My car makes it slightly difficult to change lanes if I don't signal, some resistance on the steering wheel and a warning beep beep beep that I'm "drifting." There are some terrible roads around here that confuse the sensors so I do a bit of steering wheel arm wrestling now and then just to keep going straight.
That is why I turned lane assist off after a dozen false positives that felt like the car was going to steer me into danger with no benefits.
Parking assist got turned off when parking in a garage set off a cacophony.
I hate all that. Bro I hate of my mouse sensor has angle snapping, prediction, acceleration, or smoothing.
I loathe the concept of electronic throttle bodies and anything after 2005 has them. I don't want my car to get to think about it after I press the throttle. Air now! Goddamn asthmatic cars. I don't even want a manual transmission.
Motherboard front panel connectors should be officially standardized. These fucking things have been basically the same since the 90s, but we still have to line up all the individual wires instead of having one plug.
Oh, and fix RGB headers while we're at it. They're the flimseist fucking thing, and you shouldn't be able to use a 4 pin plug on a three pin header.
They said dumb ideas.
Also modular power supplies while we're at it thanks. 20 years and the cables still can't be reused/you have to remanage the whole damn case when doing a swap
Make the manufacturers comply with standard rgb headers. I’ve got several accessories that came with rgb headers that I have no idea what the hell they were supposed to connect to other than maybe some proprietary controller. Absurd when most any decent common mobo all use the same connector type.
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
When changing lanes without a turn signal, the wheel resists a bit.
I have actually seen people I drove with be annoyed by it. I absolutely love it, because it is only annoying if you don't use your turn signals.
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
Absolutely not. It's fucking dangerous. The one time I drove a rental like that, I went through a construction area downtown, and it tried to steer me right into a construction fence when I was following the yellow temporary construction lane markers that were going around the fenced off area.
I disagree, it's annoying in general.
If I need to go around, say, a mail truck parked on the side of the road, the steering assist in our work van starts to rumble or shake or whatever it does. If there's construction, you guessed it, it doesn't understand that I have to cross over the line to continue driving, and if I have a turn signal on, the cop/worker directing traffic is going to expect me to go that way.
If a car is driving in the opposite direction and starts to ride/cross the double yellow lines, me moving over causes the vehicle to resist and fight me, potentially putting me into an accident because I didn't think to put my turn signal on in a split-second situation.
My car should not be able to, idk what word I'm looking for, override me? People need to take driving more seriously and stop handing off their responsibilities to a computer system/sensor that can not only fail, but also doesn't understand real world applications.
Lane assist fucking hates narrow and or curved roads, too. I turn that shit off when I'm driving my parents' car. I really hate the steering wheel trying to decide what's best for me.
I love the lane assist on my car. It does resist me a little bit in the situations you describe, but it's not a strong resistance. Just enough to get my attention if i do it by accident, but not enough to hinder me going where i need to go.
Now i'm curious what the lane assist parameters look like for different makes and models...
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
They do this in India. You're allowed 2 homes, 3rd onwards you have to pay Income tax for deemed rent received if it's empty.
After a while, it's just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn't actually mean much if you're rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it's a fuck you tax.
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
It's not just another cost of doing business though, it's specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don't change behavior and just eat the cost, then that's more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
The more properties you own, the more tax you pay on the price of the next one - excluding if you only own one, but escalating quickly after like 3 or 4.
Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.
Ok now it's starting to get confusing enough to fit into our tax system. Can we add more variables? Lol
This is so obviously what needs to happen. The fact that it hasn't says everything you need to know about current governments.
Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.
Does it increase per property owned though? They can't keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.
That's what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don't mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they're rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.
Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it's just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.
My city somewhat does this. You get a significant tax break on your primary residence, so if you rent out your house you pay more.
But if you rent out 1000 houses you pay the same tax rate and if you were to rent 3. Op was saying that it should go up per house. So by the time you have like 3 or 4 you can't afford more.
Linear housing, quadratic taxes
Serious question, couldn't you bypass this by just setting up different LLCs that only have one or two properties under them?
They already do this. In my old job, the boss had 0 properties, he just used company money, company cars etc and had multiple of them
Star Trek should be required viewing for all world leaders.
That sounds like it would be a good idea, but there is a strange but significant cadre of right-wing Star Trek fans. I think they just pay attention to the pew pew space battles and ignore everything else or something.
