atrielienz

Nope. I'm correcting you because apparently most people don't even know how their cruise control works. But feel however you feel.

Because it still basically does what's they said. The only new advent for the autopilot system besides maintaining speed, heading, and altitude is the ability to use and set a GPS heading, and waypoints (for the purposes of this conversation). It will absolutely still fly into a mountain if not for other collision avoidance systems. Your average 737 or A320 is not going to spontaneously change course just because of the elevation of the ground below it changed. But you can program other systems in the plane to know to avoid a specific flight path because there is a known hazard. I want you to understand that we know a mountain is there. They don't move around much in short periods of time. Cars and pedestrians are another story entirely.

There's a reason we still have air traffic controllers and even then pilots and air traffic control aren't infallible and they have way more systems to make flying safe than the average car (yes even the average Tesla).

No. Press the brake and it turns off. Press the accelerator in lots of cars and it will speed up but return to the cruise control set speed when you release the accelerator. And further, Tesla doesn't call it cruise control and the founder of Tesla has been pretty heavily misleading about what the system is and what it does. So.

There are other cars on the market that use technology that will literally override your input if they detect that there is a crash imminent. Even those cars do not claim to have autopilot and Tesla has not changed their branding or wording which is a lot of the problem here.

I can't say for sure that they are responsible or not in this case because I don't know what the person driving then assumed. But if they assumed that the "safety features" (in particular autopilot) would mitigate their recklessness and Tesla can't prove they knew about the override of such features, then I'm not sure the court is wrong in this case. The fact that they haven't changed their wording or branding of autopilot (particularly calling it that), is kind of damning here.

Autopilot maintains speed (edit), altitude (end of edit), and heading or flight path in planes. But the average person doesn't know or understand that. Tesla has been using the pop culture understanding of what autopilot is and that's a lot of the problem. Other cars have warning about what their "assisted driving" systems do, and those warnings pop up every time you engage them before you can set any settings etc. But those other car manufacturers also don't claim the car can drive itself.

We have known this for decades. Maybe don't buy iPads? I'm just pointing out that Apple's prices for parts and repair were always high and even though it's a more recent thing that you can get new parts for repairs (with the rise of right to repair), they have been in the business of all overcharging for oem parts for a long time. Back in the early aughts they used to code parts so that if you repaired something yourself with off the shelf parts (same part just not their branding) the device would reject that part on a software level and still not work.

I have both. Phone is fine for on the go. But I prefer e-reader for the rest. I use a boox tab c mini and it's not one I would recommend. The os is finicky about apps and the color e-ink isn't that impressive. But I do like the size and it's got a decent backlight. The better battery life is one of the main reasons I like having an e-reader. Not having to be tethered to a charger while reading in bed or on a long journey is awesome.

No. My point is that the "all men" phenomenon is a symptom of the bigger problem which is that one demographic is being victimized by a subset of a second demographic and that second demographic as a whole recognizes that there is a problem and doesn't do anything to change that status quo in a meaningful way but won't acknowledge that their continued lack of action may be the reason they are collectively being blamed. 

Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

If your point we're just that "gender bias and the resultant discrimination are bad" you could literally have done that with "Men saying all women are whores/golddiggers are doing the same thing and that is also wrong." 

Instead, what you did was took an entirely unrelated analogy to a bad conclusion in what I'm sure you think is good faith, ignoring the circumstances and particulars of that situation so that you can try to make a point in the most clumsy way possible and when people give you pushback about it and add clarity of their own views in response it's "moving goal posts". 

You made a hamfisted attempt to relate sexual assault and the over-reaction to it to racism and got called out. Let's not forget what you were initially responding to which wasn't ops post but a comment at the beginning of the thread which is context for literally just about everything else I've said in subsequent comments which plants the goal posts very much where they started out. 

"In the US, of 100 rapes against girls and women reported to the police, 18 will be prosecuted. 

Jeffery Epstein and his cohort abused hundreds of girls, and all anybody cares about is what powerful man might be embarrassed.  Has anyone proposed or suggested anything to protect girls from rich perverts? 

From the founding till 1951, raping your wife was legal in all 48 states. And that protection extended in several states beyond the federal change. Some states even made common-law husbands immune. 

The Christian Bible considers rape to be a property crime. in conservative circles, girls as young as 12 are regularly married off to their rapist."

The leading cause of death for pregnant people in the US is homicide.

I think young women considering men to be a threat is pretty rational.

You are the one who acknowledged that the statistic for African American crime has more nuance but also didn't not speak at all to the point of using it for the purposes of subjugation (something you conveniently ignored in order to try to validate your point). 

