But that’s okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. There’s absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.

Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than we’d like…

Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.

In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.

Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that’s taken by the driver.

It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.

To add to this

safety

A broader definition of safety includes health risks from a sedentary lifestyle, which would include a large proportion of people. Cycling reduces these risks, while driving makes them worse. Cycling still increases your life expectancy, so safety shouldn’t be a reason not to cycle.

Of course, perceived safety is important too as this is preventing people from taking up cycling. But that’s a different conversation.

Your proposal sounds a lot like a car, but then slower and self-driving.

The clever dripper is pretty nice pour over cone with a shut off valve.

When I’m making just one cup of coffee I use an aero press, for 2+ cups I use the clever dripper.

Still, people find it difficult to navigate this. Its use cases are limited, but it doesn’t enforce that limit by itself. The user needs to be knowledgeable of the limitations and care enough not to go beyond them. That’s also where the problem lies. Leaving stuff to AI, even if it compromises the results, can save SO much time that it encourages irresponsible use.

So to help remind people of the limitations of generative AI, it makes sense to fight the tendency of companies to overstate the ability of their models.

As for EV usage, only 80-90% of particulate matter pollution comes from the exhaust of cars. So EVs don’t solve the issue. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate-emissions-from-road-transport_4a4dc6ca-en.html

Lower speeds reduce road danger

Are extra casualties and reduced freedom for people who aren’t driving worth the few minutes saved for a minority of people?

And I thought I was the only person who had this problem! I have large hands, so lots of water splashes in my fave when using of these (•_•)

A former colleague at a place where I used to work added my personal MS account to a Teams community inside the organization. It split my Teams account in two, prompting me to choose which one I wanted to use every time I opened Teams.

One side was associated with the organisation, the other was still my personal account. My personal account became inaccessible and attempting to login would result in a referral loop and an error. The MS advice for the error code was to get the system admin to remove my account from the organisation, which wasn’t possible because I don’t work there anymore.

But its mechanism requires a deep understanding of your target and makes you empathetic to their needs and desires. Ultimately, you are just really good at reading people and empowering them to stand up for themselves.

Fixed URL to universal-android-debloater

Somehow Lemmy in the browser was able to deal with the URL formatting, but the app I use wasn’t.

since ads are always repeat

For now. Netflix announced generative AI ads for 2026

It looks like it’s a signalized crossing now. Depending on the timing settings of the traffic lights and the speed limit this can be better for people walking. Particularly when it has a sensor to see when everyone is done crossing.

Zebra crossings can be very challenging for disabled people, like visual impairments and mobility issues. These groups can feel very vulnerable using such a crossing because there is no auditory confirmation.

There might be better solutions though if the speed limit is lowered.

This doesnt just affect teslas. This affects any car that uses AI assistance for driving.

Except for, you know… cars that don’t solely rely on optical input and have LiDAR for example

One that is capable of burning M-disks. They are available in sizes up to 100gb and are supposed to last a few hundred years. They can be read by most Blu-ray players made after 2011.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

Of course, this is more suitable for genuine family photos and videos. For “family photos and videos” you could use any Blu-ray disk, but I doubt it’s the cheapest way to store them.

Sorry maybe I sounded a bit harsh. I think we’re on line here, but to be sure. I mean that the average voting age in 2006 could be an interesting detail when doing an analysis of the origins the current situation. So would other themes that played a role in the campaign before the election. I remember reading about this that the corruption of the alternative parties was an issue for voters too.

But when it comes to justifying huge numbers of civilian casualties, it’s a pretty well established principle that civilians can never directly be held accountable with violence for the actions of their government. So that means that we don’t need to engage with arguments about whether voters knew what they were getting into or any specifics about the election. Because doing so would be giving in to your opponent (in a hypothetical debate) and you’d be undermining your own position.

Maybe my points have the same problem. But since people who support the bombings don’t seem to care about international law, I felt like these were a good second line of defence.

I wrote this on Reddit to argue against someone who suggested that Israel’s response is justified, given that Hamas won an election. Here’s what I responded:

There are several significant issues with your reasoning:

1. Voting has never implied being responsible for the crimes of your government.
2. There have not been elections since 2006. The Gaza Strip does not have a democratic system. This further challenges the argument that the population should pay some kind of price.
3. Hamas won the elections by taking 74 of the 132 seats in parliament. This means that 60 seats were for non-hamas participants of these elections. Consequently, many people who are trapped in Gaza and want nothing to do with Hamas are being punished/killed.
4. About 50% of the Gaza population is under 15 years of age. Attacking Gaza in this way should never have been on the table given these demographics.

In other words, the average voting age isn’t too relevant.

The Gaza civilians voted Hamas into power.

Still civilians though. And, not all of them did. All in all it’s madness to equate the entire Gaza population with the perpetrators the way that Israel is currently doing.