Heh. Anytime I hear discussions of these guys I can't help but think about Chidi's Ethics Lesson in S1E3 of The Good Place:

It is not immoral, as in a world of limited resources we can't assign infinite value to a life. Wasting resources when they can be spend better elsewhere is immoral, as you are reducing greater good.

Some people die as a result of getting crushed by falling pianos. It would be irrational to mandate each piano be equipped with a self-deploying parachute.

Do nothing approach makes more sense in this scenario.

I was able to reduce false alarms by reducing system sensitivity. It was hidden deep into dash menus.

If you are citing benefits, you also need to consider costs. How much does it cost per vehicle to implement such system, including both upfront costs and repairs?

We already have insurance cost increasing across the board because previously trivial accidents, like cracked windshield or damaged bumper now result in thousands of dollars to repair due to sensors and calibration needed.

I had similar experiences with a Toyota and false-positive collision warnings. If this was fully automated system that slammed brakes, I would have for sure ended up rear-ended.

Did anyone performed basic cost/benefit analysis on this? TFA states this technology would save 360 lives a year out of 335 mil US pop. The cost of this system is at a low end 1K as you require forward-facing sensors, control module, wiring harness, brake by wire, etc. There are about 286 million car in US, times 1K per car would result in $286,000,000,000 cost of the mandate once fully implemented. While it is hard to predict future, lets say a car made today would last 15 years. So 360 lives per year, 15 years means that this program costs $52,962,962 per life saved.

Nope, there's a version of Mint based directly on Debian.

There's a shortage of available IPv4 address and that scarcity creates "value".
There's no shortage of IPv6 addresses, so no (or less) "value".

Mint comes with slightly different, as well as Mint-developed, apps pre-installed and no snaps. They have different installers and Mint is a bit easier to manage, especially for newer users, though that wasn't a major factor for me as I have 30+ years as a Unix(ish) admin.

As for Ubuntu, I used it up to version 18.4 but soured when Canonical started pushing snaps, and delivering some apps only as snaps (like Firefox, Emacs) -- w/o having to resort to PPAs to get the packaged versions. While I'm not a huge fan of Snap (or others, like Flatpak) I really don't like being *forced* to use them and I probably would have stayed with Ubuntu if they had left it as a choice.

Also, extending your logic, one might ask how running Ubuntu is not actually Debian as the former derives from the latter, but there are obvious differences, as there are with Mint and Ubuntu.

Rick: Space Nuclear Weapon? Jesus Morty. You can't just add [*belch*] a sci-fi word to ...

(Thank you Quantum Carburetor Scene)

And by that I mean 4.3BSD on a VAX 11/785 -- I'm old. :-)

I think the main complain is that it does, or tries to do, too much -- certainly more than it *needs* to do (eg: DNS) -- and some not in the way it ideally should (eg: PID 1). Basically it suffers from mission creep and bloat.

Personally, I started with BSD and have used or been an admin on many flavors of Unix -- I think I've used them all except those from Apple -- as well a several flavors of Linux (I prefer the Debian-based ones, I currently use Mint) and they have run the gamut of system startup/control methodologies from free-form scripts that often have to be hand edited to the more structured ones, like Solaris SMF, and (sigh) systemd, etc... I prefer the latter group as it's easier to automate modifying and control them. That doesn't change my "basically" feelings about systemd above though.

They did, the goal is to smear RFK Jr.

Mint 21 (Cinnamon) for me -- Snap disabled by default and pledged to stay that way.