To be fair, I think people looked at the folks who were into mermaids as outlandish too. “Been around for a long time” doesn’t mean the same thing as “totally accepted socially”.

You are absolutely right that cars are heavier now, which means they are putting more energy into a collision, but cars are also better at dissipating that energy. I don’t actually know enough to know what wins in that face-off. You could very well be right. I’d defer to someone with more expertise in collisions.

Number of cars. Increase the number of cars, you increase the number of deaths. But any given collision is more likely to be survivable than in the past.

Also, it’s not a perfect analog, but a quick search for deer hits and you can see modern cars crumple just fine.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying this deer was out dancing that very night, but if you’re gonna hit me at 30 MPH with either a flat, unyielding piece of steel with potentially sharp edges and/or rusted spots, or a soft piece of plastic or fiberglass formed to cushion my impact into the engine where the REALLY hard parts are, I’m going to choose the plastic/fiberglass every time.

Edit: Here. Just to back up the information I’m giving you…

The ABSOLUTE number of deaths are increasing, because the number of people and cars are increasing. But as a function of percentage of population they are only slightly above the lowest they’ve been since the 20’s. Modern cars are much safer. Even a bad SUV with horrible visibility is safer to all involved in a crash than an average car in the early 80’s. The numbers don’t lie.

Source

Edit again: To give pedestrian numbers to go with that:

You do have a point… there ARE increases in recent years, but overall the rate is still nearly half of the rate in the 80s. You are correct the most very recent trend is worrying, however.

Totally viable as an option if that’s the goal.

If that’s New Zealand’s goal, they should do exactly the same.

But if they’re looking for a balance between risk and convenience, there’s factors to be considered that the article glosses over.

If you get the opportunity. It’s just as likely the impact of the all-steel frame with no crumple actually bisects your body right in half, or crushes your internal organs to paste.

Rolling over a hood is “better” because it consumes energy. Everything about mitigating a crash impact is about putting as much of the energy of the impact as possible somewhere other than a human body. You don’t get the opportunity to do that at all if the initial impact is rigid. It’s putting all that collision energy directly into you.

It is - both things can be true. There are certainly some types of vehicles and conditions that are less safe than others, often for unjustifiable and stupid reasons, but the general trend of the average vehicle over time is towards being much safer than in the past. You’d still rather be hit by an SUV with a crumple zone than a sedan with an all steel body, all else being equal.

It’s also worth noting the current speed limits were set in 1985. I know this is the wrong place to point it out, and I do hate cars, but acknowledge they have value for some use cases. That said…

Since 1985, car safety evolution has introduced: -Traction Control -Anti-lock Brakes -Airbags -Electronic Stability Control -Crumple Zones -Adaptive Cruise Control -Blind spot detection -Pedestrian detection

…just to name a few. Cars are safer now than they’ve ever been, for both drivers and pedestrians (the Cybertruck not withstanding), so it’s equally strange to suggest that the same speed limit that was set in the mid-80s is the best balance of convenience and safety. If it’s simply a matter of reduction in absolute terms, why not LOWER the speed limit?

Not saying the article’s premise is wrong, but it’s kneejerk. In fact, smartly using speed limits can help to push traffic into out of the way areas where it will be less problematic to pedestrians. For example, lowering the speed limits in pedestrian areas in cities and increasing them less dense, outer areas can both improve traffic flow and make dense spaces more pedestrian friendly by diverting traffic into roads with fewer people. And intercity traffic through areas with little to no pedestrian traffic is a no-brainer.

I mean, it would make sense.

The only way a conspiracy theorist can be swayed is if being right isn’t a win condition. If there’s no other person to feel better than when you’re debating, something might actually sink in.

In the sense that it’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time, yes. Exactly the same thing. Opportunities aren’t equal - they disproportionately effect those who happen to be positioned to take advantage of them. If I’m giving away a free car right now to whoever comes by, and you’re not nearby, you’re shit out of luck. If AI didn’t HAPPEN to use massively multi-threaded computing, Nvidia would still be artificial scarcity-ing themselves to price gouging CoD players. The fact you don’t see it for whatever reason doesn’t make it wrong. NOBODY at Nvidia was there 5 years ago saying “Man, when this new technology hits we’re going to be rolling in it.” They stumbled into it by luck. They don’t get credit for forseeing some future use case. They got lucky. That luck got them first mover advantage. Intel had that too. Look how well it’s doing for them. Nvidia’s position over AMD in this space can be due to any number of factors… production capacity, driver flexibility, faster functioning on a particular vector operation, power efficiency… hell, even the relationship between the CEO of THEIR company and OpenAI. Maybe they just had their salespeople call first. Their market dominance likely has absolutely NOTHING to do with their GPU’s having better graphics performance, and to the extent they are, it’s by chance - they did NOT predict generative AI, and their graphics cards just HAPPEN to be better situated for SOME reason.

