Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

blog.dataparty.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#151

Post by survirtual »

throw10920 wrote: post #145
survirtual wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct. The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. People seem to have a distorted view on what freedom means. If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. Localities which decide -- for what ever reas…

> The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. Correct, and there's a way to do that: by contacting your local transportation department and/or representatives. > The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. I don't know where you live, but in the US we have these things called "elections" where you c…

[flagged]

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#152

Post by survirtual »

throw10920 wrote: post #144
genman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not accepting the given speed limit is a form of voting against said speed limit (especially when done en masse). Yes, it is not formal, but it is voting nonetheless. If the system was really democratic and not tyrannical then it would take it into account and would not resort to more control and punishment.

You are incorrect. "Voting", by definition, involves a formal set of rules designed to best measure the preferences of voters. "Not accepting the speed limit" is illegal, dangerous, kills the environment, and does not have any sort of formal rules or any sort of mechanism for measuring consensus. It's extremely undemocratic.

[flagged]

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#153

Post by amatecha »

trelane wrote: post #130
amatecha wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Why can't people in NA follow this basic, simple protocol? It makes driving so much easier in every way. Need to slow down because your turn is coming? No problem, move over to the right. Want to actually get somewhere sometime today? Pass and then return to the lane you were in. It's so easy! Imagine actually having protocols around traffic flow, and following them! Just wait until you hear about roundabo…

> Need to slow down because your turn is coming? No problem, move over to the right. That's the wrong approach for a left turn. > Imagine actually having protocols around traffic flow, and following them! Like limits on the magnitude of vehicular velocity?

I knew someone would respond to the "move over to the right". Yes, it doesn't apply to every single situation. In general, though, particularly for highway driving, it's a system that works well.

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#154

Post by amatecha »

xvilka wrote: post #113
amatecha wrote: post #88

Ooohh the software[0] runs on Ubuntu and optionally uses a GPS receiver... I happen to have a computer with such a receiver - a Panasonic ToughBook CF-31, which happens to have been formerly used by local LE (they all have them mounted in their cars). Would be pretty hilarious to use one of their old laptops to "snoop unto them as they snoop unto us", right? hahah ;) [0] https://github.com/datapartyjs/rfparty-monitor

JavaScript... Unusual choice of language for the RF tool.

How so? It's a really obvious approach these days. Doing it this way provides a web-accessible front-end and the actual hardware may be something compact like a tablet, phone, headless SBC, etc. (whatever can provide BT and promisc. wifi basically)

The web offers a fairly universal cross-platform, network-accessible GUI that can be developed with really high-level languages which happen to offer tooling that includes an extremely-empowering degree of readily-available utility libraries. What other language or ecosystem is as easy and broadly-accessible?

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#155

Post by syntheticcorp »

zbrozek wrote: post #118
brobinson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a 23 minute video that is 21mb. The video quality is (intentionally?) extremely low.

It's definitely a playback issue. VLC is rendering it incorrectly while Firefox is handling the same file just fine (albeit with the expected low quality for the file size).

It’s a vlc issue with h265 - I actually noticed this with videos from defcon last year. Pull the YouTube version or reencode to h264 to fix.

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#156

Post by is_true »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #150
is_true wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can brake with the engine (clutch)

Does it? I never seen that. Usually even a slight downhill causes my CC to just not control the speed.

I drive a toyota that does, you can hear the engine revving. I also drive a ford with a powershift (or powershit) and it only disengages the clutch

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#157

Post by lib-dev »

jeffbee wrote: post #87
lib-dev wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50 up 85 down is the natural way to drive. It’s a waste of fuel to brake downhill (beyond reason).

Solid argument for outlawing fossil fuels.

Right. But let’s make sure there’s a replacement first.

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#158

Post by trelane »

amatecha wrote: post #153
trelane wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Need to slow down because your turn is coming? No problem, move over to the right. That's the wrong approach for a left turn. > Imagine actually having protocols around traffic flow, and following them! Like limits on the magnitude of vehicular velocity?

I knew someone would respond to the "move over to the right". Yes, it doesn't apply to every single situation. In general, though, particularly for highway driving, it's a system that works well.

> In general, though, particularly for highway driving, it's a system that works well.

That depends on the highway. If it's a limited access motorway, like the interstates, Autobahn, or M-class then sure. Perhaps not coincidentally, that is where the right lane rule you propose is mandated.

Otherwise, it fails often. Reality is messy.

If you truly want to make the roads safer, follow the posted speed limits. (Energy follows the square of the speed.) Also, always ensure you leave enough room to stop (the "2 second rule").

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#159

Post by jstarfish »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #2

I always wanted something to watch where their unmarked cars are. Speed traps are the worst.

After all the $300 radar and laser detectors that don't work quick enough, Waze has been the most effective solution for this. Nothing beats crowdsourced callouts.

Re: Snoop unto them as they snoop unto you

#160

Post by amatecha »

trelane wrote: post #158
amatecha wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone would respond to the "move over to the right". Yes, it doesn't apply to every single situation. In general, though, particularly for highway driving, it's a system that works well.

> In general, though, particularly for highway driving, it's a system that works well. That depends on the highway. If it's a limited access motorway, like the interstates, Autobahn, or M-class then sure. Perhaps not coincidentally, that is where the right lane rule you propose is mandated. Otherwise, it fails often. Reality is messy. If you truly want to make the roads safer, follow the posted speed limits. (Energy…

I've driven many tens of thousands of kilometers throughout close to 20 countries in Europe, and multiple hundred thousand kilometers here in Canada, and have yet to find a multi-lane highway where "keep right except to pass" doesn't make total sense and work well. As traffic gets congested everyone naturally relaxes adherence to that policy since it's not realistic to uphold in all conditions. I mean, if you have citations that support the argument that it "fails often" I'm all ears, but my lived experience with this highway protocol has been universally positive.

I observed that it especially works best in concert with a rule that people entering/merging from the right have the right-of-way, since this reduces uncertainty around "who will go?" that I often witness here in NA (where "keep right to except to pass" is merely a suggestion, or not enforced even if enshrined in law).

Regarding speed limit, I'm not arguing against speed limits or adhering to them, and indeed the more consistent the speed of traffic, the safer it is. On that note, my observation is that simply adhering to the speed limit (and attempting to stay at that speed) means regularly passing vehicles -- that is, in most cases, people are indeed following speed limits and a "keep right except to pass" policy correlates well with maintaining consistent speed and flow of traffic. People who want to drive slower can stick to the right lane without any hassle or problem (it's accepted and normal for them to drive slow there), and those who are driving faster can safely pass and then return to that right lane. If there are deep flaws in this process, I'm absolutely not seeing them and have not observed them.

(yes, of course, the "two-second" rule makes sense and is a minimum IMO - I imagine if more people followed this, crashes would be massively reduced)

Post reply on HN