Reminder: corporate claims of “licensed, not sold” are LIES. If you buy something, you own it regardless of what they say. Stop taking legal advice from the enemy!
I’m very over this subscription/licensing culture corpos are forcing us into.
I think there’s a gap in the market for a Microsoft office alternative you can just buy. And the next Windows is rumoured to be subscription based too.
The year of the Linux desktop is right now, if you want it to be. For me it was 2007 - and watching the evolution of Windows since then has been a continuous validation of my choice.
If you want to use Linux, use it! It's ready, and IMO has been for some time.
(And just to be clear - choosing otherwise is OK too! I don't intend my enthusiasm as zealotry. Folks making an educated decision to stay is totally valid.)
I just don’t have the time to learn something new at the moment, I’m working full time and studying ontop of that, not to mention I’m almost 30 and to old haha
But in all seriousness the next pc i build will probably be linux
Installing it on a virtual machine can be a good way to try it out to begin with. No need to restart whenever you’d like to use it, and you’ve still got access to everything you normally use.
Don’t overestimate the learning curve, your mainline distros like Ubuntu aren’t really much different anymore for most of your average consumer use cases.
Safety on the road has been improved so far by having public orgs and governments pressuring companies with regulations. Without them there would be no seatbelts and dashboards might still be dotted with stylish pointy metal spikes.
Unfortunately safety regulations have solely focused on the occupants of the concerned vehicle. It follows that any feature that protects the occupant at the expense of everyone else is still measured as a net positive. Ultimately this is leading to an arms race.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don’t have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
I’ve legit heard people say things along the lines of “The largest SUV or trucks are safer for Americans because it can hold up better in a collision with deer which we have a lot of.” (Because apparently large wildlife aren’t common anywhere at all in the rest of the world.)
They have a point though, and they’ll hold up especially well against a specific, extremely common subspecies of deer called “humans.”
As a programmer, I will very mildly defend VW here. Not at all defending the payment structure (that’s shit and has no excuse other than rent seeking), but the person who had to tell the police they needed to pay likely didn’t have an override button. Something like this just isn’t an edge case that you often think of in development, so not having the option of getting that data out for free is reasonable if this is the first incident.
Not really. I’m not sure when it became auto makers responsibility to protect you from the world and car hijackings. The tech is primarily an ad on to protect you in crashes and shitty weather.
I don’t think they’re saying that no one thought of it, but he’s right as a programmer those edge cases are always pushed out, kicking the can down the road. That doesn’t mean VW isn’t liable - it’s their fault still - they should have been able to help. But we can understand how it happened.
They probably called some guy on the 24/7 help line making minimum wage who will get fired if he ever gave out a free service and probably gets dinged if a call gets escalated. Those processes probably don’t exist. They sure as hell will now.
Right? This wasn’t “No don’t take my data but also find my car” it was “Please for the love of god find my car my child is in there” followed with “Right for a modest fee of $150 ma’am we sure can”.
Has nothing to do with privacy. Maybe they ask a boilerplate “We have to ask but you do give us consent right” followed by a “What the fuck do you think fucking yes!”, but not asking for money. That’s not the time.
Whatever is most pleasant/convenient for the trip I’m trying to make, as long as it is not a car, because cars are disproportionately noisy, polluting and a danger to my neighbors, and I don’t want to contribute to that.
If all the options were equally available and convenient, then for me walking > cycling > streetcar > train > bus.
That order is almost the same for me but move bike way down. Having to own and maintain a piece of equipment to get around introduces a lot of the same problems as cars, just on a smaller scale. IMO getting around should be something the built environment facilitates without the individual needing to BYO vehicle
Riding a bike doesn’t necessarily mean owning a bike.
Places like Toronto or London have bicycle sharing programs where for a small monthly fee you can go to one of many stations around the city, pick a bike and leave it at any of the stations near to your destination. The maintenance staff ensures that all stations have some bikes available and that the bikes remain in working condition.
Airplanes. That’s the only mode of transport I’d use just for the fun of it. All other modes of transportations are just tools and I like they exist, but I don’t “really like” them by themselves.
I like to see all the technical aspects of it, but the actual transportation part is so bad for me. And not to speak of the emissions it creates. I nlw try to avoid planes, trains are nearly as interesting and much more pleasant for everyone.
Everything. It’s sitting in a chair flying through the air. What’s not to like? I don’t think trains really compare. Like you can’t even look out the window and watch the control surfaces.
Sure, there is delays and all the other people which are quite annoying, but that’s also true for trains.
Like you can’t even look out the window and watch the control surfaces.
That I totally understand!
