nfh

In my mind, the issue is that cars are incentivizing drivers to use high attention controls like touchscreens while driving. Actions that need to happen while driving, whether they’re directly vehicle operation, or something like air conditioning or media volume, should be simple low-attention controls, ideally with tactile feedback. Keep it simple for your brain, keep focus on the road.

I have volume buttons, skip, jump backwards, and a numpad on my dash that interact with phone apps via Bluetooth. Maybe there’s a physical (or voice) control that can be added to the dash or wheel to interact with map/navigation apps. Using the touchscreen is dangerous, and a car shouldn’t provide a reason to do so. I’d rather solve the problem another way.

But if a touchscreen is required to update the clock, or do Bluetooth pairing, that’s fine. There’s no reason to need to do those while driving.

I have a small (4-5") screen that has my clock, media information, which displays my backup camera feed if I’m in reverse, which I think is a modest improvement over the all-analog option, and a huge step up from the deathtrap touchscreen configuration. In my mind, the touchscreen is the point where it starts to drop off quickly, as it stands I don’t think I’d buy a car with a touchscreen that doesn’t lock it out while moving.

Smart switches are programmable, and can easily configure smart switches and lights. You can get a touch screen interface to home assistant, and do all of that on it, embed it on the wall. It doesn’t need to be an app on your phone.

Voice is definitely easier and more convenient, with HA being more configurable and difficult.

There are always going to be trade-offs in life, but you’re definitely getting convenience in exchange for privacy here

I think who you mean by tech community here is important too. CEOs? Their pay depends in part on them not listening.

Enthusiasts? Engineers? People who use technology more than incidentally? Left-leaning tech circles? Some have heard him, the idea of enshittification has spread well.

Sometimes ideas don’t spread very much until they do in a big way. This feels to me like one where that point exists, and people will take notice when it’s hit.

A really minor grazing could draw blood as seemed to happen at the first attempt, but heal within several days, which explains all the evidence I’ve seen.

Dramatically exaggerating a minor wound to maximize the benefit to him seems exactly what Trump would do in that situation.

Or even if they showed up outside of an electoral context. The green party has some local elected officials in a few places across the country, none of them very close to me so it’s hard to inform an impression of them.

But it doesn’t seem like, at least outside of those few folks, that the green party is very interested in any aspects of politics besides running in elections. If Jill Stein was criticizing Biden or Harris for the last four years, trying to get them to move to the left, or organizing groups of people to accomplish anything other than voting every 4 years… Her rhetoric points towards making real systemic change, but her actions suggest someone only invested in being a presidential candidate within the status quo. And the green party keeps nominating her for some reason. That doesn’t seem like what a serious party or candidate would do, or should be doing.

Not only refill your meds, but there are places where you can get 90 day prescriptions filled, so you can go into the new year with several months of pills already ready.

you can drive on your lawn, nobody’s gonna stop you in private like that

Encouraging assassinations of the current elected president and VP should really earn him the chance to see the inside of a jail cell. Even for a few days while they question him. I think that would be good for everyone involved.

Even the most skilled money saver in the world, when their income is barely above their necessary life expenses, will fail to save much. Savings is a luxury only the rich can afford much of.

But you’re right, putting money into the hands of people living paycheck to paycheck, or barely able to save is great for the economy as well as those people personally. Even if they save 10% and spend 90%, it’s tremendously more beneficial than that money going to a wealthy multimillionaire who won’t even notice saving it. For everyone except the multimillionaire, who really isn’t negatively impacted.

I don’t think it’s being used as “lie” here, so much as “and I’m not just saying that, I really mean it”. Rhetoric being used like speech in the sense that it’s something that can be true or false vs something necessarily false

Imagine the headline of that though: Biden funds militant Republican group in Ireland

Yeah don’t listen to Dave Ramsey. I remember hearing him speak on TV as a kid and something just felt off about him, but not quite as bad as Suze Orman.

I don’t think he’s a scammer, and some of the stuff he says is perfectly sensible and useful, but he (a boomer) also gives advice that isn’t how he got rich, to millennials and co, who will never ever get rich following it. Structurally that makes him pretty out of touch, and suggests anyone who listens to him should do so critically.

That’s putting aside that he’s also kind of just telling people to do capitalism harder, and everything that comes with that.

You think JD Vance is the kind of guy who would do something that brings pleasure to neither him, nor the couch?

more like “it isn’t true, but it feels like the kind of thing that would be true about the people I don’t like”

I get that, I just see them as different types of childish: one is edgy and mediocre, the other is adorable and anthropomorphic. “How bad is it that they’re childish” is very different between those two

To me, the Cybertruck feels like it was made by a deeply insecure teenager, crying out for help with how needlessly edgy it is, while the new postal service trucks feel like they hired a children’s illustrator to make them cute.

The 3% is a reason to be skeptical, but doesn’t necessarily refute the 99% claim. A person can be a Native American, part of their community, and have a grandparent who was an immigrant. 2/3 of them at minimum would need to have a similar situation at minimum, but it’s less than the percent who live outside reservations (78%) so it doesn’t seem totally far-fetched. It seems high though to be sure

Harris winning Texas is a very unlikely event, as much as I’d like to see it. I’d be happy if exit polling is ~Trump +1, and they can’t call the state before midnight. A narrow Trump victory would still change the national conversation around Texas significantly

Et tu, Pence?