You must log in or register to comment.
My car makes it slightly difficult to change lanes if I don’t signal, some resistance on the steering wheel and a warning beep beep beep that I’m “drifting.” There are some terrible roads around here that confuse the sensors so I do a bit of steering wheel arm wrestling now and then just to keep going straight.
I hate all that. Bro I hate of my mouse sensor has angle snapping, prediction, acceleration, or smoothing.
I loathe the concept of electronic throttle bodies and anything after 2005 has them. I don’t want my car to get to think about it after I press the throttle. Air now! Goddamn asthmatic cars. I don’t even want a manual transmission.
The more properties you own, the more tax you pay on the price of the next one - excluding if you only own one, but escalating quickly after like 3 or 4.
Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.
Ok now it’s starting to get confusing enough to fit into our tax system. Can we add more variables? Lol
This is so obviously what needs to happen. The fact that it hasn’t says everything you need to know about current governments.
Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.
Does it increase per property owned though? They can’t keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.
That’s what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don’t mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they’re rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.
Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it’s just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.
Yes homestead. I’m not sure how other states do it.
Texas increased from ten thousand to twenty five thousand to forty thousand to a hundred thousand in a short period.
So semantics. I say increase for other houses, you say discount for primary house. Either way you choose to phrase it, you pay less for your primary residence and more for other properties.
Serious question, couldn’t you bypass this by just setting up different LLCs that only have one or two properties under them?
They already do this. In my old job, the boss had 0 properties, he just used company money, company cars etc and had multiple of them
Linear housing, quadratic taxes
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
They do this in India. You’re allowed 2 homes, 3rd onwards you have to pay Income tax for deemed rent received if it’s empty.
After a while, it’s just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn’t actually mean much if you’re rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it’s a fuck you tax.
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
deleted by creator
It’s not just another cost of doing business though, it’s specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don’t change behavior and just eat the cost, then that’s more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
You do, it’s called property taxes.
But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented
I don’t see this working. Not only the property owners would transfer this cost to your monthly payments, the government would need an enormous bureaucracy to actually control and enforce this law. I don’t believe this is technically possible to achieve.
They pass on a tax that doesn’t apply if you’re renting it?
Eventually somebody will rent it, and the monthly price will be higher to recoup the tax.
No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.
My dad inherited my grandma’s ancient house recently and is practically forced to find a way to remodel it to be rentable because there is a imputed rental value tax where I’m from.
What’s the alternative, just leave it empty?
I would think it could also be acceptable to transfer ownership to a relative who doesn’t already own a home. It just seems like a waste to have a house with nobody living in it while so many people are unhoused.
I guess he could sell it but then its pretty likely that it’s brought by a property developer, as we can’t afford to buy it off him. As it stands, the house isn’t really suitable to live in
Star Trek should be required viewing for all world leaders.
That sounds like it would be a good idea, but there is a strange but significant cadre of right-wing Star Trek fans. I think they just pay attention to the pew pew space battles and ignore everything else or something.
I honestly see why. While I love star trek, it has a very strong power structure “with the right people in power”, as if power itself wouldn’t corrupt people. The admirals may not always be right in the beginning but they accept their wrongs and have no bad intentions and the heroes are always celebrated by the establishment.
This can be understood as “this is the perfect world where even authorities are good” or as “I told you, authorities are the good guys”. I, as a left libertarian, prefer Farscape (and still watch every star trek show)
Exactly! The TOS/TNG era are “benevolent authoritarianism” and conservatives, of course, see themselves as the good guys. “If things only went our way, our society would be perfect, just like Star Trek!”
I think Edington said it best. Paraphrasing, “[The Federation] are even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You’re more insidious you assimilate people I think they don’t even know.”
I never thought of it that way, but you do have a point. I still think it’s more pew pew than anything else though.
Steve Shives (I hope I got the spelling correct) made a video why conservatives like star trek and a part of it is they see it as stories of other worlds and by doing so ignore all the allegorical implications. “A planet where people have the false gender assigned to them at birth? How truly alien!”
And to be fair: escapism is a legitimate goal of scifi and media in general. You watch scifi to enter a different world, for at least an hour a week be free of all your problems in the here and now.
Even worse, I’ve run into fans who think the Terrans had the right idea.
