Nearly all of those QoL features are just sugar coated privacy invasion. I’d prefer physical knobs, fobs and buttons with a bare minimum interface to set charging periods and preconditioning. My life isn’t ruined by turning a key and I can be sure that a future fascist OTA update won’t brick the car for undesirables.

Dumbass doesn’t even realize this is his 40 comment thread of his one sided multi-paragraph ranting slop. Seeeethe buddy

Removed by mod

I’ll bet 100:1 there’s a truly horrific portrait locked up in his attic

Turned it into a free back massage, very innovative!

I think there might be a theoretical tipping culture that threads the needle of waiters getting a living wage while giving some leeway. Basically: 20% on the total is absurd and a dark pattern for advertising goods below cost; 0% is a hard barrier that can price certain populations out or fails on edge cases.

For example if I walk in with a table full of toddlers I should be socially obliged to tip you for going above and beyond the normal service. If I have a table of well behaved adults I shouldn’t be forced to pay the same gratuity for group size. If I do, I’m subsidizing clumsy patrons breaking dishes and making messes.

In a similar vein, ordering something simple and eating quickly shouldn’t incur the same payment as chatting for 2 hours while no tables are available. If I’m paying a set price for the implicit use of a table then you damn well better set a timer on the table so I know. All of these variables are impossible to price in and vary wildly with your clientele, which makes tipping an attractive option.

Maybe something like a restaurant enforced hard cap of 5%-10%. Nobody complains about a reasonable company culture of overtime+bonuses, service workers should have the same right to that compensation. Unfortunately, that realistically wouldn’t work. Exploitation is baked into our economy, so 0% is our best option.

The plane trip is a great analogy. There’s probably plenty of data on which aircraft can fly it and, optimizations aside, you might have the option of over-fueling to be sure you can accomplish it.

With a BEV your pitiful energy limit might mean doing all those cross country calculations just to reach the other side of the state. And even then the sheer number of variables (Will I hit traffic? Will a fast charger spot be available at X? When exactly will it drop below freezing? Will my battery be conditioned at start? Does M miles of ~N mi/kWh surface streets beat M-Y miles of highway…) makes it impossible to precisely say.

You basically have to drive by feel, hence my reckoning of my car needing 1.5-2x dashboard mileage buffer for critical margin trips. I’ve personally made the exact same trip in different conditions and pulled in from as low as 3% up to 35% battery remaining.

The only solutions are way better/larger batteries, much smaller cars, or massively expanded charging infrastructure. Unfortunately nothing [affordable] in the market is addressing any of those.

Miles are a bad way to track performance because real life conditions can wildly impact BEV efficiency. I can tell you from first hand experience that towing, elevation changes, or moving at highway speeds in winter can cut per kWh efficiency in half.

And beyond that, you’re supposed to be capping your daily charge limit below 100% for battery longevity. 200 theoretical miles can turn to 160 miles and down to 70 real quick. That can get uncomfortably tight if you miss an overnight charge.

Frankly, its dumb to criticize people who expect their personal vehicle to perform reasonably well in situations where a personal vehicle should excel. Why own a car if it can’t do a round-trip weekend excursion or haul a bit of furniture?

By your logic everyone should only need a tiny moped with a rain jacket and a backpack. It’s irrational to worry about climate control or passengers or suitcases, you statistically never need them.

I’m fairly sure some spying is required by law, like the new driver cam legislation. Wonder how they’ll get past that.

True, but its illegal for me to wander my neighborhood and pick berries from “private property”

So you’re telling me without alcohol I could have spent my life picking berries before I died of a toothache at 25? And instead I’m reading excel sheets and will die a prolonged death after years of chemo at 85?

Damn alcohol really is the cause of all my problems…

There’s videos of them with a backhoe scraping the river bed and indiscriminately hacking up plants on the riverbank. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

You don’t have to work for a three letter agency to be an expert. I guarantee you that if they took the time to consult anyone remotely connected to ecological science they would have said no to hacking up the river bed without a proper survey and sampling.

Is it morally wrong to ask a bait question on a public forum?

This isn’t speculation about the future, this stuff has been going on for decades. This is the culmination of armed UAV strikes in 2002; this is the Patriot Act and the war on terror. We have been experiencing this. What we’re just witnessing now is the tipping point taking us past the point of no return.

