They’re not literally useless. A steel tipped hammer with a sharp tip is ALWAYS going to be one of the best tools to break a glass window. Even if it’s not as reliable or easy as it’s made seem in ads, it’s still going to be better than your hands or random junk you have in the car. And that’s not even mentioning that their whole criticism only applies to laminated glass windows.

Plenty of cars, especially older ones, still use tempered glass, which can easily be shattered with one of these.

And even the article doesn’t argue that seat belt cutters don’t work, only that you’re unlikely to be in a situation where you can effectively use them.

And call me crazy, but if there’s even a 1 in a million chance that a 15$ tool could save mine, or someone else’s life, with literally no downside whatsoever to owning one, I personally consider that worth spending 15$ on.

I’ve always said that the fines for moving traffic violations need to be scaled to the weight of the vehicle.

It’s insane that going 20 over the limit on a 250kg moped gets you the exact same fine as doing it in a 4 ton F-450.

The whole scenario is already a grandfather paradox. If he stopped the plague, he wouldn’t have been sent back to stop the plague. If that doesn’t break the space time continuum neither will leaving them behind.

The alternative they’re advocating for is not having one at all, so no. It not working is litearlly no different from the alternative the article suggests.

I was referring to the effect being opposite of the effect that would have been motivated by capitalism.

This is a single company making a decision. It is neither capitalism nor socialism nor any other economic system, because it’s not a system. It’s one company making one decision. I just assumed that was obvious from context.

And my point was that this decision is quite literally the opposite of the decision that capitalist incentives would drive the company towards.

And yes, government regulations could accurately be described as the opposite, or in direct opposition to, free market capitalism.

Next time, make sure to bring the person paying you with you to prove you did it.

You can also threaten to leave them behind if they refuse to pay.

This article feels weirdly opposed to these things on principle, purely because it’s unlikely that they’ll be useful, but why the fuck does that matter ?

It’s not like they’re expensive, and there’s literally zero downside to having them in your car. Literal worst case scenario is that they simply do nothing. And in the event that they DO become useful, as incredibly unlikely as that might be, they can be a literal life saver.

Also, you don’t just have to use them if YOU get into a crash. You can use them to render aid if someone else gets in a crash, and is stuck in their vehicle and they’re in acute danger (otherwise, never move crash victims, wait for the paramedics to stabilise their spine)

By their some idiotic logic they use to rail against these devices, you might as well remove lightning rods from buildings or life vests from aircraft.

Redundanz und ECC.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

The line, imo, is: are you creating it yourself, and just using AI to help you make it faster/more convenient, or is AI the primary thing that is creating your content in the first place.

Using AI for convenience is absolutely valid imo, I routinely use chatGPT to do things like debugging code I wrote, or rewriting data sets in different formats, instead of doing to by hand, or using it for more complex search and replace jobs, if I can’t be fucked to figure out a regex to cover it.

For these kind of jobs, I think AI is a great tool.

There’s two sides to this, both of which are equally true.

1. Cars are a fuck ton more dangerous than most people realise/think

2. Violent crime is a whole lot LESS common/of a risk than sensationalist media makes most people assume.

Nominally you can use it to plug a generators output into a household circuit, which will provide power to that circuit in cases of a blackout, saving you from needing to unplug everything critical and daisy chain 10 multiplugs to the generator.

It could also be used to connect two seperate household circuits together, if only of them is actually live for whatever reason.

In reality you shouldn’t his at all, ever. Just daisy chain the extension cords. If you forgot to isolate the circuit by flipping the main breaker (easy to do if there’s no power anyway, because of a blackout), and then the grid comes back on, your generator is gonna have a real bad time. And then there’s obviosuly the electric shock risk of using something like this.

Technically, you’re just describing any DOS attack. The specific characteristic of a DDOS attack is the distribution, i.e. using a botnet to send traffic from thousands of different ip addresses simoultaneously, which makes DDOS attacks far harder to block than a simple DOS attack, originating from a single IP.

Ticket Master is a massive monopoly in the US, and has exclusivity contracts with most of the popular concert venues, meaning if you want to perform anywhere of even mediocre popularity/size, you have literally no choice as an artist.

If “everyone will be using AI”, AI will turn to shit.

They can’t create originality, they’re only recycling and recontextualising existing information. But if you recycle and recontextualise the same information over and over again, it keeps degrading more and more.

It’s ironic that the very people who advocate for AI everywhere, fail to realise just how dependent the quality of AI content is on having real, human generated content to input to train the model.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

Except, Airbus fixing this has fuck all to do with capitalism. They are legally mandated too. If it was Worker owned, they’d still fix it. If they were state owned, they’d still fix it. If anything, the actual forces and incentives that are inherent to capitalism, and not just existing alongside and in opposition to it, would drive them to not fix it.

Fixing it has literally nothing whatsoever to do with Airbus being capitalist or profit driven.

Just because something happened in a capitalist system doesn’t mean it happened because of the capitalist system. That’s kind of like saying capitalism caused workers rights, because companies nowadays have an incentive to not get sued for worker rights violations, which is obviously nonsense.

If you’re this bent on defending this mysoginstic and sexist crap, then you’re a sexist mysoginst not worth talking too. Enjoy being blocked.

Yes. And the fathers are equally capable of saying no. And the men themselves are equally capable of not being cunts.

There’s 3 people involved here, 2 of which are men, and this guy specifically singles out the the one woman, and blames her. That’s sexist and mysoginstic.

“When women are bad, it’s their fault. When men are bad, it’s their mother’s fault” is an objectively sexist and shitty stance to have.

If you wanna blame the parents, blame BOTH. Singling out the mother is mysoginstic.

Those men have fathers too, and yet you specifically blame the mothers. That’s misogyny.