You don’t like active safety features ? Even if you think you are great and better than most, don’t you think it would be neat that the other drivers you share the roads with have active safety features ?
So they don’t crash into you or run over your kids?
I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving. But then, if it were up to me we'd all be driving manual transmissions.
My main argument for manual transmissions would be that because it requires both hands to be engaged it leaves less availability for the right hand to pick up their phone. The number of people I see holding and staring at their phone while driving down my residential street is shocking.
I also think it just connects you to the act of driving more, which I'm convinced (without evidence, just a hunch) makes you a safer driving
People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too. I remember my father telling me a story of drinking coffee out of a coffee cup, while smoking a cigarette, and driving his manual transmission in a blizzard.
How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them; enabling them to be safer within their existing usage is only a benefit. Same reason things like the semi-autonomous driving are a net benefit. They substantially reduce the cognitive load of driving, which makes you more able to monitor the higher level driving tasks. The fatigue is noticeable for me, especially on longer drives.
> People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too
Of course, but it's definitely worse now that people have devices designed to grab attention within arms reach constantly.
> How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them
And many people choose to be quite distracted. I would love it if they had less ability to make that choice when it comes to endangering other people's lives.
In any case, I don't disagree that there are some benefits to semi automated safety features. For some people it's certainly a net benefit. But I think you're underestimating the number of people who use that extra bandwidth to dive into an even deeper distraction hole. The number of people I see scrolling through short form vídeos while going full speed on the highway is shocking
1. Some people choose the maximum amount of distraction they can while still being able to operate their car at a basic (unsafe) level.
2. Manual transmissions allow for less distraction (not zero distraction, of course), because they require more frequent use of both hands, and more engagement of the body in general.
3. Therefore, manual transmissions, if they were widely used, would result in less distracted driving
All it takes is someone to have their phone mounted on a stand near their wheel (one of the vent mounted ones would be what I’m thinking), and then they could scroll to their hearts content. You only have to pause temporarily to shift gears, and even then I don’t think it is making you any less distracted. You’re just now distracted by shifting gears too, which takes your focus off the road to some extent as well.
The “distraction” is taking your eyes and mind off the road. A car that has an automatic is inherently less distracting overall. It has a higher tolerance for people to scroll or distract themselves in another way such as their phone, yes, but the amount of focus needed to not veer off the road or crash into something is the same regardless of how much baseline focus is needed to generally operate the car.
Well, I suppose we can agree to disagree, I guess. Frankly you sound like someone who hasn't driven manual transmissions much, though I'm sure you'll tell me you have. I just find it hard to believe that someone could really believe they don't reduce the opportunities for distraction by a significant degree
I used to own a manually transmission sports car as my primary car, in fact. Trust me when I say I’m aware how much more engaged you can feel with the road if you use one. Emphasize is on can, though.
On the other side of that coin though, if you’re just driving a crappy car that has a manual, and commuting in traffic, it becomes a burden and certainly is more taxing mentally.
Maybe that alone makes you tired enough to not be distracted on your phone, and I’m sure that’s true of some people, but frankly with how hopelessly addicted some people are to their phones I don’t really have any faith that would be enough for people who are careless enough to text/scroll and drive already.
As a point of reference, I knew someone who literally veered into oncoming traffic, more than once, nearly avoiding hitting another car, in the same singular drive, and they continued to scroll on their phones (despite me loudly protesting) after this happened. I didn’t give this person the opportunity to be a passenger in their car any further after that. Some people just can’t help themselves despite the risk, even if the risk is really, really high. Turns out (you’ll be shocked to know), this person had gotten in quite a few accidents over the years…
Even if they do make people safer "on average" these systems are not tested by a lot of the auto-safety organizations. In fact, some of these organizations simply bump up the "safety rating" automatically depending on how many "safety" features are included, without actually testing the effectiveness of the feature.
This is important, because forward collusion detection is not a binary thing. Each auto maker has their own set of parameters, sensors and implementations to achieve a similar goal, but each act independently.
I would also prefer if people were more engaged with driving too. I don't think we should encourage people to "rely" on these systems to keep them out of trouble as these systems can and do act unpredictably and may harm other road users as a result of a programming decision since the car in front acted unexpectedly.
I think the whole automation of everything in a car is a bit silly. Transmissions are whatever for me, although the full lane assist, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, even automatic wipers and headlights makes people feel so much more disconnected from the car, which I think leads to unsafe habits or worse, unable to handle the car in situations where the automatic systems fail or become unreliable (e.g poor visibility, wet roads, unmapped roads, off-road, obstructions on the road, road works, etc).
> I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving.
"Birth control leads to riskier behavior and more pregnancies."
One time I gently left my lane to slightly move into the (empty) opposing lane as I passed a cyclist who was on a narrow shoulder. The lane assist thankfully corrected my clearly idiotic move by taking the wheel and swerving the car towards the cyclist, who the car probably thought was a terrorist or something. Luckily I fought the "correction" and managed to save myself the inconvenience of cleaning cyclist guts off my windshield at the next gas station.
The majority of governors are all in on this new Republicanism. They can pardon any crime that Trump can't. Blue state governors can be leaned on extremely hard and most will have to give in if their Federal dollars are on the line. This isn't 2006 anymore.
> Blue state governors can be leaned on extremely hard and most will have to give in if their Federal dollars are on the line.
This is especially true if the courts roll over and reverse the Impoundment Act, which is exactly what the Project 2025 author and OMB nominee is pushing for. The president would be able to bankrupt any State, any entity that relies on federal funding, regardless of the wishes of Congress.
