91–100 of 460 posts
[flagged]
They bought a president. That's not nothing.
I'd love to see some sort of multiple regression or ANOVA on this, instead of singling out a single variable. Is car brand really the best independent predictor? Or is it specific design decisions you tend to see in certain brands? (Like, say, maximizing driver distraction by consolidating a bunch of essential controls and information displays into a touchscreen display that's really difficult to operate when it's su…
In the case of Tesla - and I cannot overstress enough how much lf this is purely subjective conjecture on my part and not a statement of fact - the image cultivated by the company and its Chief Executive is very much one of rejecting norms and expectations, fierce independence, and a hostility towards others (mostly from the Cybertruck unveiling onward). The people who relate to that brand would, I would think, be more likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to use indicators for turns or merges, and drive more aggressively than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience (like Hondas and Toyotas). My purely subjective experiences bear this out, and I’m consistently rewarded giving Teslas a wider berth on the roads.
So as far as branding as an indicator of outcome, yeah, I can totally see that being a reliable indicator. I’d still be darn curious to see more research about it, though.
I thoroughyl expect the Deparment of Government Efficiency to recommend U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) be shut down to save previous taxpayer dollars.
These next 4 years will be a hoot and holler...
So let's see if a Trump with total immunity will really leave gracefully this time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other words, unless they controlled for this… Explain to me why you would want to filter out fatalities caused by going “real fast”?
Because comparing the fatality rate of a Corolla going 50mph and a Tesla going 90mph is useless to a person who wants a car that is safe when driven responsibly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people would be happy to use it if it was convenient and reliable. I live in NYC and haven’t had to drive to/from work in over a decade. I consider the subway ride a vast, vast improvement over driving… but only when the subway works right.
The vast majority of people I talk to, including myself, don't use public transportation for: 1. Time. For example, my commute is 25 minutes, but 2 hours ride and three mile walk by public transport. 2. Safety, intimately tied to the homeless problem. 3. Cleanliness. In my experience, related to #2, and the fact that government institutions are incapable of caring about user experience, because they get funding regar…
As for safety, you’re orders of magnitude more likely to get into a car crash than have anything happen to you on the NYC subway. Yes, incidents happen but they’re dramatically inflated in the public consciousness.
Your objection (and most of the others I see) aren’t objections to the fundamental nature of public transit, rather they’re objections to shit public transit or to urban life in general (whole lotta city car parks that aren’t clean!). Which is entirely understandable. But there are plenty of examples of functional public transit serving millions of people in cities across the world. Those people aren’t all secretly wishing they were in a car.
I'd love to see some sort of multiple regression or ANOVA on this, instead of singling out a single variable. Is car brand really the best independent predictor? Or is it specific design decisions you tend to see in certain brands? (Like, say, maximizing driver distraction by consolidating a bunch of essential controls and information displays into a touchscreen display that's really difficult to operate when it's su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure. Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all. It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.
> It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I just want like... to not be stacked like a sardine for $3500/mo. I would gladly take a rural lifestyle if I could find a job that would support it.
There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-like, even), a setup with tons of small shops, pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.
Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb you'd never have access to those, just your limited backyard.
But most places will never have that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet. People who aren't in and do not desire an actual rural lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don't want a condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a small yard, and a standalone…
Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)