Tomato, to-illegal.

How the fuck do you think gas pumps work?

I’m done feeding the trolls.

Sure, but it’s on the list.

If it saves even one human life it’s worth switching to an alarm instead of immobilization, even if that means hundreds of breakaway cables get snapped by morons driving away from chargers.

1. It’s about hitting electric cars, self driving or otherwise.

2. Cars can still move with punctured tires, at least far enough that a would-be robber or carjacker could get dragged a good distance.

3. You smash the window and open the door. Now the panicked driver is speeding away, leaving you high and dry or dragging you along.

Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream. It’s incumbent on car manufacturers to consider that while implementing safety features.

Pry bar to open the hatch, like I said.

And yes, today people are walking around with angle grinders to chop off catalytic converters.

The difference being that not being able to start the motor with the door open is only a problem if the driver was being attacked in a parking lot.

It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in. Now the car is immobilized. Smash the driver side window and they’re in business.

Sure, there are some safeguards that can be added like requiring a current to immobilize the vehicle, but it’s far from the simplest or safest answer. Car manufacturers need to stop putting in hard limits and just use alarms instead. I bought a new Subaru that has collision detection standard. The hedge next to my driveway was overgrown, but I drove right through it. The car sounded an alarm and flashed a bunch of lights, but it didn’t engage the brakes, I was able to blast through an obstacle that I knew was minor even though the car thought it was a threat. If a manufacturer feels compelled to add a safety system, it’s possible to do so without taking control away from the driver.

Yeah, that’s what I said.

See, this is exactly what I was worried about. Now I’ve got to write a whole fucking essay because history classes never get past WWII.

“Relatively recent” here means “in the past few decades”. There was a period of time in the early 20th century where (due to a long domestic propaganda effort that, frankly, you’re going to have to read up on yourself) the racist connotations were significantly diminished.

During this time period, the Confederate naval jack was more broadly seen as a symbol of Southern pride. Perhaps the best example is the Dukes of Hazzard, although this was closer to the tail end of this period.

What precipitated the gradual shift to the modern interpretation was the Vietnam war. The army was racially integrated by that time, and black soldiers were encountering the Confederate flag that their Southern, white comrades sometimes brought along. For fucking obvious reasons, the “it’s not racist” argument didn’t exactly fly with them. To almost criminally abridge an interesting and important part of history, a symbol that those soldiers may not have ever seen or even really cared in civilian life was at the forefront of their minds.

It took years for that bad experience to move the needle of public opinion. To (again) abridge decades decades of history, that experience in Vietnam “trickled down” to the public. Over time, the mainstream view of the flag shifted from one of primarily Southern pride to one that was primarily (and later, overtly) about racism.

I’m gonna start and end this comment with the same disclaimer: I’M NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE MEANING OF THE FLAG, JUST COMMENTING IN THE CURRENT USES OF IT. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION OF THE BELIEFS OTHER PEOPLE HOLD, NOT MY OWN.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who still interpret the Confederate naval jack to represent southern pride. In recent decades the nationwide interpretation changed to basically “racism”, either wholly or in part.

This (relatively) recent change means that people who want to express southern pride but weren’t racists tended to move away from using the flag, instead opting for things like using their state flags. The other end of this is racists who specifically and explicitly leaned into the new interpretation and use the flag more.

There is a (very much) smaller subset of people who want to stick by the older “Southern pride” meaning and reject the more modern interpretation. While these people probably deal with a lot of funny looks and awkward conversations, they exist. Apparently there’s a large enough cohort that feels that way and support LGBT rights to warrant someone printing Confederate naval jacks on a rainbow field.

Again, before I have a dozen motherfuckers here to tell me why their interpretation of the flag is the correct one: I’M NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE MEANING OF THE FLAG, JUST COMMENTING IN THE CURRENT USES OF IT. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION OF THE BELIEFS OTHER PEOPLE HOLD, NOT MY OWN.

You might want to look at laser printers. If you’re just doing black and white documents, whatever the latest Brother printer is will do a good job, do it fast, and not screech at you about your cyan running out.

It’s a few hundred bucks up front, but the toner cartridges print a ton of pages and don’t dry out if you don’t use them. I can’t recommend it enough if you have even a passing desire to make hard copies of documents.

Let me start by saying first and foremost the paychecks and severance packages are beyond ridiculous. Like fucking unconscionable.

Now, that being said yes, when the CEO rightly or wrongly (typically rightly) becomes the fall guy their career is over. If they manage to get another job it probably won’t be in a leadership position, and if it is it would be with a much smaller organization that simply won’t be able to pay them the big bucks. The best a CEO can hope for after a public downfall is to be put out to pasture.

I don’t feel sad for them. While their golden parachute might represent literally the last money they will ever make it’s more than enough to live off of for the rest of their lives.

There’s an even bigger picture, though. Their personal reputation is ruined, but so is their family name. With the amount of money and prestige they were building up they may have had aspirations of positioning their kids as the elites of the future. Family money and connections could have ended up with their children some day becoming Senators and Congressmen. If they end up taking the fall, their public failure will sully their name for a couple of generations.

The kind of people that become CEOs of high-profile companies are a special breed of psycho. They’re willing to accept huge piles of money to roll the dice on their own career and the reputation of themselves, their children, and their grandchildren on the off chance they manage to avoid the chopping block until retirement.

Is it really “taking” responsibility if it’s getting pinned on you?

I was about to say …

Vox can speak for itself. Big sections of the public knew they were being sold a bill of goods.

There’s an important thing that the CEO provides that no AI can: the acceptance of risk.

On a day-to-day basis the CEO makes decisions, ignores expert advice, knocks off early for tee time, etc. For this work they are wildly overpaid and could easily be replaced by having their responsibilities divvied up amongst a small group of people in leadership roles.

To see the true purpose of the CEO we need to look at a bigger scale - the quarter-to-quarter scale. What could be bigger than that in the world of the MBA?

Every quarter the CEO must have the company meet the financial performance expectations of the board/owner(s)/shareholders. Failure is likely to result in them losing their job and getting a reputation as an underperformer, thus ruining their career. If the company does poorly or those expectations are unreasonably high then the CEO must cut corners in the operation. This of course hampers their ability to meet expectations later, but they’ll make it through this quarter.

When (inevitably) too many corners have been cut something catastrophic will happen. Either the company’s reputation will go to shit with customers slowly, or a high-profile scandal will blow up in the company’s face.

This is the moment when the CEO provides their most valuable service: to fall (or be pushed) onto their sword. The CEO is fired, ousted, or resigns. This allows the board/owner/shareholders to get a new face in and demand that they fix the most egregious issues, or at least the most glaring ones that don’t cost too much to fix.

This service cannot be provided by an AI. Why? Because the AI is a creation of the company. If it is used as a scapegoat it solves nothing. The company is pointing at their own creation and saying “see, that’s the problem”. It’s much more effective to point at a human they didn’t make and scream that that person made a mistake.

I seem to recall a saying about pots and kettles…

Sanest Lemmy user.

Get the (werewolf in) London look.

Hot on the heels of this one, I’d imagine.

Patents expire. In the long run your inventions would be used for evil.

Wait until you hear about media contagion!

This shit is par for the course.