Good for you.

Now...

When can we fecking buy it?

Sorry, but even just high speeds are dangerous. They mean a slight twitch of your muscles and you're headed off the road faster than you can correct. It probably differs from person to person, but for me 70 mph was too fast, and I could tell that it was too fast. 65 was ok, but it was impossible to keep safe stopping distance. Fortunately, that *is* strongly affected by relative speeds, but you need to be able to handle incursions from this or that (say a deer).

If that happens frequently, then it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter if it's a really stupid mistake if a lot of people tend to make it.

They did. From the summary:

I don't know how to read this in any other way besides that Marriott contacted these people and told them that they no longer had reservations.

I also don't know how to read this in any other way besides that Marriott's cancellation of the contract with Sonder was directly responsible for this, which must either mean that the stay was at a Marriott hotel contracted through Sonder, or that it was at a third-party hotel and Marriott decided to not pay Sonder for the rest of that person's stay. In either case, Marriott is at least partially responsible, and in the latter case, may even be guilty of tortious interference with that person's stay.

iPhone is FREEEEEEEEE!

These are basically websites that are wrapped by an app. These developers can currently get most of what Apple provides without using Apple tech, and keep 97% of the profits. Why would they want to keep only 85% for such minimal benefits? For that matter, why are they providing an app when a website will do?

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.

The U.S. rarely attacks or occupies those that didn't recently attack someone.

I mean, the most recent war with Iraq was something of a stretch, though there was at least some justification because of Iraq not holding up its end of international agreements regarding their nuclear program, which were made at least in part in response to Iraq attacking Kuwait just over a decade earlier. Otherwise, it's pretty much peacekeeping actions in response to U.N. decisions, helping out neighboring countries whose leaders ask, etc.

And when we say "keeps alternate parties off ballots", we don't mean "keeps alternate parties off ballots unless they can get at least n% of eligible voters to sign a petition. In the U.S., any party can get on the ballot, including those who just list one of the major party candidates as their candidate (yes, this is weird) just by getting enough signatures. If you can't get that many signatures, you were never going to win anyway, and all you can do is cause less desirable candidates to win by drawing votes from more desirable candidates.

Mind you, we've evolved into a two-party system that basically gives third parties little chance of actually winning any major election, which is, at least in part, a flaw in the way we do vote counting, but that doesn't prevent them from being on the ballot.

So why is Marriott the one telling them that they have to vacate? That kind of notification should be coming from the property owner or Sonder. And more to the point, it shouldn't matter if Marriott cancels their contract with Sonder, because Sonder got paid already, or should have.

Actually, it does. In fact, that's possibly way worse, because unless they kicked you out to an outside website, Marriott literally took a payment from you.

None of this makes the slightest bit of sense. Either Marriott took the payment, in which case they are duty-bound to fulfill or reverse payment, and in the case where this causes severe harm, are liable for damages from that harm, or Sonder took the payment, in which case Marriott's contract cancellation with Sonder shouldn't affect your stay.