Considering the Terran Empire ended up being conquered, this tracks with them idolizing other losers, like Nazis and the Confederacy.
Sure, but I still genuinely believe the Gospel of Picard would have a net positive effect. Far moreso than the bible, which a good portion already have read.
IMO conservatives are either Klingons, Ferengi, or deluded enough to think they’d be chosen to join the Q Continuum. And Libertarians think they’re Romulans or Cardassians but aren’t actually that organized or clever.
That type of person will arrive at the conclusion “see, it’s okay to do eugenics and have nuclear wars, since humanity will turn out okay anyways”.
All adult sex work should be legal across the board. Anyone, of legal age, should be allowed to not only sell their services but they should be able to pay taxes and be allowed to unionize and collect benefits from any organization they work for (brothels).
A lot of the people in this world who are messed up in the head just need to get laid, and those doing to dirty work should be celebrated and rewarded for their efforts. I genuinely think this would make the world a better place.
They said dumb ideas, not smart ones.
That is pretty much how it is in Germany. Illegal (outside of the regulation avoiding taxes) and forced prostitution is still a huge problem. There is just way too much money to be made in that business…
I personally prefer the Nordic models therfore.
The problem in the countries that generally allow prostitution is that, though it has been legalized, it is still horribly stigmatized. Which creates that gap where forced prostitution can flourish. If a “business” is using illegal immigrants as forced labor, who can they turn to for help? That’s a double dose of stigma right there. But even a native person who’s being coerced would likely get little in the way of help since “upstanding” society looks down on their chosen profession.
Our collective worldly society needs to stop looking down their nose at sex workers as some kind of deviancy.
But then, seeing how religious extremists seem to be gaining power all over, I doubt we’ll see any positive change on any of these things.
The pimps that are trafficking over don’t care about stigmas and the women aren’t afraid about getting stigmatized, but about getting send back to their home-countries.
You’re reading comprehension is lacking. The people I am referring to having a stigma against prostitution are not the pimps or the girls who are performing. It’s the law and the society of people who think prostitution is a lowly profession for degenerates.
people…just need to get laid
A Hollywood induced fantasy.
People need therapy, and substituting that with sex is enabling the messed up folks to stay messeed up.Nope. In germany you can actually get a prostitute paid by your healthcare provider if you are disabled because it has so many benefits for your mental health. If you never even experience that important part of human life you can easily get depressed.
Ex-JW here. 100% agree. I’m still fucked up from that shit.
deleted by creator
(By the way, here’s a more effective way to delete your comments: highlight all the text in your comment then click delete. Then leave a punctuation mark or a hashtag in the comment field. Then save the comment like that. This will overwrite the comment you no longer want people to see. Because nothing is ever deleted.)
Ill remember that, thanks! Also, it was this one:
Ooh-la-LA that’s a fun sex mark
Dangit I came to Lemmy last night to ask a question about SIM cards and you got me all distracted and made me forget
Sexual surrogacy is a thing for a reason. Licensed therapists work with patients and sexual surrogates.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-sexual-surrogacy
So sex can be part of therapy.
BMW drivers will only ever be able to drive in a straight line then
Seems good to me!
BMW has had lane assist (I believe standard) for a few years now. As others above have said, it gives resistance and visible feedback with varying degrees of force if you try to change lanes without a blinker. Many others makes now do as well.
Essentially, in a 2018 or newer model BMW it is a pain in the ass to change lanes - even on an empty road - if you don’t use a blinker. And it probably snitches on you to your insurance company if you frequently make the light come on.
As for the lowered 2011 3 series with the loud exhaust and not quite right looking M badges passing you in a cloud of strawberry mountain dew flavored vapor, well… yeah what do you expect. The forest of little tree air fresheners makes it hard to see through the rear view anyway.
I actually had a 2019 430i until a couple months ago and it did not have lane keep assist standard. It only had had the assisted blind spot monitoring.
My new (to me) 21 Rav4 does and it has some aggressive LKA which gets a little annoying when you’re on a narrow road with cars parked on it which you have to go over the line to avoid and it tries jerking you back. I also disabled the DSM so it can’t phone home and tattle to my insurance company.
“All bullets should cost $5,000”
– Chris Rock
(updated with accurate quote)
I see you’ve worked in military procurement.
