I can affirm old people vs low cars. I have a Honda Civic Sport Touring, which isn't even all that small, and my parents can't get in or out of it without assistance. Going back to a normal car after driving a Ford SportTrac for almost 15 years was a shock... for the first week, getting out of the car felt like standing up from a mattress on the floor... and driving through flooded parking lots after thunderstorms has become *scary.* With my 'Trac, water less than a foot deep was irrelevant. With my Civic, even 4-6 inches of standing water is heart-stopping to drive through.

They always rant about Wayland, systemd, Pulse/Pipewire, devops, dkms, quic, zfs, etc.

I used to wonder why they don't just not upgrade their os, but then I realized they are lazy and want somebody else to maintain their old system for them.

I mean, even compiling gentoo with the right use set is too hard for these bellyachers.

Yet the humility never occurs to them that the non-lazy people who actually build distros are embracing the newer technology.

Instead the Old Farts case aspersions and ad-hominems at these hard workers. It's pathetic.

I'm done with their BS and won't help them understand anymore - the arguments are almost universally in bad faith.

Because otherwise they would just not upgrade. I have some Infomagic Slackware CD's from 1993 they might be interested in. Yeah, my first Linux box was over 30 years ago and I competently run all those technologies now. I don't fear change even though understanding new tech takes work and I can't just rest on my laurels.

Nothing moved, I want autonomous cars to be as safe as good drivers like I said in the first place, I don't want autonomous cars being as dangerous as the set of people including drunk and tired drivers. No change, same reason safety AND accountability reasons, with corporations running the show there will be less accountability and less safety that's a given.

So if the technology is demonstrably safer than 99% of drivers and results in a comparable reduction in deaths, youâ(TM)d still be opposed to it?

If someone drives drunk and kills someone then they can be arrested and potentially imprisoned. You can't arrest an autonomous car and the responsibility for any deaths will be too far removed - no-one will be arrested, there won't be enough deterrent to stop companies from putting shoddy autonomous systems on the road.

So yes, I don't want autonomous cars on the road that aren't far safer than your average driver when that average includes people that shouldn't be driving and aren't driving legally.

If an autonomous car could be shown to be safer than a professional driver with years of experience that isn't tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs then I'd be happy for that car to be on the road. But I would not be happy if the bar was set so low as that the car is barely be safer than drunk or tired drivers. I would also not be happy if the allowing the car to drive in all weather conditions on all roads if it had only achieve a good record driving only on easy roads in daylight in good weather conditions. etc.

PS I have also heard of a theoretical intriguing device that consists of gyroscopes configured in such a way that they could cause lift within a box without violating any laws of physics including the laws of thermodynamics. It is simply a quirk of physics and gyroscopes used in such a way as to cause lift, no laws of nature violations because of the amount of energy needed.

I've since tried finding sources but never had any luck.

Unless said machine runs off a battery and uses more energy to raise a device than sticking a battery with a motor on a vertical rail.

So the machine would not be perpetual motion because you could not gain back more than it took to lift the device.

No need; the increasing percentages of unskippable ads will destroy it eventually, regardless of other factors.

which phone has that feature? I've been asking for biometrics distress features for a really, really long time.

Actually, it doesn't. Nothing in the username field has anything to do with identity. I can enter whatever I want there, or where it is an e-mail I can just enter whatever I want followed by @gmail.com once I've registered that as my e-mail account.

These are not two differen things. There's no actual difference between "username+password" and "password1+password2".

Only because passwords are such a stupid idea.

I want my biometric devices to have a distress function. Like "if I try to log in with THIS finger, lock the device, encrypt the drive, flush all secrets and require a password to unlock it".

At launch it was the most expensive stock to short on the whole market. One of the fin sites did a cost breakdown.

I like their business model but wow, the claws EU allowed Apple to have are quite something.

Hopefully businesses can offer different versions of their app to each set of 999,999 customers Especially hobby projects.

Some military guys project AI could be more deadly than nukes.

And we're trusting Zuck with it.

The bubble is bursting. These days, you need about a million views per month, every month to have a career on YouTube that actually pays the bills. For one person. If someone else does the video editing for you, add their cost.

A million views equals $5k. The kids realise that as soon as they don't live at home anymore. Pretty much all big YouTubers theses days make their money from Patreon, merchandise or sponsors.

The algorithm is likely optimising not for your pleasure but for ad revenue.

I see a TON of what is essentially an entire video of product placement, thinly veiled as "10 kitchen gadgets you need to know" or "12 new must-have tech gadgets", probably because a year ago I clicked on one or two of those before realising that they're not really interesting tech news but just full-out advertisement.

It keeps doing that even after I've clicked a ton of them away as "not interested".

It also keeps recommending me old videos from my subscribed channels that I've already watched. WTF?

The algorithm is shit these days.