Next you’re all gonna say I should use dentures to chew my own food rather than have my underage slave girls chew it and spit in my mouth. You people disgust me.

There’s no evidence that self driving can be better. It’s purely faith.

Drivers are not horrible, rather horrible drivers can get a license. Treating cars as a right makes that worse. Self driving makes that worse.

I conflated two points. Driver hits something due to sudden braking = they are liable.

Driver hit from behind at high speed = dangerous for occupants. Either way no one asked the driver.

I think it’s worth thinking about this in a technical sense, not just in a political or capitalist sense: Yes, car companies want self driving cars, but self driving cars are immensely dangerous, and there’s no evidence that self driving cars will make roads safer. As such, legislation should be pushing very hard to stop self driving cars.

Also, the same technology used for self driving is used for AEB. This actually makes self-driving more likely, in that the car companies have to pay for all that equipment anyway, they may as well try and shoehorn in self driving. On top of this, I have no confidence that the odds of an error in the system (eg: a dirty sensor, software getting confused) is not higher than the odds of a system correctly braking when it needs to.

This means someone can get into a situation where they are:

• in a car, on a road, nothing of interest in front of them
• the software determines that there is an imminent crash
• Car brakes hard (even at 90mph), perhaps losing traction depending on road conditions
• may be hit from behind or may hit an object
• Driver is liable even though they never actually pressed the brakes.

This is unacceptable on its face. Yes, cars are dangerous, yes we need to make them safer, but we should use better policies like slower speeds, safer roads, and transitioning to smaller lighter weight cars, not this AI automation bullshit.

Good comeback though.

bread and circuses…

I love how they’re like… frenemies during the fight, so three’s a bit where he grabs a metal pole and breaks a window of a car, realises what he’s done, says sorry, throws the pole away, and they go back to fisticuffs.

Watched this recently. “I’m here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I’m all out of bubble gum”.

No one has made mention of the 83.7%. I think it should be 17% odd smaller.

Sorry I know it’s like that glass eyed guy from last action hero.

I was having a chat with someone about how they are more “Star trek future rather than Solarpunk future”, and I found something off about it but didn’t really think about it, but it’s this. It’s the idea that the key conceit of Star Trek being they are exploring for the hell of it can’t really be true, and that exploration in itself is to try and get some dividend off it. Any “Star Trek future” which is not colonial is necessarily a Solarpunk future first.

OK she didn’t say it out loud, but there’s a pretty strong link between what she’s talking about (homeostatic awakening) and what Solarpunk is.

Yeah same. I would much prefer they mainline the code as opposed to “supporting” it themselves.

I do agree that Solarpunk as a genre is extremely nascent. There’s barely anything which could really constitute Solarpunk, much less something cohesive.

Toll roads aren’t bad, it’s all in the details. The problem is that the government is often “captured” and therefore has no incentive to have a fair contract, so they’ll add clauses like

• If the company loses money because the government does something, the government will pay them. This often prevents the government from reducing or removing the toll road / other privately owned resource.
• The government can’t “compete” with the toll road, either with another road or (sometimes) through public transport.
• The government will often, as a form of pork-barrelling, offer people reimbursements for the toll road usage, thereby funneling tax payer money into the private company.
• Toll roads are tax deductible.

Ideally, toll roads encourage people to take the train.

I think this may be the way the explanation comes across. Historically, there were many lakes, but now the lakes don’t exist because there’s a large city there instead. So, to replicate the behaviour of the lakes, you need to get the water to traverse rock to remove some impurities and then settle in aquifers.

“Are you sure you want me to dress up like Optimus Prime?”

I may as well respond to the Youtube video here given the age of the other post:

I think despite the disclaimers, the video is actually encouraging people to blow up a pipeline, but to do it right. It offers some examples:

• If you are part of the community, you can get access to the materials at scale, something the loners in this movie couldn’t do (and therefore risked their lives). That is, if you want to do this, a lot of people need to / should know about it and help you get the materials you need.
• The chemistry that is being used is unsafe, so don’t just copy-paste it. I’d think that was obvious but, I think the specific thing the video is trying to tell you is that bombs can be made safely, and anyone trying should do so in a way that their safety is not compromised.
• The processes and procedures used in the film are unsafe or nonsensical. This is only really made in the context that no one should copy the film.

The conclusion is a bit crazy though, that the expert opinions they got in the film purposely made the bomb making unsafe or that informants should be trusted. I think more likely is the idea that they wanted to depict the characters as a bit derpy, and the plan as crazy and dangerous. That’s what ratchets up the tension.

• A community all organising together doesn’t make sense because the point of the book is that the community is currently against property destruction (and the movie by extension is trying to advocate for that community engaging in property destruction, that’s arguably what happens at the end).
• Safe bomb-making techniques would make the film laborious and less interesting
• Not trusting the informant wouldn’t leave a twist in the film.
• The video seems to be advocating for a how-to guide rather than a fictional film.

The video is a bit “If you’ve played the Uncharted series don’t try rock climbing like Nathan Drake”.

oh wow quite a while ago too. Thanks for the link.

The movie doesn’t pull punches, it’s very much the “how” and not the “why”.

Well that too, but it doesn’t require legislative change.