I honestly see why. While I love star trek, it has a very strong power structure "with the right people in power", as if power itself wouldn't corrupt people. The admirals may not always be right in the beginning but they accept their wrongs and have no bad intentions and the heroes are always celebrated by the establishment.
This can be understood as "this is the perfect world where even authorities are good" or as "I told you, authorities are the good guys". I, as a left libertarian, prefer Farscape (and still watch every star trek show)
I can't help bit notice all these "debate me" chuds talk exactly like Gene Roddenberry's writting style. Why does every conversation or discussion devlove into "the logic of your argument" "you misunderstood the logic of what i am saying".
Khan-accerationists?
IMO conservatives are either Klingons, Ferengi, or deluded enough to think they'd be chosen to join the Q Continuum. And Libertarians think they're Romulans or Cardassians but aren't actually that organized or clever.
Sure, but I still genuinely believe the Gospel of Picard would have a net positive effect. Far moreso than the bible, which a good portion already have read.
That type of person will arrive at the conclusion "see, it's okay to do eugenics and have nuclear wars, since humanity will turn out okay anyways".
All adult sex work should be legal across the board. Anyone, of legal age, should be allowed to not only sell their services but they should be able to pay taxes and be allowed to unionize and collect benefits from any organization they work for (brothels).
A lot of the people in this world who are messed up in the head just need to get laid, and those doing to dirty work should be celebrated and rewarded for their efforts. I genuinely think this would make the world a better place.
They said dumb ideas, not smart ones.
That is pretty much how it is in Germany. Illegal (outside of the regulation avoiding taxes) and forced prostitution is still a huge problem. There is just way too much money to be made in that business...
I personally prefer the Nordic models therfore.
The problem in the countries that generally allow prostitution is that, though it has been legalized, it is still horribly stigmatized. Which creates that gap where forced prostitution can flourish. If a "business" is using illegal immigrants as forced labor, who can they turn to for help? That's a double dose of stigma right there. But even a native person who's being coerced would likely get little in the way of help since "upstanding" society looks down on their chosen profession.
Our collective worldly society needs to stop looking down their nose at sex workers as some kind of deviancy.
But then, seeing how religious extremists seem to be gaining power all over, I doubt we'll see any positive change on any of these things.
people...just need to get laid
A Hollywood induced fantasy.
People need therapy, and substituting that with sex is enabling the messed up folks to stay messeed up.Sexual surrogacy is a thing for a reason. Licensed therapists work with patients and sexual surrogates.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-sexual-surrogacy
So sex can be part of therapy.
BMW drivers will only ever be able to drive in a straight line then
Seems good to me!
BMW has had lane assist (I believe standard) for a few years now. As others above have said, it gives resistance and visible feedback with varying degrees of force if you try to change lanes without a blinker. Many others makes now do as well.
Essentially, in a 2018 or newer model BMW it is a pain in the ass to change lanes - even on an empty road - if you don't use a blinker. And it probably snitches on you to your insurance company if you frequently make the light come on.
As for the lowered 2011 3 series with the loud exhaust and not quite right looking M badges passing you in a cloud of strawberry mountain dew flavored vapor, well.. yeah what do you expect. The forest of little tree air fresheners makes it hard to see through the rear view anyway.
I actually had a 2019 430i until a couple months ago and it did not have lane keep assist standard. It only had had the assisted blind spot monitoring.
My new (to me) 21 Rav4 does and it has some aggressive LKA which gets a little annoying when you're on a narrow road with cars parked on it which you have to go over the line to avoid and it tries jerking you back. I also disabled the DSM so it can't phone home and tattle to my insurance company.
"All bullets should cost $5,000"
-- Chris Rock
(updated with accurate quote)
I see you've worked in military procurement.
That wasn't part of his standup act but it could be a funny addition... if it wasn't so close to the truth.
It's such a lib solution. "Let's make sure guns are inaccessible except to rich people".
That's part of the original joke, and also why the idea falls under "dumb".
First time I'm hearing of this, but it makes perfect sense! Another angle would be to reduce the tax in exchange for harm reducing behavior like taking a voluntary safety class.
We could fix so many problems with mandatory training.
Yes you have the right to keep and bear arms. On your own property. You want to take them somewhere else? Mandatory training and licensing. Just like we do with cars. At a bare minimum.
And I say this as a veteran and gun owner. The absolute lack of even having to know the basics of gun safety is appalling to me.
I'm all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.
(Ok, I'm not actually "all for this"...)