You don't stop over generalization by ignoring the root cause. Stop playing games with me. The root cause of the African Americans are criminals BS is literally that to continue to subjugate them and feed the prison population the institution has to make the general populace believe they deserve to be there. The general cause of "all men are predators" is literally that the patriarchy condoned sexual abuse so ardently for so long and continues to do so that the only way we even have conversations about sexual assault and abuse is in forums like this on topics like this one where the topic isnt even about sexual abuse but is absolutely about blaming women for overgeneralizing about it. 

You are the one who once again argued poorly that as you spend more time around a bear the likelihood that the bear will attack you will go up, ignoring how that's exactly what happens to women. The more time they spend around men the more likely they are to be attacked. The men the spend the most time around are very often the ones who end their lives or commit sexual assault against them. 

And if you feel like I'm putting words in your mouth, maybe stop and think about what you mean and just say that. Don't use analogies about subjects your clearly poorly understand. Don't try to quote me to refute something I said that you take issue with when you didn't understand it and your response bears that out. The questions I asked about what you were doing? Rhetorical. They were intended to make you think about the root cause of the situation. And also why more men don't report sexual assault. You sure took them as an accusation though.

Are you encouraging men to come forward with their sexual assault experiences? Are you supportive of them when they are harmed in this way? Do you go out of your way every day of your life to prevent sexual assault or things that lead to sexual assault?

You're deliberately using something you know is inflammatory as a poorly thought out analogy. That's my first problem with what you said.

The second problem is that you're deliberately ignoring how trauma (which most women have) affects the ability to communicate, and further affects how we as humans perceive threats. That's the second problem.

Third problem is that as it stands women do all of the heavy lifting when trying to prevent sexual assault. All of it. We're the ones who pushed for rape and sexual assault to have legal definitions under the law. We're the ones who pushed to criminalize a lot of the stuff that the original commenter for this thread bought up. We're the ones who created and implemented strategies to lower the chances of sexual assault. In my experience it is women who go out of there way to look out for other women. Do men go out of their way to look out for other men?

Men have most of the privilege in this situation and do just about nothing to actually help (to prevent sexual assault, or to make sexual assault/worse things unacceptable in society). Now they're feeling the pressure to do something about it so they don't get labeled or grouped with "the bad sort" and their response isn't to blame other men. It's to blame and shit on women. Their response isn't to try to help prevent sexual assault or speak up when they see something. It's to lash out at women for using hyperbole. Which you admit that all human beings do.

You immediately assumed that because I don't agree with what you said I must think all men are rapists or sexual assaulters, or that I think that it's okay to accuse all men of this thing. That's not the case. But what I'm asking you to acknowledge is that this is a story on the internet with scant details about the interaction from a person who's got every reason to lie by omission.

And you're so stuck on not wanting to be labeled or grouped with bad actors that you are actively blind to what other people are trying to tell you which is that this is a problem created by a patriarchal society that is enabled by that same society and therefore is a problem created by men for men that men actively can help solve but don't.

Publishers have been suing libraries for book ban BS. Not for copyright infringement.

Nah. Don't play the word games this way. Women and girls have to operate under the assumption that "all men" specifically because to do otherwise puts them at significant disadvantage and in significant danger. Unknown unknown - I don't know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men and 1 in 6 women will experience rape. There's a sexual assault every 68 seconds.

So while it may seem unfair to say "all men" because obviously not all men, I have a lot of questions about how op wrote this post.

All bears aren't gonna try to eat you. There's lots of circumstance where that's not going to happen. But the question is do you assume you are in danger from every bear you run across?

The thing about the statistics for African American crime is that a lot of them are deliberately misleading and weaponized against that demographic. You acknowledge how bad of an analogy this is but I i don't really think you understand just how flawed the argument is. Rape and sexual assault are about exerting power and control. The statistic you used is an example of using statistics to exert power and control over a narrative specifically to keep the demographic in question oppressed or subjugated.

If we're strictly arguing against weaponizing statistics against a demographic I can understand. But if op is questioning a woman or women being cautious of him because they have a reasonable fear of being assaulted that's not the same thing.

Women take extra precautions as a matter of course in their daily every day lives to avoid sexual assault and worse. This is something they do both consciously and unconsciously. And still the most likely person to kill a woman is their male significant other or someone they know. Someone they probably trust.

There is a possibility that the person who told op this has trauma related to this. Maybe they lack the ability to communicate nuance. Maybe they are just an asshole. Maybe this was a specific attempt to get op specifically to leave them alone. We don't know the context.

Yes they wanted it. If they're legally considered a library, copyright holders can't sue them for copyright infringement.

There have been a couple of lawsuits against the internet archive in this vein.

"The Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, people with print disabilities, and the general public. Our mission is to provide Universal Access to All Knowledge." - from their About page.