ExLisper

Let's face it, we lost the fun, early web long time ago. It was all taken over by corporations and when Mozilla dies (and that's not if) they will finish locking it up and the only way to browse it will be by using official, ad filled tools. Best thing we can do is to prepare ourselves for the world without web (www?). We'll still have apps and communicators and of course will still use websites at work but the days of 'browsing' will soon (well, hopefully not very soon) be over.

You clean your ass with your second set of hands? Nice!

AFAIK the regulation already says that the "only necessary" should be available with one click. I think the issue is that it's difficult to go after all the small pages that are breaking the law. The big ones like YT of Google already have the 'disable all' button on top, I'm guessing because EU complained.

I stopped caring. When my GF bought a laptop I just installed Linux there and she has no issues using it. Linux is where I always wanted it to be. Now when I see someone using Windows I just think "you poor soul" to myself and move on.

Wow, I didn't realize the police in US is so dysfunctional they don't even investigate felonies anymore. It's like the government already collapsed.

Really? Police in US doesn't actively investigate crimes any more? I remember from The Wire that they used observe places where they knew crime is likely to happen. Crazy that they stopped.

How long would it take for the police to get involved and protect the site for free? Or do you think they would just ignore it? Does the law in USA say that if the victim of the crime is a company they have to hire private security and police is not involved?

If the manufacturer is building cars according to the specs defined by the law how can he be sued? Also, what do you care if the manufacturer will be sued?

Use chrome for government sites and Firefox for everything else.

Do you actually know how often it occurs? Of course not. There's no way to tell because the people that decide it's "erratic race to hospital time" are not doctors so they have no idea if they are saving lives or just putting more people in danger.

Also, your old adage makes no sense here. Erratic driving is not something that you have stored in your basement and can take out and use in case of emergency. It's something people do all the time for no reason and it kill thousands of people every year. You're talking about it like racing to a hospital with a dying person was the main reason why people drive like crazy. It's not. It's insignificant % of all the erratic driving cases.

Again, I'm sure there are good reasons to oppose automatic driving patterns detection. This is not one of them.

My car just tracks the energy use over the last X kilometers and adapts the range accordingly. Of course it doesn't know if the next X kilometers will be all uphill or downhill so it's till just an estimate but it's definitely not exaggerating in a problematic way.

On the other hand I can think of many more cases when someone was killed by erratic driver. It kind of sounds like you're ignoring something occurring every day and focusing on fantasy scenario. It's obvious that eliminating even 1% of accidents caused by erratic drivers would save more lives than people racing to hospitals do.

I'm not saying that shutting off cars based on some AI analyzing your driving patterns is a good idea but you really need to think about another argument than "this one guy would probably die this one time".

Also, that's what ambulances are for. Fixing the ambulance service would be a better idea than hoping people will manage to race to hospitals without killing anyone.