Any and all type of marketing completely banned.
I think you should be allowed one sign on the building itself and a listing in some sort of directory and that's it.
Yea as much as we hate marketing it's necessary to some degree for us to even know that things exist. How do you think new medications for yet untreated diseases get spread? Those companies pay a ton in marketing to get the meds out into the world and in the hands of doctors. Lots more people would be dying of stuff we have the cure for if they couldn't advertise meds.
Directories for specific products would be good though. If I need a kitchen gadget I can go to a directory of kitchen or food goods and look around. Between that and word of mouth we would be covered.
Yes please
I still like to think the thing from Fight Club where they blow up all the central banks would be cool.
The idea of "destroy the banks and free everyone" is in so many movies and shows. Sneakers, Mr. Robot, Fight Club. Hell, even Tuvok had a gang of teenage hackers "ethically distribute" money in SeaQuest.
I'm destroying war, corruption. I'm ripping the heart out of greed! [as they both battle to hack into and out of the world bank]
It does have some historical precedent. In the ancient Near East it was common for all debts to be destroyed every decade or so.
Mr Robot definitely had my favorite execution of the idea. Destroying the tape backups with their own environmental control system was just the best. I still feel bad about the nice security guard guy though :(
That movie is wilder than I remember….
We don't talk about it...
Imagine a kid runs out on the road suddenly... What a dumb fucking idea!
The blood of children must be sacrificed if we want to live in a world with good driving etiquette
Or a road with a bend in it... 😅
haha imagine... cars having brakes! LOL wtf amirite?
You get slapped across the face if you litter.
I always wished there was a karma system where every time you litter, when you get home what you littered is in your bed waiting for you. I would love the result for CEOs whose companies dump oil or toxic waste.
Considering I see some people mentioning stuff like swerving to avoid obstacles or temporary construction lanes not to mention curvey roads so I propose what about automatic turn signals that activate when it detects the driver trying to turn without signaling
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don't get this, you're supposed to signal you're going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That's how you safely let anyone behind you know you're going to do that.
I can't tell you how many times I've almost rear-ended someone because they weren't using their turn signals until they had already started turning. You might as well not use them at all for all the good that does.
Which is why it's an incredibly dumb idea. It's not actually possible. But it would make the world a better place.
A few days ago I ran out to get a few things, and this car ahead of me is going 20Km/h below the 50 limit for 5 minutes, then comes to a dead stop in an intersection, starts slowly turning and then puts on their blinker. Honked at them for being a fucking dumbass and they just wave me off like I'm the asshole
God I fucking hate how easy it is to get and keep a license. Enforcement needs to be much stricter because there are far too many morons on the road.
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don’t get this, you’re supposed to signal you’re going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That’s how you safely let anyone behind you know you’re going to do that.
Damn right. I was taught to give a minimum 3 blinks before turning. That also gives you time to look around for other vehicles/pedestrians before committing to the turn.
lol. imagine being a 30,000lb vehicle and some dingdong in a rush swerves in front of you with their 2,000 lb vehicle (because getting in your lane early is an ancient, lost courtesy) and decelerates by 30mph over the course of three seconds to pull into mcdonalds, setting off several of your vehicle's alert systems and automatically registering you for a performance review from your manager in addition to elevating your heart rate substantially
Turn signals need to telegraph what you are planning to do, not show what you're in the process of doing.
In the book version of Hitchhiker's guide to Galaxy highly advanced elevators are given limited precognition in order to proactively be on the floor and open just as someone wanting to use an elevator arrives. So maybe in some highly advanced future where we inexplicably still use cars our turn signals can see a few seconds into the future and turn themselves on before we turn.
Large [multi-lane] highway curves.
Computers are stupid. A"I" is stupid. Humans are smart. Trust humans.
Humans are stupid. The I in AI stands for 'incompetence'.
I like this idea but with a twist. If you manually activate the turn signal before turning, you're good to go. If you fail to activate, a big lightboard on the back of your car lights up saying "I forgot to signal" and then they automatically turn on anyway. Now we have shame in play. Some people are immune to shame though, so you get, let's say, 2 of these a day, or 4 a week, or whatever, for free to account for the unexpected. If you exceed that you have to take an online remedial training class. If you get dinged again within one year you have to take an in-person class. 3 times in a year and every time thereafter, and you get points on your license. After 5 or 6 times you'd lose your license. This way normal people in abnormal circumstances aren't impacted, and the bad drivers slowly get escalated into either doing it right or losing the privilege to drive.
Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.
Realistically, they still drive. They just don't have insurance so the second person they hit is fucked.
I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.
I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn't have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
Respectfully, so what? If you drive for your livelihood then it's your own damn fault if you get banned from it for doing something illegal.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that's probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn't mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone's license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Now that would make about 95% of all BMW drivers wonder why their steering is broken...
It's not just BMWs anymore. Probably only about half the people on the road with me use turn signals and it doesn't matter what they drive.
Sadly yes
If you brake check, the car will eject you through the sunroof. If you don't have a sunroof, you do now.
Always puzzled me, let's say the dude behind failed the check and hit your car, what the hell did you gain from this?
- The front of the car has a lot more expensive stuff to damage.
- The back car is usually called at fault so has a lower chance of changing this
- I knew an asshole who kept his trailer hitch in, just so he could potentially do more damage when brake checking someone
How would the car know the difference between that and breaking for an emergency?
I don't know, that's someone else's job. I'm just the idea guy.
I have a GM vehicle with lane tracking, and this is actually kinda how it works! The steering wheel will mildly fight you unless you activate the signal, then BAM you merge right over. It reminds me of an AT-field
All along the AT field was just Angel driver assist!
Texas would come to a grinding halt.
Audi gets reduced to a drag car manufacturer
drag car
I imagined a car dressed in drag and it reminded me of this Family Guy clip.
Two-lane, no-passing, winding mountain road: "it's showtime" 😎
Everyone: flies straight off the cliff
You would be screwed if your bulb goes out.
New cars don't use bulbs.
Of course, they use blinker fluid
Oh I wouldn’t know. Still rolling in my 2000 Honda CRV.
Car companies cry in bankrupt
What about parallel parking or just readjusting while parking in general?
Just throw on the hazard lights. Double turn signals, do whatever you want.
You don't use a turn signal when parallel parking?
I do use the blinkers to show that I'm backing in, but I would still have to turn the wheel to reposition.
My blinkers would go right, then left, then right again, and maybe left once more if I'm parking facing towards the top of a hill.
What about roads that curve? A signal could be misleading in such a situation.
I've 100% turned on my blinker for a curve in the road, and I feel like a fucking idiot when I do it. So fortunately I've seen other people do it and I know there's at least a couple of us out there. The worst part is it's been the same curve multiple times. There's nowhere else to go either, the road just bends right, but sometimes I just hit the old blinkety-blink.
Slight disagreement:
This will give assholes who thinks a turn signal gives them the right of way more ammo to be jackasses in traffic.
I'm thinking more likely accidents are going to occur when people try to avoid road hazards or go around corners and they don't remember to turn on their turn signal and the car just goes straight and barrels into something...or someone.
What about just needing to steer along a windy road?
They're already assholes though at least this way we know what they're doing.
Make me your leader and I will solve all problems big and small.
Btw, why don't cars signal automatically if you turn below 5 km/h?
You're supposed to start signalling before you turn, so that would be kinda useless
Oh, right.
I guess there's no bends in the roads where you live... All just grid pattern everywhere... No need to ever turn the wheel except at an intersection or driveway... 😅
Honestly, why doesn't your car automatically engage the turn signal after the wheel turns more than a certain number of degrees from center?
Because you're supposed to signal before you start turning, not when it's already obvious that you're turning.
Because then it would turn on when driving on a windy road
Well for one, it should turn on before your turn. Two, roads sometimes bend without an actual turn.
My city has started putting in a lot of these figure-8-shaped double roundabouts at overpass entries/exits. Automatic signals would be real fun there, it'd look like Christmas every day.
Some new MG cars do this, but it's super annoying because the tolerance level set by them is super low. It engages with the slightest turn, much lesser than a lane shift also, and it confuses drivers behind you. If you're taking a uturn, if you do a wider arch for a second, the guy behind you thinks you're going the other way and have suddenly changed your mind. While parking it's a nightmare as it keeps going on left and right every second. People behind me must think I'm an asshole. It's a good idea, but really badly implemented by them. But then again they're not really selling a car. They're selling a mid range android tablet with a car accessory attached.
If you need other cars to use turn signals you shouldn't be driving.
I bet your car insurance is astronomical
It's really funny to watch people cope with the reality that they are not skilled at using a car. People should not drive cars, cars killed tens of thousands of people.
Ok Beemer.
Get off the road, asshole.
