Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Johnothy_Cumquat t1_j1u4vkr wrote

As an apple hater, this isn't something I'd criticise them for. Given the nature of the problem, false positives are bad but false negatives could be much worse. They have to be very careful when lowering the false positive rate that they don't raise the false negative rate. It's a very difficult line to walk. This is probably why no one else has come out with a similar feature (that I know of).

−11

notsureserious t1_j1udmsy wrote

As an apple hater, I think you need to work on your hating skills.

8

Johnothy_Cumquat t1_j1umzts wrote

I've read some pretty dumb things this year and this is one of them

−2

cjeam t1_j1uoshj wrote

There's various circumstances where false positives can be much worse, and I'd say this is one of them. If this is overwhelming call handlers it means genuine emergencies can't be responded to. Given the impact of false positives in this example I'd say the feature should be turned off until it is sorted out.

4

Johnothy_Cumquat t1_j1ur3ui wrote

You want to turn off crash detection because it's being falsely triggered by everyday activities such as skiing and roller coaster rides?

−1

cjeam t1_j1uspfd wrote

Yes absolutely, because those happen a lot more, so the number of false positives will vastly exceed the number of accidents, which is a problem.

3

Johnothy_Cumquat t1_j1uuzyb wrote

Yeah sure let's turn it off in places where there's no ski slopes or rollercoasters just in case a mountain or theme park sneaks up on someone and prank calls the police. In fact let's block the number altogether so that no one makes a false call manually because those outnumber the genuine calls as well.

−4

shiftingtech t1_j1wvtmo wrote

Realistically, if the false positive rate is as high as it sounds like in this article, first responders are eventually going to be forced to ignore the thing. At which point it looses all value anyway

2