But planes (at least in economy) have very little space and you don’t have a real table to work/chill/play on. It’s loud, space is generally very limited and you can’t bring a lot of your own food. Also it is much darker than with large train windows.
I came thinking I would say airplanes as well, though I know it’s likely an unpopular answer in this part of web.
Growing up fairly privileged, I got to fly a lot and always looked forward to it as a situation where no one can get mad at me for spending the whole time watching movies, playing games or reading books. Some of that childhood joy stuck with me, and I still look forward to a chance to sit back and read or zone out to music without any nagging work obligations (I refuse to purchase in air wifi).
So big agree, for transport I “really like,” it’s gotta be airplanes.
For more mundane day to day stuff, I do love basically anything on rails. Not having to think about maneuvering around other vehicles, just sitting and chilling, not even worrying about traffic delays. As long as you’re able to avoid the worst of rush hour packed trains, it’s just the best. If only every city could figure out their rail systems…
I got to fly a lot and always looked forward to it as a situation where no one can get mad at me for spending the whole time watching movies, playing games or reading books. Some of that childhood joy stuck with me, and I still look forward to a chance to sit back and read or zone out to music without any nagging work obligations
Pretty much the same reasons I like traveling on trains. The reasons why I don’t like plane traveling nearly as much (kind of hate it TBH) is the whole airport bureaucracy and security theater you need to go through just to get on the plane. And the incredibly cramped seats (though maybe not a factor for you, if you were privileged enough not to fly Economy).
Yeah, I’ll admit, getting to fly business frequently as a child probably gave me an unrealistic view of what flying would be like for myself later in life. But except for one flight I randomly got bumped, I’ve only done economy my whole adult life and still can’t help but be in a good mood thinking about a flight.
I do agree about the airport hassles, having to go through easily two hours of bureaucracy and waiting before even getting on a plane is kinda crazy, guess I’ve just come to accept it to the point I don’t really think about it too much. I’m just looking forward to the plane, and maybe finding a little nook to wait in before the flight starts boarding where my brain can already start transitioning to “nothing’s stopping you from just shutting off” mode. Airplane mode also means I’m not getting any work texts or messages while I’m in the air, which has definitely happened on trains.
High speed rapid transit. I want to be able to look out the window of the train and watch us go at least 3/2 the speed of the cars on the highway. Every day on my way to work.
Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians
I think that’s more accurate. Vehicles big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered… makes no difference. There’s no greater risk to pedestrians than multi-ton moving vehicles.
EDIT: Guys, I didn’t mean one size car vs another doesn’t make a difference to the safety risk of pedestrians. It absolutely does. I mean that vehicles around pedestrians are a risk to pedestrians, regardless. This is #fuckcars, right? Stop all the down voting.
That’s actually surprising. I would think damage to lower extremities (delicate knee joints) would be far more severe from a concentrated impact area than a large area impact distributed over the entire body - when it occurs with a low speed impact.
Lower-fronted cars may cause more severe lower body injuries, but likely cause less severe injuries overall because the point of impact isn’t the torso (which is where humans keep a lot of their important bits and bobs).
I guess that’s the question. For low speed impacts the body is pretty well protected compared to the lower extremities because the energy of impact is more readily absorbed without serious damage.
There’s nuances here, but in principle you are incorrect. A car can be assumed to be infinitely heavier than a pedestrian. That means that every part of their body that’s in contact with the car will be accelerated to car speed. So it’s not that with a larger area the force is spread out, there’s actually just more places that have force applied. In other words, a low car will break your legs, a high car will break your legs and torso.
I tend to agree with you, of course, but I wonder if the large study were re-run with mass as the cause it would show similar distribution against the 6000lb+ vehicles. Mass tends to reduce braking deceleration and I didn’t see that as an explicit parameter. The “cause” is more salient to the second, smaller study which shows the “kneecap and hood carry” physics reduced hip and head injuries compated to the “body block and throw” mechanics of the flat- fronted cars.
Not to defend the Mack-Truck styling - I don’t disagree at all with the smaller impact study - I question the original implied hypothesis that the prevalence of large flat fronts as the cause of increase in deaths following the nadir in 2009. Of course anecdotes are not evidence, but I live in a college town and have since 2000 and the actions of pedestrians have changed substantially over the years. Specifically, the advent of smartphones has resulted in risky behavior both in pedestrians and behind the wheel. In 2009 less than 20% of phones were “smart.” Few of those were connected to the internet and fewer still to social media and entertainment services. Since then, the prevalence has increased to 80% and the consumption of media by orders of magnitude (measured by data usage and hours engaged). The original study implies the increase in pedestrian death solely due to nose geometry, but the quantity of impacts and conditions may not be as causative as the article seems to claim.
