, my secondary point has consistently been that we should not put too much emphasis on self-curated data when there is a bad incentive to embellish it. Yet here you are.
> what's odd is that you are telling someone who actually wrote it what was intended
They're telling you what you wrote, not what you intended to write.
They're correct.
> The "explicitly mentioned aspect" is the unpredictable behavior.
No, it was breaking best practices and behaving like it had a death wish. That's something that has some overlap with being unpredictable, but is not at all the same thing. You can have a predictable death wish, even.
> maybe your biases made you infer more than what was actually said
I don't think I have much bias here and I agree with them. Also consider that the person that writes something is biased to think the communication was clearer than it actually was.
> And not to beat a dead horse, my secondary point has consistently been
It's neat to have a correct secondary point, but it won't make your primary point correct, and people don't need to add a disclaimer of "while your secondary point is fine" every time they criticize your primary point.
Why do you think "best practices" are considered "best practices"? Is it because they lead to the most desired outcomes? If so, what do you think happens when best practices are broken?
Now I'll concede it's possible that RL can lead to finding new best practices. But that's not the case in the story relayed. It is only a good practice for the scenario because it was an unpiloted aircraft because it otherwise puts the pilot at too much risk (which is why the pilot say it was acting "as if" it had a death wish. He was anthropomorphizing it.) That still means it's bad practice when the goal is to save human lives.
Yes, I understand the concept of a best practice, and why breaking it is bad.
But that's not the same as being unpredictable. Those are orthogonal complaints, and nothing in your quote suggests that the "death wish" flying was more unpredictable.
And we already know that these cars act super cautious, the opposite of acting like they have a death with.
So that quote has no useful information that we could transfer to the car situation.
> What's odd is that you are telling someone who actually wrote it what was intended...
What I am saying here should be clear to someone such as yourself, who is invoking our theory of mind in his claims: I am making a distinction between what you are now saying you meant all along, and what other people will recognize as having been your intent when you first wrote the passage in question. We cannot present proof, but nevertheless we know, beyond reasonable doubt. Your explanation does not pass the sniff test.