Go ahead and design a better pickaxe than them, we’ll wait…

Same argument:

“He didn’t earn his wealth. He just won the lottery.”

“If it’s so easy, YOU go ahead and win the lottery then.”

I’m sure they’ll get RIGHT on doing something about it.

Take my upvote and get out of my sight.

Well, you are forgetting another category, which is incitement to violence. That falls under the same blanket speech as the aforementioned “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, and in 2024, the law is far, far behind the danger that this poses in most countries, limiting most governments in many cases to trying to stop each individual act inspired by the source rather than being able to go after the source directly. Someone does not have to directly commit violence to be responsible for it, and while I COMPLETELY agree with you that this IS a slippery slope that COULD be abused, in this case, the entire process is transparent and public with multiple exhausted avenues for appeal, and in the end, it doesn’t even SILENCE the users in question OR request they change their speech or ideas, it simply denies them access to a particular platform. As to the banning of X, even if you disagree with the particular banning of these 7 accounts, the removal from the country isn’t so much about free speech element as the idea that X has made it clear and public that they have no intention of obeying the law in Brazil, and it’s unquestioned that there ARE times when it is absolutely clear that a government SHOULD have the right to shut down information. What if X had a post next week giving Lula’s location, itinerary, security details, and clear lines of sight at a rally, and the government demanded legally that it be taken down? X has shown that if it disagrees with the legal judgement that this information should be taken down, they may refuse. It is totally reasonable for the Brazilian government NOT to accommodate the platform given its stance.

You make it seem like this is an epidemic of silencing.

First of all, this was 7 users. Secondly, it was such a controversial request that it had to be escalated all the way to the country’s Supreme Court. Thirdly, the request and its consequences were then reevaluated, and all 5 members of the Supreme Court review unanimously upheld the decision.

There’s obviously no such thing as a perfect system, but that is about as close to a fair review process as one can get, and I would argue it’s better than the alternatives of “the whims of the platform owner” or “completely unmoderated anarchy”.

Furthermore, they’re NOT silenced. This is deplatforming. Absolutely NOTHING is stopping these 7 people from setting up their own Mastodon instances and writing whatever they want. That’s not an option for the jailed dissidents X turned over.

Lastly, Brazil is a sovereign democratic nation within its rights to enforce its laws as it sees fit within its borders, and if the people find it that egregious they can change their leaders. X is an unaccountable cudgel of a single man who is taking it upon himself to conduct his own judicial review of the laws of a sovereign nation and act with impunity. If he were a nation, this would be an act of war. The sheer gall of it is utterly appalling.

It is well established that the right to free speech is NOT unlimited, and the “fire in a crowded theater” people tend to be the loudest complainers. Brazil is a sovereign nation entitled to its own interpretation of how to handle free speech protections, and X has repeatedly made the claim they obey the laws of the countries in which it operates.

Also, it’s disingenuous of anybody to take X’s side on this over free speech when the past two years they have complied with basically every single request from every government for personal identifying information for any user. People are serving multi-decade prison sentences for their speech because X has refused to stand up to, for example, the government of Saudi Arabia when demanding the identities of state critics.

So it’s okay to kowtow to governments when they want to violate the right to privacy, but not when they want to shut down speech which is outside a sovereign nation’s definition of free speech? And let’s be clear - we were talking about 7 users.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s reasonable for a company to violate ONE right for a government under absolutely unethical circumstances and not another under SLIGHTLY debatable circumstances and expect anybody to take your position seriously. X is not a freedom fighter, and it’s not an actor for justice. It’s a partisan cesspool run by a man who is stacking the deck for the side he wants when it serves his interests.

Username (of poster, not OP) checks out.

if I had a hat I would either tip it to you or say my hats off to you

Hat inequity… yet another social ill we need to address.

Nazis and incels need to be dealt with, yes, but the important thing to keep in mind is they are symptomatic of suffering swaths of the population. People don’t just do hate because it’s fun.

We let big businesses and the rich steamroll entire communities and industries, pay lip service to helping people who’ve been damaged by capitalism, and then after the election cycles are over leave their communities to rot. They are desperate and turn to the wrong answers because there aren’t any others.

We allow entertainment and advertising to blast our society with a particular view of what relationship “success” is, and accept mockery of those who cannot thrive in that narrow definition due to social anxiety or other mental issues as fair game. Those men are desperate and turn to the wrong answers because there aren’t any others.

Yes, Nazis and incels are absolutely awful, hateful problems that must be dealt with. And by the time they reach that point, I’d argue they probably can’t be saved. But they don’t fall out of the sky. They come from normal people whose cries for help went unheard, sometimes for decades, or generations. They’re the product of systemic injustices that we can mitigate with outreach programs and getting serious about mitigating the social problems that create the soil they spring from. Stopping them is a necessary band-aid, but the real solution is to address the situations that allow them to thrive in the first place.

PM and sales, eh?

So you’re saying his lack of respect for programmers isn’t new, but has spanned his whole career?