pokemaster787

Yep, EU as usual having reasonable and well-thought out laws, give the US about 5 more years and they'll make it law here too.

Because there are laws that specify when the brake light has to come on, and it isn’t when the car shows down (slightly).

To be clear, the laws say when it must illuminate. They do not (in the US) prevent illuminating it for other reasons in any way. The law says the light must illuminate/burn if you are actively pressing the brake pedal, but does not prevent it from also illuminating if a certain amount of regenerative braking is applied or a deceleration is detected. Theoretically an automaker could get away with making the brake lights simply always illuminate (and that loophole would be fixed in days, so no one does it).

Got a source for that?

Pretty sure the time is just edited, unless there's some way to tell Google "Yes have me circle this roundabout a bazillion times"

To be fair, in that specific case it is almost certainly not YouTube directly censoring the phrase. They aren't known to do any kind of editing like that on uploaded videos.

What is happening is the person that uploaded that video censored themselves....because YouTube's policy around monetization. They'll demonetize videos with certain no-no words. Part of that is YouTube and part of that is advertisers demanding their ads not be placed on content that they find objectionable.

Indirectly, YouTube and advertisers are censoring our content. A lot of it is also TikTok, which will ban you for no-no words. This seeps over into YouTube where something that might be fine on YouTube but is banned on TikTok gets censored anyway in case it gets clipped for TikTok.

Genuinely the power TikTok and it's advertisers have over how we communicate is pretty scary. Imagine how often you hear "unalive" instead of "suicide" these days. "Pdf" (or others) instead of "pedophile." The list goes on.

No one’s keeping you here.

It's actually very difficult and expensive to leave your home country for 99% of the population.

Just in terms of cost you need a plane ticket (or other travel costs), money to navigate the country's immigration programs and all the fees associated, you probably need to pay to learn a new language for a year or two before you're fluent enough in that language (DuoLingo/self-learning has very mixed results), you need to pay for housing for when you arrive until you're able to get a job. Realistically the ones fed up with our society are the ones living paycheck to paycheck, do you think they can shoulder those costs?

This is all assuming they even let you in, most developed countries won't unless you have an in-demand skillset and/or a job already lined up in the country of question (i.e., the type of jobs that are doing well here already). And often times even if you have valid reasons and a job lined up they can still just tell you to go fuck yourself.

Add on top of that that if you somehow get that far, get past all of that, you're giving away your right to vote in your new society for several years due to requirements to become a naturalized citizen.

Makes a lot more sense to try to improve your own country and local society when you consider all of those factors. "Don't like America then leave" is something only the privileged that can hop on a jet to a new country at a moment's notice think is a valid suggestion. At best it's shit advice and at worst it's a bad faith argument to push aside any and all criticism of the current system.

Why would Amazon want to hinder the accuracy of the price tracking in that way?

Accurate price tracking leads to people saying "Oh well it was 50% less a year ago. I'll wait on a sale, not paying full price on that" and waiting on a sale, leading to less conversions. Amazon has pressured Camelcamelcamel into agreeing to not track specific low prices (i.e., Prime Day, if that actually had any good sales). I'm unsure if they track coupons or not, they were not clear about what the criteria for not tracking a price are.

Camelcamelcamel is unfortunately compromised by Amazon, it's probably mostly accurate but there are price points they do not accurately log at Amazon's request.

I'm not arguing one way or another but I want to clear up some very common misconceptions about US gun laws.

in some states, you can get semi-automatic weapons (which are completely banned in Austria) in a shop in just minutes. And that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that

This is just blatantly untrue and I wish people would stop parroting it. If you go to any shop you need to pass a federal background check to buy any non-vintage firearm (pre-1899..not exactly a ton of those floating around). The exception here is private firearm sales, i.e. I go to Craigslist and sell a rifle or handgun. The law states the seller has to have no reasonable cause to believe they would be an unlawful possessor (weak, yes). With that said, almost half of the states (22 per Wikipedia) have implemented state-level laws requiring a background check for private sales.

In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that.

Again, objectively untrue. You are not buying a firearm from any legal, licensed dealer in the US without going through a background check. And a violent criminal offense will get you barred from purchasing. For the 28 states without laws around private sales, the seller can be federally legally liable if they sell to someone that is not legally allowed to have a gun and they use it to commit crimes.

In the US, guns are sometimes a presents for kids which they can just…own and use (while in Austria everything is obviously 18+).

No, a child cannot legally own a firearm. The parent can purchase and own a firearm that they are allowed to use, but they do not own it. In many states if the child hurts themselves or others with such a firearm the parents will be held liable, many states have laws around safely storing firearms when children are around.

While in the US (in many states), you can just carry any gun around in public whatsoever. So even if the police sees you having weapons in public, they can’t / don’t do anything about that

In most states if you don't have a license to conceal carry and you do you are breaking the law and can be charged. I'll say this one isn't entirely false but heavily depends on your state.

A large part of why this issue gets nowhere is that neither side can even agree on what is true today, rather than what should be true to bring down the issue of violent crime. If one side says "They're totally unregulated you can just buy one off Amazon and start blasting. We have to do something!" The other side is gonna think "Well they obviously have no idea what they're talking about, no point in listening to what they have to say"

Even if it started out that way, where "surge" pricing is current pricing and "off-surge" pricing is cheaper, leading to consumers paying less overall, it won't stay that way. It would only be that way to prime consumers mentally to accept that dynamic pricing. After which they'll slowly increase prices, 10 cents or whatever every month. Soon enough it'll cost more and the corporation can brag about how it increased profits again this quarter. Remember publicly traded companies are legally obligated to maximize profit - the only time they aren't doing so is when they're burning money to prime consumers to accept bullshit or building a captive base, in order to eventually maximize profits.

I really hope you're a troll because if anyone genuinely thinks like this I am concerned for democracy.

Honestly just left it. Debating on putting carpet in the room where it's pretty bad. But decided if I couldn't do it well myself I'd just wait until I was ready to fork over money to have it done correctly.

Hai, Kazuma desu