As essential as smoking ban. I won't be surprised to see this expanded to adult situations
People suck at driving enough as it is without driving one handed and distracted.
I’ve only been driving for a decade (although I’ve been paying attention to traffic for maybe 15 years?) and in the last ~4 years I’ve anecdotally noticed a very steep decline in general driving competence, across 3 provinces and 6 states. Not just distracted driving (poor reactions, unable to keep vehicles centred in lanes, etc), but unnecessarily aggressive driving (purposefully blocking merges, passing in dangerous conditions, etc), unnecessarily fearful driving (hugging the right of the lane, driving >20% below the speed limit/flow of traffic during busy times of day, braking unnecessarily early for stoplights that haven’t yet changed [or worse, for a stoplight that doesn’t apply], etc), and what I call “mindless driving” (camping the left lane while travelling well under the flow of traffic and/or speed limit with cars passing 20-40km/h faster on the right, changing lanes without checking it’s clear or even signalling, blowing through stop signs/crosswalks, not moving over or slowing down for emergency vehicles on the shoulder or approaching from behind, etc).
All of these things have been happening forever, but I’m certain they’re occurring more frequently now. I’ve had a dashcam in every vehicle I’ve owned, and I used to save clips of “idiots” every week or two when driving ~600km/week. These days I drive less than a third of that on average and I’m saving clips almost every time I drive somewhere. Just this past week, I’ve seen two near collisions involving school buses, 6 (!) cars changing >3 lanes in opposing directions simultaneously in and out of each other within 150m of multi-lane off ramp, an accessible school vehicle (wheelchair-equipped minivan for disabled students) pull out of a stopped lane into another lane in front of a car travelling at full speed (~80km/h, the posted speed limit) who had to swerve off the road to avoid it, a vehicle purposefully matching the speed of a vehicle trying to merge on the highway to prevent them from merging safely, and (my favourite) a pickup truck accelerating from ~105km/h to ~130km/h at full throttle (while previously camping the left lane of a two-lane freeway) to prevent me from moving over for a police car and ambulance stopped on the shoulder, partially in my lane, up ahead. All within ~450km (busier driving week than usual). And this isn’t a particularly notable time period, the last 2 years have been like this constantly.
Maybe I’m just noticing it more now, maybe it’s localized, but I’m very confident that drivers, in general, are worse now than they were even 4 years ago.
A concert would make sense though IMO.
It elevates the experience. Going back to the class thing [1], cell phone on the table or cell-phone use during dining is a noticeable thing between e.g. Michelin-starred restaurants and diners. (And I’m only counting N > 1 tables.)
For who? Not for the people who might want to use one, and for the people who get annoyed seeing someone else using one, that's their problem.
A lot of the people that might want to use one would in fact have a better experience if there was zero or minimal phone use at their table.
If I go on a date in a high end restaurant and hit it off with my date, I might want to show her something briefly or look up something, and we would both be on bored with it and having a good time.
In that case, the phone is enhancing the experience, not taking away from it.
That is why I said "a lot", not everyone.
Your "Nah." is not true, by your own argument.
> briefly
There is a reason I said "or minimal". That's minimal.
It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it.
Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people.
I said a lot. Not most.
> It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it.
You shouldn't push people to do things, but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time.
> Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people.
Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong?
It's not.
I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. People are wrong all the time. "A lot" of people being wrong about something is the default for most situations.
I'm not saying which specific people are wrong, that is beyond my abilities. I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it.
Edit: Also, you distracted me from the far more obvious answer, desires are complicated! Someone can want to use their phone and also want to avoid interruption. So they might have picked the same thing I would pick, zero "knowing better" involved.
Sigh. Do you find being pedantic like this productive, honestly? Fine, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption about a lot of people. Happy?
> but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time.
No, it isn't. This is purely your preference.
> Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong?
In this case dealing with subjective preferences it absolutely is, and you absolutely are.
> I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong.
Those topics would likely be far more objective in nature, as opposed to dealing with individual preferences as is the case here.
> I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it.
So make your argument instead of just insisting you're right. Let's see the evidence.
Cool, that's super easy to prove. Ignore dinners, go look at the science of addiction. I can link the Wikipedia page if you want, it's full of links to evidence.
Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. There's a ton of statements that are true of 5% of people but it would be ridiculous to suggest it's a majority.
No, I'm objecting to the idea that you think you know what people would enjoy more than they do themselves, for any amount of people barring maybe close friends and family. It's incredibly condescending.
> Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic.
It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment.
Are you calling me condescending, or wrong, or both? Both, it seems? But those are different arguments. Don't confuse the two.
When it comes to addiction, the evidence is clear that I am right.
In my opinion if it's both true and impersonal, then it's not condescending. And I'm being as impersonal and nonjudgemental as I can here. But if "condescending" is your only objection then good enough I made my point.
> It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment.
When you ignore the clarification, I worry you didn't see/understand/internalize it. The levels of proof are very different, so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page.
Even your reply here is condescending, good god.
I'm not confusing anything. You got it right the first time, I think yoru argument is wrong, AND it's condescending.
> When it comes to addiction, the evidence is clear that I am right.
The problem is you making the assumption that people wanting to use their phone at a restaurant are suffering from addition.
That's the claim you need to support.
> so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page.
Yes, I'm sure that was the reason.
Because you keep phrasing things as if wrong and condescending are the same, and it makes it annoying to respond to your claims.
> The problem is you making the assumption that people wanting to use their phone at a restaurant are suffering from addition.
> That's the claim you need to support.
I don't need to cite phone studies when I can counter your main argument.
You made an extremely general argument that I'm wrong if I say any preferences a bunch of people have are making them unhappy. I made extra sure you were doubling down and making a claim so strong.
And addiction disproves it.