And arguably they could just do it: ignore any court judgment, and watch Congress do nothing. We know he won't ever be impeached and removed, so it's sort of a foregone conclusion that impoundment power can be seized at any time.
Disagree. I thought there's a part in the story where the narrator talks about the inability to change the future. she knew her daughter would die in a fall and couldn't change it
Maybe my previous comment wasn't clear enough, since I agree with you. I think both versions make sense in their own context:
In the short story she sees all of her life "simultaneously" but it all still works with our typical notions of causality. The future can't influence the past, and so she can't use knowledge of the future in the present.
In the movie, she gets glimpses of the future which she then uses in the present. She learns the Chinese general's phone number from a memory of the future and then calls him. In the movie it wouldn't have made sense for her to see her daughter die in an accident and then not act on that information at all, so they changed it to an illness which she couldn't prevent even with foreknowledge.
I feel its super clear if you read the story before the movie existed. Also the physics examples, which aren't in the movie, make this clear.
There are two views of the world, in one you have freewill and experience making choices. In the other, you have no free will, and the things you do are set. They are set and you know what they are.
That's why its important that her daughter died of something preventable, so when you find out at the end that it hasn't happen yet, yet she does nothing to stop it even though it is in the future, you are getting a taste of seeing the world in this second way.
Cancer, there is nothing anyone can do, and it throws aside the whole premise.
The acting on seeing things in the future break the premise as well.
The point of the story was that you can't act on the future. If you can see the future you can't change it. It's also why the aliens had no strong reason for coming or leaving. They were always going to come, have the explosion and leave.
> and on my first read, I thought [Story of My Life] was downright mediocre—it seemed like some formal experimentation ... wrapped around an unnecessarily confusing plot & second-rate physics mumbo-jumbo in the service of a heavy-handed point. On my second read years later, having read some more about related topics in physics & philosophy since, I realized that I (along with almost everyone else who read it, judging from online discussions & reviews of the story and Arrival) might have been badly mistaken and that the plot was deliberately open to misreading and the physics mumbo-jumbo was in fact the whole point and the formal structure nicely reflected that.
> Didn't she do something like this in the short story as well? The part where she learns the non-zero-sum phrase?
If you carefully read the section, she learns the "non-zero-sum" phrase before having her daughter. The flashforward where she uses the "non-zero-sum" phrase is just her recalling the memory - no precognition required.
> “Mom, what do you call it when both sides can win?” I’ll look up from my computer and the paper I’ll be writing. “What, you mean a win-win situation?” … “I’m sorry, I don’t know it either. Why don’t you call your dad?”…A representative from the State Department named Hossner had the job of briefing the U.S scientists on our agenda with the heptapods. We sat in the video-conference room, listening to him lecture…“You mean it’s a non-zero-sum game?” Gary said in mock incredulity. “Oh my gosh.”…“A non-zero-sum game.” “What?” You’ll reverse course, heading back from your bedroom. “When both sides can win: I just remembered, it’s called a non-zero-sum game”
Unlimited PTO sucks for employees. It isn't the case in every state but some states, including mine, require employers to pay out PTO upon separation. So having unlimited automatically means you get paid out nothing on separation, a bad deal for employees. If you're allowed to take time off, then you have earned it but because of the policy, you don't get to realize the benefit of having earned it upon separation.
Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation. And there are therefore no useful guidelines about how much is reasonable or allowed. A written or de facto company policy of "if you take more than 2 weeks of PTO per year, you'll be seen as abusing the system" is not unlimited PTO, it's an excuse to not pay people.
> Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation.
That depends on the management. I took more vacation at Netflix than anywhere else (where we had unlimited PTO). But the management made a point of talking about their extended vacations and making sure all the VPs took at least a few weeks of vacation every year to set a good example.
I don't recall anyone taking 2 months at a time, other than mothers who just gave birth (who usually took 3-6 months). That being said, in the US, even companies with generous vacation policies generally don't let you earn two months, much less take it. Usually the best you can do is accrue 1.5 times your annual earning, and most places rarely give more than four weeks.
I have actually received performance review notes at my current and former job (both with unlimited PTO) for not taking enough PTO...
But in both cases, the CEOs actively encouraged PTO. At my current job, people take PTO regularly (several people at my department have taken roughly 3-4 months of PTO over the course of the past 12 months, and were promoted). What matters isn't time-in-seat, but whether tasks get done.
They actually have difficulty hiring people though because it wasn't a great place to work under the previous CEO a few years ago, so the Glass Door score is pretty low, and it's been slowing edging up over time. But it's gotten to the point where about half of the people who leave for greener pastures end up coming back within 6 months.
"Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation"
This fallacy needs to die. When I was at GE everyone in my blast radius took at least 1 month per year. Many took much more than that. There was no stigma.
It's not a fallacy. It's true, and obviously true.
It may not be true everywhere, but every company I've worked in that had "unlimited" PTO had far fewer vacation days taken than companies with a limited allocation of days.
Acquisitions happen all the time and later get turned down when they don't flourish. Many stories get posted often with negative sentiment right here on HN.
With a completely underdeveloped ad business, unclear if it would ever produce any significant revenue. YouTube was purchased for 1b, they cleared 28b in revenue last year alone.
interesting, thanks. for related reference, this year in Minneapolis some residents sued their city and showed that it had too few police officers. The ratio of police officers to residents is right there in the charter. A county judge ruled for the plaintiffs last month
https://kstp.com/news/hennepin-county-rules-minneapolis-must...
