4 ms·
Yeah except the tones and walk messages still play, it just doesn't spam wait over and over at a red. Do you think because it's playing a satirical message blin
by streetmeat 2y ago
Yeah except the tones and walk messages still play, it just doesn't spam wait over and over at a red. Do you think because it's playing a satirical message blind people will ignore the tones and just start running into traffic?
- relistan 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- streetmeat 2y agoI stand corrected I didn't read it properly.
- dboreham 1y agoSeems like: yes because the hacked message could say "cross quick right now".
- googlryas 1y agoWhy does it spam wait over and over? Have you considered that there's a reason?
- yellowapple 1y agoI don't think it even does spam "wait" over and over; I've never heard that in my life. With every such crosswalk I've encountered (in multiple cities across the US) it only says "wait" for each time you press the button.
- renewiltord 1y ago[flagged]
- googlryas 1y agoWhy are you calling me out for asking why it does a thing that OP claimed it did? (You don't need to answer, I know exactly why - because you agree with OPs viewpoint and disagree with mine)
- renewiltord 1y agoHaha I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way. Apart from that you can argue about programmable speakers all you like.
- googlryas 1y agoWho explained why a thing was a certain way, but then the thing was not that actually way? Sorry, I have a pet peeve about poor reading comprehension.
- Dylan16807 1y agoThey're annoyed at your "Have you considered that there's a reason?" for strongly implying there's an explanation for the incorrect fact. They dislike that whole type of statement. Their reading comprehension is fine and you're just nitpicking their wording. Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your original comment had stopped after the first sentence then you would have gotten a very different response.
- googlryas 1y agoWow, your edit of your post is completely different from your original message - "You asked why it spams wait over and over. But it doesn't. That's the incorrect claim." Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension? > They said they dislike the person that says to explain an incorrect fact. No, they said - literally - 'I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way'. Your reading is not what they said. I'm sorry but you're batting .000 here. > You're the one that said to explain an incorrect fact. A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"? edit: Dude, you've edited your post at least 4 times in the past 12 minutes, all of your posts being drastically different points, so I'm not sure which one I should respond to. I think I've responded to your 2nd edit, which I've essentially quoted in entirety as I saw it on my screen. Your current post is equally as ridiculous, but it isn't clear to me that I should spend any time on it if you are just going to edit it to be a completely different point again.