3 ms·

> For decades we managed to have cars with that and more: > Regulators since forever we have had cars that did not need to beep when in reverse gear. Now, so

by mdp2021 4y ago

> For decades we managed to have cars with that and more: > Regulators since forever we have had cars that did not need to beep when in reverse gear. Now, some mental damaged people think it is acceptable to live in an experimental industrial electronic concert. And there is now a market for "ringtones for cars". So the issue is, regulators must be sound minded and present and active... And be able to respond to instances of common sense...

jakear 4y ago
Worst of all is the Tesla backup sound. It's as if they hired some 20th century avant-garde musician to come up with the most jarring sound imaginable. That awful dystopian groan emanates through my house every day as my neighbors back into their driveway. Just use a nice sounding V8 recording I say. I'd prefer that any day of the week, and it's immediately identifiable as a car noise.
- buffington 4y ago
  I have a Model 3, and it's one of the ones that doesn't make sounds when backing up. Which also means no funny horn honk sounds and the like. At first I felt like I was missing out on a cool feature, but then heard the backup sound made by a newer Model 3 and felt like I got pretty lucky. To be fair, I've noticed that I have to be a lot more careful in parking lots when driving the Tesla. People just don't hear it, and will happily walk right down the middle of the lot not realizing they're blocking a car. I can't blame them either. I get to see a totally different kind of behavior when I drove my built-for-track-day STI. At low RPMs, its 430hp engine has you feeling the presence of the vehicle as much it has you hearing it. People are so obviously more aware of it than the Tesla when walking in parking lots.
buffington 4y ago
> mental damaged people I dislike bright LEDs at night, but not nearly as much as when people use terms like this as an insult. I'm sure you'll agree that people making poor choices isn't a sign of mental illness, and that by suggesting as such does harm to those who struggle with mental illness.
- buffington 4y ago
  I shouldn't be surprised anymore that people on the internet would down vote a comment like this, but I am. Seriously, what's the logic there? Someone has a problem with me taking issue with someone using "mental damaged people" as a way of describing people who make poor decisions? Try replacing "mental damaged people" with "gay people" or "brown people" or "millennials" or "old people" and see how you feel. Maybe it'll help make sense as to why "mental damaged people" is equally unacceptable. Imagine if I'd suggested that the parent commenter was "mental damaged"? I think most people would agree that would be out of line, and it absolutely would be, yet do we feel the same way when the parent commenter calls other people the same thing? Is it more acceptable because they're some ambiguous and faceless group of people with terrible headlight etiquette? People don't need to have a mental illness to make poor decisions. People do just fine without help. Suggesting that people with disruptive high beams are "mental damaged people" is harmful because it reinforces views that people with mental illnesses are "less than", or are stupid or not trustworthy, or scary. They're not. They're people we know and love, and they're often struggling to even admit that they need help. It's hard enough without also feeling like society will look down on you for something you didn't ask for and have little control over. It's also just incorrect. People who are not "mental damaged people" have headlights that are too bright and adjusted poorly. Note the first HN guideline for commenting says "Be kind,", and I think calling out harmful behavior counts. My motivation isn't to fire of zingers and get points and show how virtuous I am. It's because I love, live with, am related to, work with, and care for people in my life who struggle with mental illness. Odds are the parent commenter does too. Odds are that other readers do too. Calling out bad behavior that harms marginalized people and people with similar challenges might not be fun to be called out on, especially if it wasn't the intention, but might change how you communicate on the internet. That said, by calling out downvotes, I'm equally as guilty of not honoring the HN guidelines as the parent commenter. If readers choose to focus on that single violation, that's a choice they're free to make, though I'd encourage you to consider my arguments before making that choice.
selfmodruntime 4y ago
Yet the only real solution here can be found with regulation. You can‘t „free market“ people into non-blinding headlights.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Yes, what I meant is, we have a problem. Last time somebody mentioned to me the "good times of the boundaries of good, common sense, largely represented in the Administration" - just nine hours ago.
- pandaman 4y ago
  Many cars have adaptive headlights, which can attenuate parts of the light field containing other cars ("matrix"/adaptive/glare-free etc lights). They have to be disabled in the US because it's against regulations. The hardware is there, it had been working in Europe for the past decade, it's just the regulators in the US don't care to update regulations from 1950s.
midoridensha 4y ago
Trucks have had reverse beepers for a very long time, because the drivers can't see behind them (though modern remote back-up cameras can fix this). Car drivers didn't need this because they had good visibility to the rear. These days, everyone is driving around in a gigantic off-road vehicle with terrible rear visibility, though again the back-up cameras mitigate this. As for common sense and regulators, decades ago it was considered perfectly fine and normal for people to not wear seatbelts, and to be regularly impaled on the steering column in a crash. Regulators eventually decided this wasn't good enough, but it took them a very long time. Seat belts were offered back in the early 60s I think, maybe 50s, but people didn't use them. Any idiot can tell that a seat belt keeps you from being impaled on the steering column, but obviously much of the population didn't have much common sense.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > terrible rear visibility According to the weighs of some perspective, very little can be an excuse to turn all areas of anthropic presence into a gigantic constructions site. Because it makes it unlivable. > off-road vehicle with terrible rear visibility Save for the actually changed proportions, I know off-road vehicles with outstanding visibility, "normal roaders" with almost no rear visibility, and many vans have no rear windows at all (they only use side mirrors) since forever and still not having posed a problem. Is it possible that some measures follow the trend of "do something stupid to justify your salary by showing you have done something", in the intersection with "preserve life at all cost irregardless of the destruction of its quality"? > Any idiot can tell Although, an analysis cannot stop at "Points: pro" of the branch "case A", and a decisor (but not regulator) will only take guesses on the details unknown in the Cost/Risk/Benefit - he would be an idiot if he thought that from "A shows advantages" followed that A would be preferable. And the Issue is that there is an epidemic of unrestrained lack of good sense.

