That's silly. We'd never release any product with ridiculous standards like "Test for 100 years".
Original horseless carriages didn't have any rules like that. We liked them anyway. That seems a more realistic model of adoption, than ivory tower perfect-safety pipe dreams.
>> We'd never release any product with ridiculous standards like "Test for 100 years".
The same timeframe does not necessarily apply to other kinds of systems. The study is about self-driving cars and the numbers quoted are about self-driving cars, in particular self-driving cars compared to human-driven cars.
The study starts by defining various industry-standard measures of reliability, for example scroll down to page 3 and look at equation 1 and equation 2. You can see that those are not about "perfect safety" but about measuring the probability of an accident and so on.
As a general rule, if you are confused by the text of a study, check out the maths. They should be unambiguous.
Sure, but the conclusion of the post was something like "we can't test these things enough". Which seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the math as well.
Original horseless carriages didn't have any rules like that. We liked them anyway. That seems a more realistic model of adoption, than ivory tower perfect-safety pipe dreams.