3 ms·
We'll end up banning windows at this rate, they're an egregious vulnerability in cars and buildings alike. American cities, soft on crime, can't stop thieves f
by lupusreal 3y ago
We'll end up banning windows at this rate, they're an egregious vulnerability in cars and buildings alike. American cities, soft on crime, can't stop thieves from breaking windows so maybe they'll go after car manufacturers and construction firms instead. Going after companies instead of criminals is more aligned with their left-wing sensibilities, I think that's what this is really about.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThat's not what egregious means.
- fargle 3y agoyeah it kinda is
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo. Windows balance a variety of competing needs - security, ventilation, egress during emergencies, mental health, lighting, etc. It would be, perhaps, egregiously negligent for a maximum security prison architect to install large plate glass windows in their cells, but having windows isn't automatically egregious. A car without windows (or with unbreakable ones) is a deathtrap in an accident; omitting them would be egregiously dangerous. The same isn't true for, say, Kia/Hyundai's decision not to include immobilizers: https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-canada-not-affected-by-u-s-theft-issue-automakers-say-1.6252590 https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can... > CNN reported that only 26 per cent of Hyundai and Kia models from 2015 to 2019 were equipped with electronic immobilizers in the U.S., compared with 96 per cent of all other vehicles in those years, making the Hyundai and Kia models roughly twice as likely to be stolen. Those stats make it pretty clear that immobilization was already the industry standard. Skipping them was like knowingly writing open SQL injection holes in a web application.
- lupusreal 3y agoEgregious is subjective. You think it's egregious for cars to have locks which can be circumvented by thieves. Maybe I think it's egregious that construction firms don't install iron bars on all ground floor windows.
- ceejayoz 3y agohttps://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-canada-not-affected-by-u-s-theft-issue-automakers-say-1.6252590 https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can... > CNN reported that only 26 per cent of Hyundai and Kia models from 2015 to 2019 were equipped with electronic immobilizers in the U.S., compared with 96 per cent of all other vehicles in those years, making the Hyundai and Kia models roughly twice as likely to be stolen. If 96% of buildings in a neighborhood have iron bars over the ground floor windows, and you build a development in which only 26% of them do, yes... that's probably negligent, unless there are other factors to explain the discrepancy. If theives start disproportionately breaking into your development's properties, your tenants can probably be a bit miffed about your lack of security measures.
- fargle 3y agodude, he was being facetious on purpose and used the term as a synonym to "shocking" to make the point that having windows are not really an egregious vulnerability. that's silly. the problem is criminals, not windows.
- Ekaros 3y agoSeems reasonable. Doors, windows, walls, roofs and sub-basements should be such that you cannot simply pass through them. After all it is now quite trivial to break through. And surely this is failure that builders should be responsible for.
- sokoloff 3y agoI genuinely cannot tell if this (specifically the last line) is satirical or not.
- electriclove 3y agoExactly! Those greedy builder corporations should only offer windows that have bars built into them so that homes can't get broken into. They save money by not incorporating the bars in the windows by default.