When I get bored with the conversation/tired of arguing I will simply tersely agree with you and then stop responding. I’m too old for this stuff.

  • 10 Posts
  • 113 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2024

help-circle



  • No, the OSI model is fine.

    I’m talking more about sandboxing an interpreted app that runs a container that runs another sandboxed interpreted app, both running their own instances of their interpreter with their own dependencies and accessible through a web interface that is accessible through yet another container running a web server that is running in Python with a virtual environment despite being the only Python app on the container, which is then connected to from another sandboxed tab on a sandboxed browser on your machine.

    But hey, at least it isn’t, god forbid, a MONOLITH. That would require someone to take the time to understand how the application works.



  • Their UX and UI are their bread and butter, but as someone who has done extensive web app development for use on Safari browsers, if I had a nickel for every time their browser just IGNORED a standard, broke one that previously worked, or added new “features” that broke a standard, passing the responsibility of building a workaround down to individual developers… I’d have a few dollars anyway. I don’t have much faith their code is all that good compared to average under the hood and the UI, and I think their reputation unjustly leads users to turn a blind eye or give them a pass when their stuff DOESN’T work or works BADLY. “They’re Apple… everyone else seems happy. I must be doing something wrong.”





  • YOU might not. But I’m sure the politicians and bureaucrats who determine whether Musk’s businesses continue getting billions in taxpayer funded subsidies would sure like to know if the public is behind continuing to do that. I for one would consider it a bonus if say, the Democrats won control in November, looked at the numbers and decided none of their supporters are behind Musk, determined he’s been playing fast and loose using taxpayer dollars to fund pushing his own political agenda, and turned off the free ride.



  • 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.


  • mycodesucks@lemmy.worldtoFuck Cars@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    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.




  • mycodesucks@lemmy.worldtoFuck Cars@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    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.


  • mycodesucks@lemmy.worldtoFuck Cars@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    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.


  • mycodesucks@lemmy.worldtoFuck Cars@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    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.