Oh, I forgot to add: Stage 6 is the dumbest and most short-sighted one yet. It only works by ignoring the large regions of the world which will become unlivable, or nearly so, and the fact that those regions are home to billions of people. Those people won't just lay down and die, so the areas that are still livable -- and maybe even more comfortable! -- with warmer temperatures are going to have to deal with the resulting refugee flood, and the wars caused by this vast population upheaval and relocation.

But, yeah, if you ignore all the negative effects and focus only on the potentially good ones, you can convince yourself it'll be a good thing. SMDH.

I see from the comments that we've hit a new stage in climate change denialism.

Stage 1: Denial of warming: Denying that the climate is changing at all.
Stage 2: Denial of human influence: Admitting the climate is changing but denying that humans are causing it.
Stage 3: Denial of impact: Admitting human causation, but claiming the impact will be insignificant.
Stage 4: Denial of solutions: Admitting that it's real, we're causing it and that it will be significant, but denying that there is anything we can do about it.
Stage 5: Denial of timeliness: Admitting that we could have done something about it, but now it's too late.
And now, Stage 6: Denial of negative impacts: Admitting that it's real, and significant, and that maybe we could do something, but trying to spin it as beneficial.

What system component would enforce those restrictions? Unless Google modified Linux to add an entirely new access control scheme it wouldn't be the kernel, which would make the sandboxing much easier to break out of.

But that's not the biggest problem with your suggestion. The biggest problem is that users cannot be trusted to make complex security decisions, which your toggles definitely would be. That sounds condescending, I know, but it's backed up by a vast amount of experience and evidence. You have to keep in mind that approximately all of the three billion Android users know nothing about computing, nothing about security, and less than nothing about computer security.

Obviously. That's not the point I was addressing.

People have much higher expectations of mobile security. Also, most mobile phone users have never used any desktop/laptop, so they aren't even aware of the very low bar for security expectations set by desktop OSes.

Anybody else ever play You Don't Know Jack with three other people? I think that was the first really clean and comprehensible party quiz game, and a YDKJ title seems like it would be a good fit here.

Pretty much any cellphone can now do a decent imitation of a Wiimote (besides the sensors, you could also use camera data) and it would also be hilarious to see people accidentally chuck their phones across the room while bowling.

eVTOL man-carrying craft (flying taxis and flying cars) are not yet economically viable -- and won't be until we have a whole new generation of batteries with higher energy densities and cycle-lives. At the current cost of operation, these are a solution looking for a problem.

Hell, China can't sell all the EVs it makes so the chances of them selling any of these is....

Mozilla keeps thinking that they can make Firefox popular without the nerds somehow. But all the shit that makes it better than other browsers is nerd shit, so they need nerds to advocate for it, teach other users how to use those features, etc. Meanwhile they seem to actually be trying to alienate us. Just like in the movie, here it the pulse, and here is their finger, far from the pulse, jammed up their ass. Pretzel?

You are correct, they absolutely, positively do not have a flying car. They have a drone that comes out of a cybervan. And it's six-wheeled to boot, which would be cool in an off road vehicle but absolutely sucks on pavement. I did not bother to look up whether it has rear steering because IDGAF about it even if it does, even though that would be kind of neat. The rest of it is dumb.

I think BeauHD is a dipshit for posting this dupe

If this were the case they would not permit manual selection of the rapid acceleration mode.

False, I just did this and it did nothing.

I see you didn't read the Toyota unintended acceleration report by the Barr Group, and have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

A guy I knew had an early Model S.

When he wanted to impress me with the acceleration he tapped a couple settings on the screen to put it into Ludicrous Mode

This was around 2013 or so.

I'm not seeing how this is a problem.

I have a V6 and a V8 truck and both need a manual low gear selection to take off like a rocket. OK, the V6 not so much but the V8 can spin the rear tires in 2WD mode.

I don't let the average drivers in my life use it.

They would hit a tree if they were given a Tesla that was always in Ludicrous Mode.

What about top speed limiting?

And speaking of which, what about an emergency stop button? They've had a number of self-driving vehicle runaways which could have been stopped with such a thing.