If you want to go back to just dinner, you need to make a new argument that isn't entirely based on whether you think I'm condescending. And at this point I don't have much patience or belief you'll actually listen to me.
If you do want to agree with me that yes lots of people have immediate preferences that make them unhappy after a few hours, but you think phones at dinner are an exception to that, then I guess we could talk about why you think that, and I'm open to hearing why.
But any argument that says people are always right about what they want? Nah.
I don't think I need to build a ground-up argument that only applies to phones. It's an instance of a more general problem: people are not always good at planning and impulses. If you object to the general argument, then I only need to disprove your objection.
> Yes, I'm sure that was the reason.
If you won't believe me then there's not much I can do, but it's true. I've had people ignore a critical part of my argument over and over. If someone misquotes me, I will point it out.
By the way, do you have a reason you kept misquoting my argument? I feel like you should have to defend that instead just attacking me for correcting you.
No, that's purely an issue with your interpretation. Drop your assumptions and look at it more objectively, if you can.
> Right now, the best way to support it is to counter your claim.
My claim is that your claim is wrong, lol. Don't try this slippery snakeoil salesman crap, please.
You're making the claim that "a lot" of people would enjoy their food better if they didn't have their phones with them, or were not allowed to use them. I'm sure you'll be pedantic and correct this, but regardless of your reply that's the general point you've made.
The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption.
For your claim to hold water, you can't just assume addiction, you need to prove addiction, since that's the foundation of your claim.
> I made extra sure you were doubling down
I'm not doubling down on anything. I'm simply telling you your assumptions are unfounded and that you are wrong AND condescending to assume so. I really hope emphasizing that 'and' helped assuage your confusion on that point.
> If you do want to agree with me that yes lots of people have immediate preferences that make them unhappy after a few hours
That wasn't your claim, and it's disingenuous to make it more abstract to try and defend it. It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version.
> It's an instance of a more general problem: people are not always good at planning and impulses.
There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume. Have you considered you're an outlier in a way that has nothing to do with addiction?
> By the way, do you have a reason you kept misquoting my argument? I feel like you should have to defend that instead just attacking me for correcting you.
It wasn't deliberate or malicious, it was just because I was typing instead of copying and pasting. As far as my argument is concerned, the quantity difference between 'most' and 'a lot' is irrelevant - the issue is you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers, regardless of if that group is "a lot" of people or most people.
Correct.
> The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption.
Incorrect. The basis of my claim is that people are often wrong about what will make them happy.
Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong.
> It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version.
1. Your argument was not phone specific, so I asked if you were making the general claim, and you confirmed it as far as I could tell.
2. Fine, let's start over. Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument?
> There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume.
See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument.
I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones
> you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers
If the group is everyone keeping phones out, then no I'm not.
If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct.
> Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong.
In this specific instance, of using phones at restaurants, you seemed to think people could not go without them due to addiction. Are you saying that was not your position?
> Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument?
Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in.
In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point?
> See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument.
What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to?
> I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones
In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1.
> If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct.
I guess it depends on how much you consider a lot. I'll grant it is correct for 'some' just on the basis of variations that exist, but I'm not sure I agree with it being true for a lot.
---
Unrelated, what are you using if anything to get reply notifications so fast? Are you just manually refreshing?
Correct. I only brought up addiction after I thought we moved to the general argument, because it's so easy and objective. If we stayed with phones I probably wouldn't have mentioned addiction.
> Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in.
It will change some, but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation, that can only change so much. If it's not true for phones at dinner then that sounds like it has to be an exception.
> In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point?
I think that's fair, but I'd replace "have their phones with them" with something like "use their phones for more than a minute or so per hour".
> What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to?
0.1% is still a million people. I think that has a good chance of qualifying?
But I would bet the number is >5%. If it's 5% that's definitely enough for me to count it as a lot of people.
> In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1.
If those odds work the other way around and 10% of people would be happier without phones, then I would take that as very strong validation of my position.
I think it can change significantly. The devil is in the details in this case.
> but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation,v
If it's a general idea though, as in you are generalizing, that would mean you are talking about 'most', and not 'some' or 'a lot'.
Ah, I can clarify that.
The vast majority of people aren't very good at avoiding temptation.
But when we look at the choices people make, "avoid temptation" is not a universal correct answer. I'm not suggesting people be ascetic monks.
So if we look at people facing some tempting choice, I might estimate that 99% of them are generically bad at resisting, but of the people that give in only 10% of them are actually making a mistake.
Just luck. I refresh more often right after commenting but otherwise it's erratic between a few refreshes an hour and several hours between refreshes.
https://kwatch.io/monitoring-keywords-hacker-news-kwatch
You can give it the URL of a specific post or comment and it will notify you when new comments are made in the thread.
I hope it is useful.
It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. If they don't think about X they wouldn't even know to change it or try something else.
Truly, you don't know something until you try it. If you never try it you just don't know. At least for most things, some things are obvious.
Also, there's arguments about phones being addictive. That changes things a lot.
Strongly disagree.
> It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X.
You're making the same mistake the other fellow is; you're assuming the other people haven't considered x, when they likely have.
I'm not making the mistake of thinking they didn't consider it. I think every human is bad at considering.
But it's also true that a lot of them really haven't considered it.
I’ve been to several wedding ceremonies of somewhat large size where no one took their phones out, and certainly not for photos.
Did trust in society hit a new low while I wasn’t looking?
No, no, no. A device in a (near-)stranger’s unsupervised physical possession for hours is a compromised device. No.
But at the same time this sort of thing would also make me kinda annoyed (as I have no problem, generally, keeping my phone in my pocket, on silent, when having it out is inappropriate0.
It's unlikely there will be state actors at this wedding or whatever ready to open up your phone and swap out a chip.