That wasn’t part of his standup act but it could be a funny addition… if it wasn’t so close to the truth.
First time I’m hearing of this, but it makes perfect sense! Another angle would be to reduce the tax in exchange for harm reducing behavior like taking a voluntary safety class.
We could fix so many problems with mandatory training.
Yes you have the right to keep and bear arms. On your own property. You want to take them somewhere else? Mandatory training and licensing. Just like we do with cars. At a bare minimum.
And I say this as a veteran and gun owner. The absolute lack of even having to know the basics of gun safety is appalling to me.
Most states do have mandatory classes, shooting tests, and exams to get a license to carry.
And license-holders commit almost no crime, statistically-speaking. People who go out of their way and spend extra money to comply with the law tend to be law-abiding.
My hot take that I’m sure I’ll get buried for is that in the US, proper firearm safety and training should be a mandatory middle school class. There’s just too many guns. Even if you don’t keep them in your house, your kid’s friend might. Even if some kid joins a gang and has a shootout with another gang, at least they won’t just spray and pray and kill an innocent bystander. I see no downsides except that progressives get apopleptic whenever anyone mentions guns.
Agreed. We learn CPR when though we don’t plan on heart attacks. People should be taught basic firearm safety.
Stop, drop, and roll caused me to seriously overestimate the number of times I would be on fire in my life.
I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.
It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, “I don’t own guns and I’ve never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I’d fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it’s what I want.”
Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There’s a lot of fear of “scary guns” based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they’re okay with because they don’t look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.
As a license holder I’m well aware of all that. You typically only need a license to carry concealed. At least in my state, open carry is legal almost everywhere and requires nothing. It’s those people that need the training.
The real way to do it is require a license, along with recurring training requirements, to BUY and own gun, not just carry one. But the NRA and the politicians they own have a shit fit over any reasonable barrier to gun ownership. They are perfectly ok with sacrificing school children over the issue.
I’m from Texas, where they removed most licensing requirements and it’s idiotic. You still need one to carry on a college campus and certain other state-owned facilities, but it’s mostly a free-for-all.
I still keep my License to Carry up to date because I think I should have to maintain a license. It also let’s me skip the security line in some state facilities (including the Capitol) where license holders can carry.
I used to also shoot weekly during lunch break at nearby range too to keep my skills up. Now I only go a few times a year because a buying a case of 9mm just about requires taking out a second mortgage. I also rarely carry, since in business casual it’s hard to conceal anything but a pocket 380, and I’m so bad with my LCP I’d have trouble shooting my car while sitting inside it.
We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.
The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.
So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.
Careful there buddy, you’re getting dangerously close to preventing uneducated morons from buying semi-auto rifles to keep in their pickup trucks.
Semi-automatic just means you don’t need to reload between every shot, it doesn’t mean burst fire (that’s still considered automatic)
But what about fully semi automatic, huh?
Thank you for explaining to this former infantryman how military rifles work. 😂
What’s wrong with semi-automatic then?
I’m all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.
(Ok, I’m not actually “all for this”…)
Any and all type of marketing completely banned.
Yes please
You get slapped across the face if you litter.
I always wished there was a karma system where every time you litter, when you get home what you littered is in your bed waiting for you. I would love the result for CEOs whose companies dump oil or toxic waste.
Yeah but they just order the dumping, the toxic waste appears are the lowly worker who physically dumps it in my mind
Nah, the karma system would know who is ultimately responsible
Imagine a kid runs out on the road suddenly… What a dumb fucking idea!
Correct. A dumb idea is exactly what she was asked to produce.
They also asked for ideas that would make the world a better place, which this wouldn’t. So it’s just a dumb idea with mainly negative side effects.
The blood of children must be sacrificed if we want to live in a world with good driving etiquette
The smarter version of this idea is the turn signal comes on automatically in the direction you turn.
It’s not. The point of a turning signal is to give a warning to fellow drivers in advance. Turning it on right when you’re turning is way too late. Just learn to drive properly for fucks sake!
The smarter version of a dumb idea is still a dumb idea. No one is advocating seriously for any of this because of the obvious flaws.
haha imagine… cars having brakes! LOL wtf amirite?
