Comment Re:Let the Breakup Begin (Score 1) 40
Increasingly I'm thinking of the country to the immediate south of me as the Divided States of America.
I've increasingly been referring to them as the States of America.
Increasingly I'm thinking of the country to the immediate south of me as the Divided States of America.
I've increasingly been referring to them as the States of America.
We also had to ask a computer for permission to use the bathroom.
At first I misread that as "We also had to ask the customer for permission to use the bathroom"
I was like "WTF company requires its agents to ask the customers calling in for permission to use the bathroom???"
That actually would be an excellent policy for the consumer. "Need to take a shit? Better help me solve this problem ASAP." Companies would never agree to it because it puts the CSR on the customer's side.
Elites who lecture you about climate change took 90 private jets (or super-yachts) to Jeff Bezos' wedding https://notthebee.com/article/...
Look. The mega-rich aren't without blame. Granted. But it's a counter-productive point.
Why? Because the environmental impact of those individuals is minuscule compared to us normies en mass. There are 45,000 passenger flights per day handled by the FAA. Statistically, mathematically, factually... those 90 flights don't matter.
Thinking about the mega-rich is just yet another way of shifting responsibility. You can't control their behavior and even if you forbade that wedding, the reduction in pollution output is irrelevant. Mandating a one-tenth MPG improvement in mileage for commuter cars would be astronomically more effective. But no, the American populace voted in the guy who's busy cancelling every pollution regulation he can find. Those votes... those mattered. Not Bezos' wedding.
Next time you or a loved-one is looking at an F-150 or an Expedition or a Wrangler remember... that's what you have control over. And that's what matters. Also, when you're thinking "that's not fair; Bezos gets to fly in his friends so why do I have to make sacrifices and buy a less-massive car", remember your life isn't fair. Most people on the planet are worse-off than almost every Western citizen. If things were fair, you'd be struggling in Somalia or most of Africa, or Central-America or South America.
The problem with being on the cusp of something is you still are totally not there, and no guarantee you will ever be there.
Corollary: the problem with not being on the cusp of something is you aren't nearly there, and you're guaranteed you won't be there soon.
All I'm saying is that while counting your chickens before they hatch isn't wise, recognizing that a clutch of eggs currently being incubated for what they are is.
Rented an Ionic last year and it most definitely defaulted to lane keeping being ON.
Rented a VW earlier this year and it also defaulted to ON.
Suggesting that you just keep fighting the correction to stay to one side is a hilarious way to over correct and end up off the road. Yes it will eventually 'defer' to your inputs if you want to CROSS the line but now you have to manage your extra push with how fast the car stops pushing.
The OP made a comment about European cars in a reply. I can say that in my (Canadian) Ioniq 5N it's both completely optional (ie. can be permanently disabled in a menu) and trivial to override. I prefer being further left than lane center, especially when there's someone to my right or there are parked cars. A baby finger of pressure is plenty to push me there.
I'm not disputing your experience. And apparently there's more variance in implementation than I was aware. But it's certainly not universally a big deal.
On Euro cars it defaults to on automatically every time you start the car.
Now I need to go through four pages just to disable all that nanny stuff.
Or... "incorporate them into your driving routine and learn when to use them and when to ignore them".
That - and now add all the nanny functions that exists in newer cars. Force the car to the center of the lane where the road has most eear so that you can get hydroplaning easier when it's raining as one example.
"Force" overstates the matter significantly.
First, I can't name a car where the function isn't optional-on-demand. Meaning that you can press a button to disable it entirely.
Second, the steering wheel always overrides lane-assist. If you want to stay further left or right than the car encourages, you can totally do that.
Lane assist is really there as a safety-net for attention-lapses. Shut it off when you're in heavy traffic or inclement weather... unless visibility is poor and you've got Highway Driving Assist (HDA) which augments optical lane-assist with GPS.
My latest car has a bunch of these nanny functions and I've learned that they're just like any other tool; if you incorporate them into your driving routine and learn when to use them and when to ignore them, they're actually beneficial.
Yet the economic pundits continue to promote the myth that endless growth is possible and write headlines that complain about growth being a bit low. We need steady-state sustainability
Interesting point, but I think it really depends on what you're measuring. If you're Netflix and you're measuring growth of your subscriber base, at some point every human has a subscription and you flatline, disregarding population numbers. If you're digging oil wells and pumping barrels of stuff with a finite supply, at some point you run out of supply. If you're growing corn, at some point you run out of land.
But... if you're looking at the big picture and you're including things like pumping out non-physical things like Marvel movies or Murderbot stories or Mario Brothers games or celebrity voicemail greetings, you can churn out an effectively infinite supply of that. As long as inflation is a thing, you'll be able to charge for those things. Economic growth really depends on consumption. As long as we invent money (which includes just trading things), never-ending growth is possible.
Your view of the economy is for the present, not the future. The future economy will look vastly different than it is today. Notions of supply and demand will be changed, and human kind will become solar and then interstellar explorers. The rate of innovation will skyrocket compared to what we see today, and our grandchildren will benefit the likes of which will be as foreign to us as our lives would seem to our grandparent's childhood.
I'd love for post-scarcity Star Trek to happen. I just don't see how we get there from here. We're firmly in supply & demand territory and nowhere near escaping it. Resources are very finite on Earth and there isn't enough to go around. Minerals for batteries for instance... there isn't enough for everyone to have all the battery things we might want. In the very short term (say 20 to 50 years) the hypothetical grandchildren will be largely unemployable. We're not going to be mining the asteroid belt in that timeframe. So where does the shift to post-scarcity come from? When do the Bezos/Musk types let go of their concentrated wealth and suddenly start acting in ways that generate wealth and prosperity for all?
Cars are better now. No need for those regulations anymore.
Cars manufactured now are better. Cars manufactured before 1997 aren't better now. Which is why the need for those regulations, banning those thirty-year-old cars from use in certain areas.
It is masked but always present. I don't know who built to it. It came before the first kernel.