jakear 4y ago

Worst of all is the Tesla backup sound. It's as if they hired some 20th century avant-garde musician to come up with the most jarring sound imaginable. That awful dystopian groan emanates through my house every day as my neighbors back into their driveway. Just use a nice sounding V8 recording I say. I'd prefer that any day of the week, and it's immediately identifiable as a car noise.

buffington 4y ago
I have a Model 3, and it's one of the ones that doesn't make sounds when backing up. Which also means no funny horn honk sounds and the like. At first I felt like I was missing out on a cool feature, but then heard the backup sound made by a newer Model 3 and felt like I got pretty lucky. To be fair, I've noticed that I have to be a lot more careful in parking lots when driving the Tesla. People just don't hear it, and will happily walk right down the middle of the lot not realizing they're blocking a car. I can't blame them either. I get to see a totally different kind of behavior when I drove my built-for-track-day STI. At low RPMs, its 430hp engine has you feeling the presence of the vehicle as much it has you hearing it. People are so obviously more aware of it than the Tesla when walking in parking lots.

buffington 4y ago

> mental damaged people I dislike bright LEDs at night, but not nearly as much as when people use terms like this as an insult. I'm sure you'll agree that people making poor choices isn't a sign of mental illness, and that by suggesting as such does harm to those who struggle with mental illness.

buffington 4y ago
I shouldn't be surprised anymore that people on the internet would down vote a comment like this, but I am. Seriously, what's the logic there? Someone has a problem with me taking issue with someone using "mental damaged people" as a way of describing people who make poor decisions? Try replacing "mental damaged people" with "gay people" or "brown people" or "millennials" or "old people" and see how you feel. Maybe it'll help make sense as to why "mental damaged people" is equally unacceptable. Imagine if I'd suggested that the parent commenter was "mental damaged"? I think most people would agree that would be out of line, and it absolutely would be, yet do we feel the same way when the parent commenter calls other people the same thing? Is it more acceptable because they're some ambiguous and faceless group of people with terrible headlight etiquette? People don't need to have a mental illness to make poor decisions. People do just fine without help. Suggesting that people with disruptive high beams are "mental damaged people" is harmful because it reinforces views that people with mental illnesses are "less than", or are stupid or not trustworthy, or scary. They're not. They're people we know and love, and they're often struggling to even admit that they need help. It's hard enough without also feeling like society will look down on you for something you didn't ask for and have little control over. It's also just incorrect. People who are not "mental damaged people" have headlights that are too bright and adjusted poorly. Note the first HN guideline for commenting says "Be kind,", and I think calling out harmful behavior counts. My motivation isn't to fire of zingers and get points and show how virtuous I am. It's because I love, live with, am related to, work with, and care for people in my life who struggle with mental illness. Odds are the parent commenter does too. Odds are that other readers do too. Calling out bad behavior that harms marginalized people and people with similar challenges might not be fun to be called out on, especially if it wasn't the intention, but might change how you communicate on the internet. That said, by calling out downvotes, I'm equally as guilty of not honoring the HN guidelines as the parent commenter. If readers choose to focus on that single violation, that's a choice they're free to make, though I'd encourage you to consider my arguments before making that choice.

selfmodruntime 4y ago

Yet the only real solution here can be found with regulation. You can‘t „free market“ people into non-blinding headlights.

mdp2021 4y ago
Yes, what I meant is, we have a problem. Last time somebody mentioned to me the "good times of the boundaries of good, common sense, largely represented in the Administration" - just nine hours ago.
pandaman 4y ago
Many cars have adaptive headlights, which can attenuate parts of the light field containing other cars ("matrix"/adaptive/glare-free etc lights). They have to be disabled in the US because it's against regulations. The hardware is there, it had been working in Europe for the past decade, it's just the regulators in the US don't care to update regulations from 1950s.

midoridensha 4y ago

Trucks have had reverse beepers for a very long time, because the drivers can't see behind them (though modern remote back-up cameras can fix this). Car drivers didn't need this because they had good visibility to the rear. These days, everyone is driving around in a gigantic off-road vehicle with terrible rear visibility, though again the back-up cameras mitigate this. As for common sense and regulators, decades ago it was considered perfectly fine and normal for people to not wear seatbelts, and to be regularly impaled on the steering column in a crash. Regulators eventually decided this wasn't good enough, but it took them a very long time. Seat belts were offered back in the early 60s I think, maybe 50s, but people didn't use them. Any idiot can tell that a seat belt keeps you from being impaled on the steering column, but obviously much of the population didn't have much common sense.

mdp2021 4y ago
> terrible rear visibility According to the weighs of some perspective, very little can be an excuse to turn all areas of anthropic presence into a gigantic constructions site. Because it makes it unlivable. > off-road vehicle with terrible rear visibility Save for the actually changed proportions, I know off-road vehicles with outstanding visibility, "normal roaders" with almost no rear visibility, and many vans have no rear windows at all (they only use side mirrors) since forever and still not having posed a problem. Is it possible that some measures follow the trend of "do something stupid to justify your salary by showing you have done something", in the intersection with "preserve life at all cost irregardless of the destruction of its quality"? > Any idiot can tell Although, an analysis cannot stop at "Points: pro" of the branch "case A", and a decisor (but not regulator) will only take guesses on the details unknown in the Cost/Risk/Benefit - he would be an idiot if he thought that from "A shows advantages" followed that A would be preferable. And the Issue is that there is an epidemic of unrestrained lack of good sense.