You do have a point. I guess it really depends on just how much acceleration we are talking about, and how/when the power is delivered.

Usually, the actual limit of acceleration now is simply the ability to get the power to the ground. Vehicles will have only so much traction to launch and accelerate but so quickly. So there is that. And almost all modern vehicles also have vastly improved traction control and stability control systems, as well (and those are on by default, and that is something I could agree should reset to on with every start). So tire spin and loss of control is greatly diminished. Having decent acceleration is nowhere near as dangerous as it used to be. The main concern is just being aware that others around you might not expect you to be in X location that quickly.

As for Ludicrous: The primary reason Teslas would not have the Ludicrous Mode on all the time (or by default) is that it actually takes considerable time before it can activate (it has to prep for it by conditioning the battery), and when used, it only lasts for a short time, and it seriously destroys range (very seriously).

>"If an OS vendor really cared about what was in the best interest of the user they would never place the user in a situation where they face take it or leave it demands for privileges from app vendors."

^^^ THIS, 1000%

But the reason we don't get such fine-grained controls is that the ecosystem is designed to maximize simplicity and the ability of the OS and apps to spy, advertise, and control the user.

>"As long as there's a method, someone will write instructions that people will follow."

While this is true, additional warnings and hoops can and will dissuade a large number of users. Is the goal 100% perfection, or perhaps a 50% or 75% improvement?

One idea would be a mandatory waiting period. Say an hour. Where you have to check back in and complete the process later. That would give someone time to think about it and also help stop impulsive actions. Annoying, yes. But security is always annoying.

Anything that ships AI bundled with it won't ever make it onto my desktop."

This isn't "bundling AI", it is just offering an option to hook into your choice of AI engine, if you want to use it.

>"Do you think it would only be active if you used that dedicated AI tab? Of course not. It'd be running in the background at all times, analysis your harddrive under the pretext of being ready IF you needed all the information, but what it'll really be doing is selling even more of your personal data."

I seriously doubt Mozilla would do anything even remotely like that. We are not talking about Microsoft or Google. And it is not like it would be a secret. Mozilla discloses exactly what they do and everything in Firefox is open source.

If you don't want the feature, don't use it, or turn it off. The end. I do agree with other postings that it would be better as an extension. They can even bundle the extension.

>"It's no longer the Firefox that I knew in 2004"

I would hope not. If it were, it would lack a hell of a lot of useful improvements, including new standards, performance, etc.

>''it's just AI this and sponsored tab that. It's proof that open source can be enshittified."

Um, it is an optional browsing mode. You don't have to use it. You can probably even disable it so you don't see it. I am not a fan of all this AI stuff, and it doesn't bother me. Mozilla/Firefox isn't "going AI", it is just a mode that hooks into whatever cloud AI site you want it to use. No different than when they added the search stuff. You have full control what to use (or not use it at all).

Like it or not, sometimes things need to be added that many of us find useless. But for Firefox to stay relevant, they do need to keep up with some of the "trendy" stuff. Thankfully, something like this is not difficult to add and doesn't really use any resources.

You know that "sponsored" home page or tab stuff? A click on two settings and it they off, permanently. Settings> Home> New Windows and Tabs> Homepage> Blank Page and New Tabs> Blank Page. Or you can keep them on and customize what remains on them, including turning off "sponsored" anything.

>"The laws of physics prevent many people from driving a vehicle with a sub 5 second 0-60 time. It takes a lot of ponies to get a bro-dozer up to speed that quickly."

Ariya E4orce crossover. Certainly not exotic. 0-60 in 4.8 seconds.

And did you forget about motorcycles? A Kawaski Concours sport touring (again, nothing exotic, but flashed), 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. And that isn't even electric.

> Good idea

I don't think so at all. It would be a good idea to have a setting to limit power, AND the ability to choose if you want it to remember it or not. Maybe even a password or something option, if the owner wants to lock the setting. But what I buy is my vehicle, I want control.

> EV's accelerate much faster than most cars did in the past and the clues from engine noise aren't as obvious.

Yes, I know. Those are two of several reasons I bought an EV. Had it been neutered with some nanny-state crap, I would have sought out some other model/brand/type.

Well, VIX is +20% today and NVidia is down 3,5%. Did the bubble just start bursting, or is it just a temporary setback when ton of people waiting in the wings will now "buy the dip"?

Yes, that mean that nowadays, "advanced users" means "know how to read".

Alas, knowing how to read isn't enough now, if it ever was. All too many computer lusers (not misspelled) are aliterate and won't bother to read any warnings that accompany those links. To paraphrase an old saying, you can show a person all the warnings you want, but you can't make them read them.

...starting long before the release of chat gpt
Somehow, I always knew that I was training a robot, and I judged it to be a good thing

For now. Goggle is trying to lock down the sideloading and the play store.

>"I agree with everything in your post except for that. My search engine is startpage.com, which acts as a proxy between me and Google so that it has no way of knowing who made which query."

I use both DDG and StartPage. StartPage is a non-Google search page, even though it returns Google results. So you do actually agree with everything :)

Pop music is another story.
The way it's constructed is exactly like AI would construct it.
Identify a popular trend or style, then hire a team of top professionals to copy it almost perfectly but include barely enough difference to avoid copyright lawsuits.
Then hire an attractive singer who can follow orders to be the front person. If they can't actually sing, apply autotune.
It's artless industrial product.
People will continue to make music, it's an important part of who we are.
Talentless weasels will continue using every trick they can think of to make money.
I hope this is a short lived fad with massive backlash

And I don't want Google having complete control over search either. Which is why all my searching is done with non-Google search pages.

I agree with everything in your post except for that. My search engine is startpage.com, which acts as a proxy between me and Google so that it has no way of knowing who made which query.

>"It's probably not legal, but M$ has always thought they were above the law."

They *are* essentially above the law. As evidenced by an entire history in which nothing is really ever done to slap down their monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.

Google isn't far behind.