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).

So they progressively increase closing force if it keeps detecting something but the owner keeps trying to close it. I can vaguely see the reasoning only if they aren't confident in the frunk sensor for some reason. I mean garage doors solved this problem forever ago without having to resort to something like that.

I wonder if the "vision-based everything" mandate from Musk applies outside of autonomous driving features? Makes sense to not be confident in it if it's just a camera...

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.

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.

my vision for a peaceful future isn’t a perpetual Mexican standoff. Nor do I like the idea of political power and representation being directly proportional to one’s intent and capability to do violence.

The unfortunate reality is that all political power is derived from one's capability to do violence, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I pay my taxes because if I don't the federal government will forcefully take the money from me, or my other possessions. Yeah, arresting someone is "nonviolent" until that person just says "I'd prefer not to." Forcing someone to pay a fine is nonviolent until they say "I'd prefer not to."

It's the only motivator the government or any body of real power has at the end of the day. It's a bunch of social norms and agreements all backed by the understanding that you will be made to comply by force otherwise.

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"

Two monitors and a lot more RGB, also the cheapest desk Amazon/IKEA had.

Last time this came up, just spoofing the Firefox user agent to Chrome made it work perfectly. Maybe they block it because they haven't tested it on Firefox yet, but it works as well as it does in Chrome.

And if they haven't had the time to validate it in Firefox yet, that is a conscious choice by MS to not dedicate time specifically to validating in Firefox and treating it as a second-class web browser.

Note that isn't illegal, it just means the company doesn't get to get out of paying unemployment when it happens. And that's only if someone is willing to challenge them on it.

Don't listen to what he said... But SD cards are generally not very reliable. They might be fine they might die on you silently after a week.

Higher quality ones are better of course, but the quality of flash in SD cards varies wildly. I wouldn't store anything on an SD card that I don't already have a second copy of somewhere. (If I want to preserve it and it would cause problems for me to lose it)