Considering I see some people mentioning stuff like swerving to avoid obstacles or temporary construction lanes not to mention curvey roads so I propose what about automatic turn signals that activate when it detects the driver trying to turn without signaling
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don’t get this, you’re supposed to signal you’re going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That’s how you safely let anyone behind you know you’re going to do that.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve almost rear-ended someone because they weren’t using their turn signals until they had already started turning. You might as well not use them at all for all the good that does.
Which is why it’s an incredibly dumb idea. It’s not actually possible. But it would make the world a better place.
A few days ago I ran out to get a few things, and this car ahead of me is going 20Km/h below the 50 limit for 5 minutes, then comes to a dead stop in an intersection, starts slowly turning and then puts on their blinker. Honked at them for being a fucking dumbass and they just wave me off like I’m the asshole
God I fucking hate how easy it is to get and keep a license. Enforcement needs to be much stricter because there are far too many morons on the road.
i want to live in a world where only those who truly have no other option choose to drive, and even a minor mistake in traffic immediately costs you your license and you have to re-take it from scratch.
It’s insane to just let anyone drive a multi-ton vehicle capable of going 120+ km/h for personal transport, if people are going to do so they damn well better do so carefully.
even a minor mistake in traffic immediately costs you your license
Well that’s dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while. Just say you want to eliminate all cars and be done with it. No human being could meet that standard, because even the best drivers make a minor mistake once in a while. Won’t even get into reacting to an emergency where you have a split second to decide what to do. We are not omniscient robots.
psst driveri smartdrive
lmao someone took it personally
i want to live in a world where only those who truly have no other option choose to drive
That’s how you get terrible drivers. Meanwhile those who like driving will care about doing it more safely then those who are forced to drive.
I live in a country were, without exaggeration, 90%+ of drivers don’t use turn indicators or do it last minute unless is for their own benefit (for example they’d turning left and need to cross the opposite lane in).
If it’s for the safety of others, especially pedestrians, forget about it.
I just so happen to have lived 2 decades abroad, one of which in Northern Europe, so this crap (and the trying to bully pedestrians on zebra crossings) gets on my nerves big time.
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don’t get this, you’re supposed to signal you’re going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That’s how you safely let anyone behind you know you’re going to do that.
Damn right. I was taught to give a minimum 3 blinks before turning. That also gives you time to look around for other vehicles/pedestrians before committing to the turn.
Yes, but also don’t turn them on until the last car that was passing you is slightly in front of you, too many people that turn them on while you’re still a bit behind, potentially in their blind spot, which can make you think they didn’t see you and maybe even swerve as a reflex.
lol. imagine being a 30,000lb vehicle and some dingdong in a rush swerves in front of you with their 2,000 lb vehicle (because getting in your lane early is an ancient, lost courtesy) and decelerates by 30mph over the course of three seconds to pull into mcdonalds, setting off several of your vehicle’s alert systems and automatically registering you for a performance review from your manager in addition to elevating your heart rate substantially
Turn signals need to telegraph what you are planning to do, not show what you’re in the process of doing.
In the book version of Hitchhiker’s guide to Galaxy highly advanced elevators are given limited precognition in order to proactively be on the floor and open just as someone wanting to use an elevator arrives. So maybe in some highly advanced future where we inexplicably still use cars our turn signals can see a few seconds into the future and turn themselves on before we turn.
Ah, but instead they would use that to shove an advertisement into your eyeballs as you walk around a corner.
Sadly true
Large [multi-lane] highway curves.
Computers are stupid. A"I" is stupid. Humans are smart. Trust humans.
Humans are stupid. The I in AI stands for ‘incompetence’.
I like this idea but with a twist. If you manually activate the turn signal before turning, you’re good to go. If you fail to activate, a big lightboard on the back of your car lights up saying “I forgot to signal” and then they automatically turn on anyway. Now we have shame in play. Some people are immune to shame though, so you get, let’s say, 2 of these a day, or 4 a week, or whatever, for free to account for the unexpected. If you exceed that you have to take an online remedial training class. If you get dinged again within one year you have to take an in-person class. 3 times in a year and every time thereafter, and you get points on your license. After 5 or 6 times you’d lose your license. This way normal people in abnormal circumstances aren’t impacted, and the bad drivers slowly get escalated into either doing it right or losing the privilege to drive.
Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.
Realistically, they still drive. They just don’t have insurance so the second person they hit is fucked.
I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.
I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn’t have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
Respectfully, so what? If you drive for your livelihood then it’s your own damn fault if you get banned from it for doing something illegal.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Now that would make about 95% of all BMW drivers wonder why their steering is broken…
It’s not just BMWs anymore. Probably only about half the people on the road with me use turn signals and it doesn’t matter what they drive.
Sadly yes
If you brake check, the car will eject you through the sunroof. If you don’t have a sunroof, you do now.
Always puzzled me, let’s say the dude behind failed the check and hit your car, what the hell did you gain from this?
At least in the US, a lot of fault hinges on rear impact. Not worth a damn, however, with how many dashcams people have now. These idiots still try though.
Fun fact, in a lot of states even if they slam the brakes if you hit them you are still at fault. You should have been at a safe following distance, and no one knows what that actually means. People will argue that a distance of less than 2 seconds is totally fine and safe because they do it all the time. But a safe following distance means that at your current speed of travel if the car in front of you came to an impossibly instantaneous stop you should have time to notice and stop without hitting them.
At freeway speeds this is a minimum of 4 seconds following distance in dry condition. As in when the back of their car passes a sign that you should be able to start counting Mississippi’s and not reach that sign with the front of your car for at least 4 Mississippi’s
Now, if they come up from behind you swerve over and then instantly slam on the brakes obviously you’re fine(if you have a dash cam) there was nothing you could have done, but if you have just been riding their ass and then they slam on the brakes? You’re totally a fault as far as the law in many states is concerned
That’s exactly the mechanism being exploited, yes.
Oooh, I didn’t understand what you were talking about until the last paragraph. I always thought “brake checking” was a specific move when you change lanes in front of the car and slam on the brakes, just a type of road rage. So, when you said that you’d be at fault if you hit them in the rear, I was really confused.
On the other hand, if you “ride their ass” and they check you, that’s completely fine in my book. Personally, I always keep the safe distance and it makes me really nervous when someone follows up close as I like to be in control of the road situation around me. An animal could run onto the road, something could fall out of a nearby truck etc. I mean, what is the person behind going to do? Anyways, I don’t usually check them, but rather slow down gradually so they also have to, and then speed up. They usually get mad, but if you’re going to drive like a dick, expect someone to react.
This isn’t true, if they can stop at an impossibly fast speed, why can’t you? Let’s say they stop in 3 seconds, that means their brakes can get them from 65 to 0 in 3 seconds. If you’re 2 seconds behind them, you have 5 seconds to stop. If you react within 2 seconds, you should be able to stop in 3 seconds. The only reason you would not be able to, is if you didn’t do maintenance on your brakes,
There’s almost no person in the world who can’t react in 2 seconds.
What if they slam into a truck at highway speeds? Instantly they’ve gone ftom 100km/h to 0, and you have to stop your car before you slam into them. How much space do you need between you in this scenario?
With 2 seconds worth of space, you have about 55 meters between you, and a normal reaction time would be about 250ms, which leaves you 1.75 seconds and 48 meters to come to a complete stop. And hopefully the person behind you reacts accordingly and doesn’t slam into you as well.
This is the answer, and is exactly what happens when you see those accidents involving like 6 Plus cars. Too many people riding way too close together at high speeds and none of them were able to stop in time when the first car suddenly stopped
- The front of the car has a lot more expensive stuff to damage.
- The back car is usually called at fault so has a lower chance of changing this
- I knew an asshole who kept his trailer hitch in, just so he could potentially do more damage when brake checking someone
It’s their fault, so life insurance pays up.
Even so, it’s still a huge waste of time to get it covered and lose your car for days or weeks
??? Life insurance is the thing that pays money if you die young (and don’t do it intentionally). Assuming that’s what you’re getting out of it you don’t have to worry anymore.
How would the car know the difference between that and breaking for an emergency?
I don’t know, that’s someone else’s job. I’m just the idea guy.
I have a GM vehicle with lane tracking, and this is actually kinda how it works! The steering wheel will mildly fight you unless you activate the signal, then BAM you merge right over. It reminds me of an AT-field
All along the AT field was just Angel driver assist!
