What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

If you’re this bent on defending this mysoginstic and sexist crap, then you’re a sexist mysoginst not worth talking too. Enjoy being blocked.

Yes. And the fathers are equally capable of saying no. And the men themselves are equally capable of not being cunts.

There’s 3 people involved here, 2 of which are men, and this guy specifically singles out the the one woman, and blames her. That’s sexist and mysoginstic.

“When women are bad, it’s their fault. When men are bad, it’s their mother’s fault” is an objectively sexist and shitty stance to have.

If you wanna blame the parents, blame BOTH. Singling out the mother is mysoginstic.

Those men have fathers too, and yet you specifically blame the mothers. That’s misogyny.

You do realise that reproduction involves more than just the mother, right ?

Imagine being so sexist that you even blame women for a group men of being cunts.

Way to demonstrate the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.

Seatbelt sensors, automatic brakes and back up cameras are not annoyances dude. They LITERALLY fucking save lives.

Reverse roll overs are on of the most common types fatal car-pedestrian accidents involving children, and they can be entirely avoided by having rear cameras, and or/lidar with auto braking.

Driving a car is incredibly fucking dangerous. In fact, for the average person, driving a car is likely one of the most dangerous and risky single actions they are ever going to take in their lives. And it’s concerning that you seem to think it’s like riding a bike, and the safety features are overkill.

I absolutely think they should. Seatbelts are legally required to be worn in almost every western country. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be up to you if you wear it or not. And whilst a lot of people do it, something heavy enough to trigger the seatbelt sensors should absolutely NOT be unsecured in your passenger seat, because it absolutely IS going to turn into a lethal projectile if you crash. Heavy items need to go in the boot, tucked in the foot space, or be belted in.

A crash without seatbelt is going to lead to far worse injuries, which will put a bigger strain on emergency services, hospital infrastructure, you’re more likely to require organ or blood donations for injuries that could have been trivially avoidable, blood an organ which are already in short supply, and then can’t be used on someone who actually COULDN’T have avoided their injuries, and the accident can be far, far, far more traumatising and mentally devastating for others involved if you go flying 10 m through your windscreen and your mangled body wraps around a tree.

If you’re willing to accept all that just because you don’t like a bleeding seatbelt, frankly you deserve more than to be dinged at.

Witch nanny systems specifically only annoy you if you do something unsafe ?

Given how famously unreliable AI detectors are, and how often they FP, I’d say there’s a decent chance a few students just lied, and falsely “admitted” to using AI, because they didn’t want to risk flunking the class over a FP.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

That’s like a principal letting the bully keep all the lunch money they stole from someone, let the bully chose what lunch they’re allowed to buy in future, in exchange for the bully pinky promising to stop bullying the victim, and then acting surprised that the victim doesn’t fall on their knees in gratitude for this amazing feal

the rest of the “civilized” world was essentially keeping Germany permanently poor, living under such misery breeds a certain…psychotic world view.

Jup. There’s a very strong argument to be made that had the terms of the treaty of Versailles not been so unfair and hostile towards Germany, World War II would have never happened.

Rehabilitation and reconstruction is ALWAYS the best option for the winning side of a large war to extend to the losing side, regardless of who/how/why the war started. Heavily penalising and fucking over the loser for years and years after the war is just going to foster resentment and discontent amongst the population, and make them feel (arguably, with a degree of validity) that conquering th countries fucking them over is the only way their country will see prosperity again.

I mean the layout in terms of functions is generally standardised between PS and XBox style controllers (i.e. “back” is the right hand button, “confirm” is the lower one…) it’s just that the buttons have different symbols for those functions across PS and XBox style controllers.

I don’t think Elmo has an ego small enough to independently even consider the idea that his sycophants might be largely fake.

“They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.

That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.

Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.

That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.

And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).

Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.