Considering ms has changed the look and feel of windows itself over the years, sometimes pretty drastically, there’s some leeway there.

I don’t. It looked stupid even in concept and utterly failed the window test. And that was in 2019, after the pedophile tweet, so his true colours were starting to show.

Cyuck, pronounced with a hard C.

It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can’t really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there’s a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.

But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it’s the briber’s choice if they follow through.

Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).

An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.

Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.

And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?

The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pizza place sell small pizzas for a decent value. They price them to not sell. I’m guessing because they aren’t as predictable for the amount of volume you might need.

It wouldn’t have been cheaper to go for bigger (ignoring deals), but it wouldn’t have been much more and you’d have leftover pizza for lunch the next day.

For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.

Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.

It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.

Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).

Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.

Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.

Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant “stupid” instead of “smart”.

Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.

A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

I think the play here is to make accusations about laws many on the left don’t give a shit about to bait the “who cares?” responses and then apply that sentiment to the laws Trump has been convicted of or accused of that they hope their base doesn’t give a shit about.

There’s another layer to it, too. Businesses are built and run with a combination of capital and labour, but all of the power about the direction and continuity if the business goes along with the ownership of the capital.

So not only do the owners decide how to divide up the proceeds generated by the business, they also have the power to completely change it, including who, what, where, when, and how.

He looks like a bee sting.

Or just make it a chamber modification that can be applied to any gun that reduces the size of the round that can fit in it to something that isn’t a standard size.

Marriage rates have already been dropping and divorce is an available option. Removing that out isn’t going to increase people’s confidence about going into marriage.

And as the nightmare stories come out about the guys (and probably some girls, too) who change overnight once the marriage license is official (or annulment period ends or whatever becomes the “now you’re locked in as long as I don’t get caught cheating”), it’ll only go down further.

There will also be a reaction to the women who decide to just stop being loyal once they are done with a marriage but can’t get out.

Putting all the eggs in the solar basket has risks, too. Like a large volcano eruption that reduces the amount of light that reaches the surface for a few years would be a double whammy, affecting food production as well as electricity production (which we’d need to rely on to try to offset the food losses). If we’re instead facing brownouts or full blackouts, that’s a recipe for a complete loss of stability. I suspect less solar energy reaching the surface would also reduce total wind energy (less localized heating would mean lower pressure differentials, but I could be missing other significant parts of this equation).

I’d be most comfortable with a nice mix of energy sources combined with mothballing instead of decommissioning some capacity as renewables are able to take over more and more of the day to day energy needs so that we’re prepared to deal with an emergency like that.

I’d also like to see more food production moved to vertical farms that can be powered by electricity rather than relying entirely on the sun and weather. But I do understand that the scale of food production would make doing that with a significant portion of the food supply very difficult. But with climate change (plus nutrient depletion of the soil), keeping so many eggs in the “just keep farming” basket also doesn’t seem like a great idea.

I wonder if people will soon realize that that rage they have for scalpers is just directed at the amateurs and that the upper class is full of people doing pretty much the same thing just in less obvious ways.

Your employer (if you work for a private for-profit company) pays you x for your labour and then takes the proceeds of the labour and sells it for y where y is (generally) much higher than x. A business is profitable when the sum of all y is higher than the sum of all x.

If it’s a non-profit, then the difference between y and x must be put back into the business in some way, which could be an investment into an expansion of its scope or it could be a raise for some or all of the workers (payroll is not profit, it’s an expense). And that could mean just the CEO gets a raise, because some of the leeching is via different pay levels for different people that isn’t based on just the difference they are directly making to the income.

Public services can vary. If the service is profitable, then the profit goes into the budget of the government entity(s) that run it, as determined by legislature. So everyone is acting as the middleman there. If it’s not profitable, then it’s covered by taxes, at cost. There’s still varying salaries but it’s subject to government oversight, so things shouldn’t get as unbalanced as they would in the private sector, at least in theory. Though even in the public sector, there’s this assumption that promotions should come with big raises, regardless of how the workload changes, so you can still have people at the top making orders of magnitude more than people at the bottom.

Yeah, I bought fairly recently (as interest rates were starting to climb) and it was 100% a qol decision rather than a financial one. I’m paying more in interest now than I was paying in rent before, so instead of giving my money away to a landlord, I’m giving it away to my mortgage company.

The only way I’ll come out ahead financially is if the value goes up. But I have mixed feelings on that, too, because the housing situation is fucked here and value continuing to go up will mean that the situation is still fucked. I don’t want this place to be my home forever, so if the price here goes up, then the price of better places will also go up and it ends up being a wash until I don’t need to own and can sell, but even that would be tough because inheritance is probably going to be my daughter’s only way of ever owning her own place.

Or, on the other hand, if they fix the housing issue here by limiting the number of residences any person can own and barring corporations from owning at all (or at least not having them count as new people for number of places they can own), then prices will crash and most people who currently has a mortgage will end up owing more than their house is worth and will still be fucked in that way. Unless the government makes the banks eat some of that or does a bailout for homeowners.

But anything in the above paragraph would probably take a revolution to actually happen because all of these bugs for regular people are features for those that have the wealth to influence the political power.

Says a lot about how highly your IT department thought of the employees if they communicated mandatory training that way. They expected a 100% of staff “gets fooled by obvious-sounding phishing spam”.