71–80 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I owned cars, they were always pretty old, and it was an endless job replacing various parts as they wore out. These days, I just walk, it's faster.
Thanks for the WEF spam! Any more great tips?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I owned cars, they were always pretty old, and it was an endless job replacing various parts as they wore out. These days, I just walk, it's faster.
Your cars must have been pretty old if they're slower than walking!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the biggest reason why I have zero interest in owning a new car.
Public transit for the win!
So, bike for the win!
Which, to be honest, isn't a huge lifestyle change for me anyway. I own and use a car when needed, but the bike is my primary transportation. It's faster, more convenient, and more pleasant under most circumstances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but why should a person be allowed to maintain use of an item they don’t own and are delinquent on? The unpopular part is that this just removes some friction from an already existing process. This is assuming there are the appropriate regulations in place to notify and give a reasonable option to rectify the payment issue, but isn’t this exactly how we deal with stuff fr…
> isn’t this exactly how we deal with stuff from homes to furniture? Repossession is how we deal with these situations. We don't have recliners that lose the ability to recline if a bank payment doesn't go through on time. Or smart homes that lock you out if your mortgage payment is late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but why should a person be allowed to maintain use of an item they don’t own and are delinquent on? The unpopular part is that this just removes some friction from an already existing process. This is assuming there are the appropriate regulations in place to notify and give a reasonable option to rectify the payment issue, but isn’t this exactly how we deal with stuff fr…
There's an inherent fundamental creepy grossness to punishing someone for misbehavior by pushing a button from afar. If we had an all pervasive surveillance system that instantly reported any crime it would be bad for the same reason. A world where power is wielded opaquely by distant controllers in a unilateral and instantaneous manner is not a world we want to live in, and it cultivates an even worse world the long…
However, the current situation isn't much different. It's not the bank manager coming down to evict you or repossess your car. They distance themselves by outsourcing the enforcement through third parties like repo companies and sheriffs. This doesn't create the type of accountability you seem to want and makes it easier for banks to wield their power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It removes the risk of a human getting hurt or injured. I can't be the only one that's seen repos gone bad. I'm not talking about that dumb, scripted _reality_ show either
The human getting hurt or injured is a necessary evil against abuse and puts a limit on how unreasonable or petty the lender can be (as the risk of repos is ultimately baked into the commission charged by the goons, thus not making it profitable to repo for minor things). Same reason why people are generally much more civil in real life than online - the risk of being punched in the face keeps everyone in check and a…
Does a marriage contract bear the risk of injury? How about a business merger?
This is weird logic that belies a desire for vengeance, not justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but why should a person be allowed to maintain use of an item they don’t own and are delinquent on? The unpopular part is that this just removes some friction from an already existing process. This is assuming there are the appropriate regulations in place to notify and give a reasonable option to rectify the payment issue, but isn’t this exactly how we deal with stuff fr…
> I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but why should a person be allowed to maintain use of an item they don’t own and are delinquent on? > an item they don’t own That's the problem, you don't own anything. We're already quickly moving into a future where cars you "buy" have random features locked behind yearly subscriptions that can be remotely disabled if you don't pay, the only reason you can even still…
Ford sued in death of individual after A/C was shut off during a heat wave
Depending on which features may be affected, many different things could have drastic effects. The A/C shutting off is just one example. Another may be losing your map navigation at 2-3AM while driving through the south side of Chicago (or the dangerous areas of some other city). There are probably many different types of features that, during some edge case, could put a life at risk. And, if that life is lost, both Ford and the leasing company may be considered at fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public transit for the win!
I wish. Public transit exists here (our system even wins national awards), but it's terrible. To commute to work, for instance, would take over an hour, but I can bike the distance in under 20 minutes. So, bike for the win! Which, to be honest, isn't a huge lifestyle change for me anyway. I own and use a car when needed, but the bike is my primary transportation. It's faster, more convenient, and more pleasant under…