I can't disagree.

It was when I was holding leftmost lane position passing a semi and it beeped and tried to steer me into said semi that I decided it can fuck off for ever lol

In my experience, lane assist is pretty good on the highways, and actively terrible everywhere else.

The only "feature" I hated more than lane assist was hill start assist. Chirped my tires, or stalled completely, on every fucking hill.

How strong is the lane assist in your car? If I was weak enough to even be bothered by the lane assist in my car, I'd figure it was time to stop driving. It certainly has never come close to overriding my steering.

That's already a thing? I have several power supplies that have completely detachable cables allowing the psu to be swapped directly. Not sure how standardised the psu side of the cable is between manufacturers, but this does exist in some form.

Surely you can disengage it when the markings are bad, right?

You're just a shit driver. It does not prevent you from steering the vehicle.

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...

Country roads here are like that.

I just turn it off.

Ok now it's starting to get confusing enough to fit into our tax system. Can we add more variables? Lol

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.

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.

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

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.

But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented

No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.

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)

Even worse, I've run into fans who think the Terrans had the right idea.

Khan-accerationists?

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.

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".

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.

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.

Nope. In germany you can actually get a prostitute paid by your healthcare provider if you are disabled because it has so many benefits for your mental health. If you never even experience that important part of human life you can easily get depressed.

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.

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.

That wasn't part of his standup act but it could be a funny addition... if it wasn't so close to the truth.

That's part of the original joke, and also why the idea falls under "dumb".

https://youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw?si=q8TPvB3hlZ92989v

Well the conservative solutions have been working out fucking great, haven’t they?

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"...)

AI of course, the solution to everything these days.

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.

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 :(

We don't talk about it...

They also asked for ideas that would make the world a better place, which this wouldn't. So it's just a dumb idea with mainly negative side effects.

It's not. The point of a turning signal is to give a warning to fellow drivers in advance. Turning it on right when you're turning is way too late. Just learn to drive properly for fucks sake!

Yeah but they just order the dumping, the toxic waste appears are the lowly worker who physically dumps it in my mind

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

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.

Humans are stupid. The I in AI stands for 'incompetence'.

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.

Sadly yes

At least in the US, a lot of fault hinges on rear impact. Not worth a damn, however, with how many dashcams people have now. These idiots still try though.

• 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

It's their fault, so life insurance pays up.

I don't know, that's someone else's job. I'm just the idea guy.

Does it though? I had a truck in the 90s and the signal seemed to be a circuit. So, when my rear left signal went out, the front left didn’t work either.

Of course, they use blinker fluid

Oh I wouldn’t know. Still rolling in my 2000 Honda CRV.