maym86

Sure. Was just trying to solve the problem while keeping the same experience, which some automotive manufacturers must think is worth providing to customers.

Maybe you could stop this attack by having an IMU in the key so it only broadcasts the unlock signal while it's being held/moved.

No that's not ok either. That was not said or implied in the post you are quoting.

Do you actually expect that? I expect them to just ignore it or respond with some excuse or reason why they won't pay.

Right. We already draw lines.

The following wouldn't be a strong argument for removing the laws against robbery:

What if I accidentally get accused of robbery because I pick up someone's belonging to return it to them when they had left it somewhere.

I would rather have robbery laws and deal with these cases as they arise than not have robbery laws at all. Same goes for harrasment.

What makes you say that it isn't possible?

> Someone talking about a political opinion making me feel "unsafe" is a stretch... the speech you are arguing in defense of is not an exchange of ideas, it's threatening and bordering on sexual violence.

People don't follow people through streets decrying "oh baby do you know about the 1st amendment". This isn't a big problem.

Anyone making this about political speech is not arguing the actual issue of harrasment. Derailing the conversation to discuss some imagined "what if" scenario that isn't real.

If these laws were used to stop legitimate protest then that would be a problem but that isn't even close to happening in France where people protest as a national past time.

Right, other taxes could be better implemented too.

This is wrong. Tax is already tiered by income so people in lower brackets pay less for roads right now and richer people pay more.

By narrowing the focus to people who have to drive on the roads and doing it in a flat way using tolls will hurt poor people the most if they have to drive to work. Having to drive to and from a job at a certain time is relatively inelastic especially for lower paying service jobs.

With tolls the same money will be spread over fewer people in a flatter way.

Yep. Toll roads hit poorer people harder. Maybe there could be a credit limit that everyone (or just people of lesser means) gets by default and you only pay when you start going over it.

Or maybe just build better public transportation.

The title:

> Nearly Half of Americans Are Lonely

Vs the actual result of the study:

> 46% of Americans report sometimes or always feeling alone

I would have thought everyone feels lonely sometimes and I'm more suprised it is not higher. The title is clickbate.

This is great. I wonder if the EU can write a law to allow us to see what adverts are being served to which audiences on platforms like Facebook and Google. More transparency please.

It gets abused.

https://youtu.be/iQBjhZtLtRk

If you are accidentaly doing something wrong and you find out you will hopefully apologise and change your behavior.

All the big metoo cases, for example, are not people who didn't know. They are people who were activly predatory over many years. The accidents aren't what are being targeted here. It's mostly men activley and knowingly abusing the fact that they can get away with it.

Fair point. Thanks. Enforcement of basic rules helps keep things civil everywhere.

The video depicts an example where no one needed to pull out their phone to catch the incident. That was the point.

If someone is following you down the street and shouting sexual comments at you the whole way, even after you let them know that you want them to leave you alone, is the person receiving the comments just being offended? If this person does this every time a person passes how should they be dealt with? Genuine question for someone coming from your POV. This kind of stuff happens daily.

If someone is screaming "you claim that men tend to be physically stronger than women" over and over again while you walk alone along a road and you tell them to leave you alone but they keep doing it louder and closer to you than before, deliberatly targeting you, does it matter if it's factually accurate?

Right. OP describing a situation where everyone was happy isn't really a good starting point for a discussion of harrasment. There are many of examples of real clear cases (see video in article) why not start the discussion there rather than with a situation he imagined might happen.

I've never yelled sexual comments at people in the street? Have you?

No the biggest problem is men actively harrasing women because they can easily get away with it. Ask any woman you know about their experiences some time.

Did you watch the video in the article?

If there's no evidence there won't be a fine.

Exactly. I always get confused when people say they have trouble understanding the line. It's really pretty easy to not harras other people.

> If you greet someone and smile, and they interpret your greeting or your smile as sinister, does this law make you a criminal?

No that's not harrasment. You're reducing a clear issue that women face daily to your concern about being falsly accused over a smile.

https://youtu.be/b1XGPvbWn0A

Seems reasonable when the evidence is clear. This is too common. People should be able to walk around their own neighborhood and feel comfortable and safe. Awaiting replies from the free speech brigade to explain again why taking a reasonable small step to protect people is the end of the world.

I doubt they'll find out and even if they do I doubt they'll go to the effort and expense given the how few people will likely use a site like this vs the numbers of people traveling through an airport.

Even if they all do add some other security then it's just like going back to a time before this site so no great loss. The alternative is to not share the passwords on this site which is effectively the same to anyone trying to get on the wifi for free.

Requiments change based on availability of labour and is not entirely related to the difficulty of the job.

The exact same type of jobs often have different requirements year-to-year. Recruiters start adding or removing requiments based on how easy it is to find people for a role. It just acts as a filter but is often unrelated to the actual difficulty of the role.

Recruiters don't want to have to judge people entirely on merit as it is hard. They pre-filter the pool to focus their search and make it easier to manage and vary the constraints based on number of applicants.

This means people perfectly capable of doing a job get excluded for a superficial reason other than ability or competence and it overly effects people from a poorer background.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

Large companies spend millions lobbying to keep it that way. It's not a accident that it's legal. They're not just innocently taking advantage of loopholes that just happen to be there. They help create them and keep then that way at the normal tax payers expense.

> Apple doesn't make money to support governments.

Apple doesn't make money to support society and pay for the social infrastructure it uses to help it be successful.

FTFY

Large companies spend millions lobbying to keep it that way. It's not a accident that it's legal. They're not just innocently taking advantage of loopholes that just happen to be there. They help create them and keep then that way at the normal tax payers expense.