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

House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#71

Post by mrguyorama »

bluGill wrote: post #42
scotty79 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.

What makes you think the army will go along with it? Sure some will, but expect many soldiers will rebel.

They went along with Iraq despite knowing it was a lie.

"We knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction when we rolled up and didn't immediately get gassed"

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#72

Post by uriegas »

iamnothere wrote: post #39
newsoftheday wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.

Also, federal highways are partially a national security issue, and are designed for quickly moving military equipment across otherwise isolated areas. Guidelines for federal interstates are specified jointly with the DoD to ensure that military transport can fit under bridges, and that bridges can support their weight. Industry is the other most important user, while individual consumers/families are the least consi…

That is very interesting. It is funny to see how influential the federal government has been on society, infrastructure and other areas of life. Specially considering that some people opposed to it during the confederation period because they saw it as another centralized authority (anti-federalist papers).

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#74

Post by nilamo »

AngryData wrote: post #40
scotty79 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.

You really think the US government can bomb its own citizens with impunity and not completely destroy their own industrial base that makes bombing citizens possible? The US government would very quickly collapse. Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.

The US government has made it pretty clear that we're two countries. There's the USA, and "democratic-controlled cesspools". Dropping a bomb on Chicago isn't that nuts when you don't think of Chicago as part of your country.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#75

Post by lp0_on_fire »

iamnothere wrote: post #58
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.

Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population.

How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#76

Post by esalman »

boston_clone wrote: post #62
bhickey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wrote a memo saying they could.

not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...

Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#77

Post by ErroneousBosh »

horsawlarway wrote: post #27
iamnothere wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, buy a bike. AND buy an older (but maintainable) vehicle for hauling, transporting multiple people, and traveling long distances. It’s not either or.

Entirely this. I have a wonderful cargo bike (urban arrow - splurge purchase for my 35th birthday and second kid) - I use it for most in-city transportation tasks, including picking up kids from daycare/school, groceries, trips to restaurants, etc. I also have a 2011 truck with ~200k miles on it. It's well take care of, and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. It hauls stuff from home improvement stores, help fa…

I wish I had the use for a cargo bike. They're so cool.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#78

Post by ErroneousBosh »

tmaly wrote: post #69

Imagine driving in a remote road on a cold night, no cell signal, a deer crosses the road and you swerve to avoid it. The car thinks your drunk and kills the car. You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.

A bigger, real-world problem is that cars with lane-keeping assist will steer you back towards the deer.

Some of the earlier EVs I tried had lane-keeping assist so brutal that it was like trying to steer a car with a broken power steering pump belt, if it didn't want you to change lanes - genuinely dangerous.

The Kia EV I tried a few weeks ago just felt like it was tramlining a bit when I changed lanes without indicating (no real need to indicate, on a completely empty road).

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#79

Post by iamnothere »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #75
iamnothere wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.

Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population. How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?

That doesn’t mean that this isn’t true in a technical sense. It’s correct that it isn’t feasible for the majority of the population.

You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#80

Post by ErroneousBosh »

stonogo wrote: post #45
thangalin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's about it. Avid cyclist here. * Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance. * Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.) * Time Constraints: For those with…

Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make driving a car unsafe as well. Individuals with certain disabilities, chronic health conditions, or a plethora of age may also find driving impossible. For those with "trip-chaining" needs, extra time required for parking cars can be prohibitive. Old people don't like traffic and can escape and run away so fast you have to drive them back? And you're seriously inclu…

You do get the idea though, that just because bikes work for what you need to do, they won't necessarily work for what any other given person needs to do, right?

Also, why the hell have you got wireless derailleurs? What is the point? What possible advantage can they have over perfectly normal mechanical ones?

Post reply on HN