Drones cheap enough to swarm; bioidentification advanced enough to ID crowds of dissidents; computer imaging refined over decades; drones being deployed as “public safety first responders”; live fire conflicts brought to a standstill by even the most rudimentary combat drones; advertising and big tech perfecting digital fingerprinting over decades; legislation being pushed to require OS-level user ID; mandated surveillance in new cars & ALPRs; restrictions on 3D printers…

Despite the show of ignorance, every state actor has known where the wind is blowing for a long time. They know that the pendulum for disruptive tech is swinging in the direction of accessibility for the public, and they’ve gotten out faaar ahead of that.

We’re not talking about wiretaps and secret police acting on human intel. We’re into automated surveillance tech feeding directly into pre-crime hueristics agencies where an instant and proportional response can be dispatched. Despite how comforting it feels to be one of a hundred million in a crowd, your life and actions are trivial to quantify and track.

The only thing that caught people off guard was how effective hybrid warfare is, specifically at sowing discord. “Wait and see” is a sentiment 30+ years too late. Geopolitics & domestic surveillance are going into a deep existential gridlock, probably until climate collapse makes drone production unsustainable.

You are an incredibly optimistic summer child.

you don’t hear a lot about blinding weapons or biological agents

Blinding agents aren’t that effective in warfare. Chemical agents do get used, especially on civilians. Biological weapons are a big risk relative to much more tested, targeted, conventional munitions. At the end of the day, flying an explosion at the other guy has always been the winning strategy, and still is to some extent.

The age of absolutism gave way to the age of revolution.

Ah yes, when you could drop off a few boxes of guns to some revolutionaries and they would be near untrackable in dense urban or wide rural settings.

Now, your revolutionary drone operator saves you the trouble of tracking by broadcasting his location, assuming he hasn’t already been sighted on your universal surveillance cameras or been swept up by irregular purchasing habits.

Shells are really cheap…

By dollars per kill, drones blow them out of the water. You need a big, pricey, vulnerable piece of machinery to target your shells. Your target will more than likely move or take a covered position once the shells drop. And obviously you need a spotting system for this as well (probably a drone anyway).

On average, for your light artillery it might take 8-10 shells to kill a target. That’s why they’re not precision killing equipment and are better used for flattening defenses or pinning down groups of people.

A drone just needs some piloting, human or otherwise. So you’re comparing 10 shells from a trained team out of specialized firing position with a calibrated gun vs. one guy with two drones in a backpack.

So when you stack up any belligerents [state vs state/non-state], the key math is who can deploy more drones from better positions with better range/targeting, better tactical intelligence and keep pressure over a longer period. A state actor will always have the advantage there.

I fail to see your point. Yes weapons kill people. But no weapon in history could

• be cheaply dispersed over populated areas
• linger for hours or potentially days
• patrol and chase targets into any kind of cover
• instantly and autonomously take offensive action outside of any chain of command

Did you read the article? The equipment does make the decision. That’s the whole point. One remote operator vibe-killing scores of people extremely efficiently. Yes there’s a human deciding to put the drones in flight but why would that remove culpability any more than collateral damage from a traditional explosive?

By your logic, nukes exist so there’s no reason to worry about any other types of war crime.

You can, to some extent, avoid an undiscriminating minefield. You can, to some extent, plead for mercy from the jack boot kicking in your door. You cannot avoid or plead with a mine flying through your bedroom window.

Marx could say ‘shopping is so fun’ these days… because the magnitude and number of ways that alienation is occuring has dramatically increased.

That’s a complete distortion of Marx’s theory to support your own ideological priors. Marx calls out capitalism as an active driver of alienation, as shown in his analysis of commodity fetishism. By his reckoning, commodity fetishism can more-or-less only exist in capitalism where a nebulous value is assigned to your shopping independent of its use value. But if there’s a neurological vulnerability for fetishizing a commodity at your own expense, the alienation happens no matter what.

Modern technology enables workers to produce an unfathomable volume of goods and the logistics to efficiently distribute them to unknowable corners of the world. Who owns the means of production is irrelevant, but I’m sure those laborers will be happy to get the full value of their production. And even if they do know the harm caused to the shopper, their guilt is shared by every other laborer with a product in that store. They couldn’t rectify the alienation if they tried.

The underlying problem is not some struggle with Gattungswesen, it’s quantifiably electrical and chemical. So his prediction here is flat wrong unless you insist on twisting his theory to fit reality, à la Nostradamus.

That’s the thing that makes people fans of Marx: his work can be aspirational philosophy/commentary or hard science. Just appeal to his authority with a quote and you’re in a quantum superposition, collapsing to whatever you need it to be later in the conversation.