Not true, there’s a lot of differences between a car and a ute/suv. The high, square bonnet of a ute both makes it harder to see pedestrians and makes it much worse when they do hit. Cars are designed to hit people on the lower legs and toss them onto the bonnet, while utes hit people on the upper body and knock them over so they end up underneath a moving vehicle.
Cars aren’t great, but they’re so much better than utes and suvs.
You are correct, and I agree with you, but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is. I understand what you’re trying to go for, but stating false information won’t help to convince people.
Even if the number of cars on the road remains the same, but utes and SUVs were swapped to lower vehicles (when possible), then there would still be positive outcomes of fewer pedestrian fatalities (even if the number of accidents remains the same) and reduced carbon emissions.
Removing most cars would reduce these even more, which I assume is your desired outcome, but even just reducing the proportion of utes and SUVs would have positive effects
but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is.
Just to clarify, I said “no difference” in that “big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered” vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.
I’m not trying to argue that there’s no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.
My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you’re saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We’ll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there’s a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that’s why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that’s why you’re saying there’s no difference. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.
I get where you’re coming from, but without context your point comes across as more of a “all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
“all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
Oh, geeze. Yeah, I really didn’t intend for it to sound like the first part. I 1000% believe that larger vehicles NEED to be regulated, like yesterday.
A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.
Trains run on tracks, and you can’t get hit by one unless you put yourself on those tracks.
I’m not aware of pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by planes. I’d be interested to hear about this trend.
Boats aren’t typically found on city streets, and pedestrian fatalities involving boats is how common?
City and suburban streets should have fewer cars on it, not more. These are pedestrian areas, and perhaps we can learn a thing or two about how to actually prevent pedestrian fatalities by looking at European city planning and design.
Sure it’s got the pop up logo triangle, but the front is still overall better.
Great viability, check out that dome. The design choices naturally focus the server outside the car rather than on instruments.
Back seats also have a big dome to look out and realise there is a world outside the car, it’s not just an iPad screen to fast-travel. Again, the focus is on what’s outside the vehicle, not in it.
On screens, there in not a single screen in that car.
Low-loading height, height clearance, deep truck. Probably more on par with a van than an SUV.
Low laying headlamps with standard incandescent bulbs, nothing that can temporarily blind people.
Sure it has rear-view viability issues, and the horn (and multitude of horn buttons) is problematic. But the Homer Simpson car is a good people and stuff mover. Could probably do without the shag carpeting though.
Geez really? I had no idea that pedestrians were so careless, what is it about larger trucks that makes people jump out in front of them.
I like to see things as an opportunity, and I think we can use this as a lesson to do things differently. Like, let’s make trucks louder so you hear them before you see them. More Turbo, and how about vertical tail pipe stack. Next we can increase the number of lights, and make them brighter so that everyone can see. Let’s add more cameras and computers so the driver can see their blind spots simply by looking at the command console screen. We can even make these features available for free for a small amount of non invasive advertising.
Do you remember how trains solved the problems of cows derailing trains. They put a guard on the front. So let’s make an even bigger steel bumper.
Nah, because that would involve the slightest reduction in personal freedom which as we all know is a fate not only worse than death, but worse than hellfire itself.
What? Are you suggesting I drive a smaller truck just to help other people? Are you saying I crash into people? I need that giant truck! Do you know how much I haul and tow every day?! I mean, I don’t, I commute back and forth to work every day in it, but I need to do that. My coworkers see that truck next to their cars and think “Damn, that guy drives a Truck”. Maybe if they see how big of a truck I drive it’ll make up for the crippling social anxiety I have that I just keep pushing further and further down, maybe it’ll make up for not getting that promotion I worked for. Now they’ll have to notice me. So no, you aren’t taking away my F350 Mega Macho Man-Manliness Super Truck. How else will people know I’m a man?
Which is why we call them ESTs. Emotional Support Trucks.
And owning a truck in the the US, I feel, is a status symbol for many that purchase them rather than any need for carrying/towing stuff. So extra pointless.
Edit: And even if so, they don’t need to be so big.
I’ve noticed on facebook, that every anti-EV clown out there seems to think everyone is towing on a daily basis too.
The irony is, that the people who drive these large trucks are actually the people who tend to require the least towing capacity. In fact, I’ve maybe only ever seen 1 or 2 of those large Utes here in Australia actually tow anything remotely big. And for most tradies, Vans are actually a far better option than Utes anyway (much more secure)
fuck_cars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.