nguoi

I don't know anything about the 401k system, but the money going into my pension is from my gross salary. Combined with high taxation, it means that it's worth up to twice as much going into my pension as it would be going into my bank account.

SIPPs are beyond my lifestyle.

There's no magic financial effect that makes the money going into a DB scheme worth more. The money has to come from somewhere and, in these cases, it's from companies that underestimated or ignored what the future costs would be.

It also incentivises propping up old, failing companies at the expense of the newer, innovative ones that would replace them in a healthy economy. For the same effect, get everyone to invest their entire private pension into their final employer.

>It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking.

It's not from being hit by cyclists.

>This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long

Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates.

>Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?

After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely. People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education. On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me. This thread assumes that exists, yet assumes the same doesn't exist for anyone who dies in a car crash. Why don't you wear a helmet when in a car?

Infrastructure doesn't improve where I am because the nasty, tribalist rhetoric swipes any safety issues under the rug by assuming cyclist fault. You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves, thus categorising them in a tribe separate from your own. But I'm not separate from you: I'm a driver, too. Yet when I'm in a car with someone and they see a driver do something foolish, I never hear them call 'drivers' idiots, it's always about the singular person. The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important.

(And the foolish things happen multiple times a day - I can guarantee I'll see someone speed when I drive home tonight)

Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. An impression I get every time someone punish-passes me, or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path. And it's so tiring to be told it's my fault when I know how often I see people fail to obey the laws of the road at my expense.

Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people.

Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports.

Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.

Well if you're hit while lane splitting, it's because someone didn't indicate or look

Why shouldn't the other road users expect you to break the law?

The list of potential actions another road user can do includes malicious punishment passing, failing to stop behind you, and intentional collisions. There is nothing the rider can do to stop these without stopping riding altogether. You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you.

At some point, you have to trust others to obey the rules of the road. An article like this is not zero-sum, it doesn't have to make your riding any less defensive.

What you deserve and what you are at fault for are not the same thing. Fault is a legal concept - as you said, by definition - of who is responsible for the outcome. But that doesn't mean that breaking the law means you deserve broken bones and misery: things you deserve are things you should be rewarded with or punished by for an action. If you deserved it, the punishment for illegal lane splitting (or an equivalent crime, like speeding) would be for the police to take a baton to your knees.

After jumping to blaming the rider, you graciously accepted you were wrong about the law in some jurisdictions. Unfortunately, you then continued trying to blame the rider without taking the lesson that you may not be aware of what's safest for a bike rider to do. The only explanation I see for this is that you place people on bikes in a different mental tribe to your own.

And that's how people usually react when someone is hit on 2 wheeled vehicle: trying to find a reason the rider deserved it.

It's built into the language of articles about crashes too. You'll see 'it is not known if the rider was wearing a helmet'[1] without any similar remarks about the driver of the car. Or the oxymoronic 'police are still investigating the accident'[2].

[1] I wrote this, then searched to find an example. Here: https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/2018/05/vehicle_crashes_i...

[2] As above. No action being taken, yet they know it's an accident. Written 2 hours ago. https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/burton-bridge-crash-...

I've worked minimum wage jobs like that. Yet it was at my last, professional job that overwork and pressure to travel in unsafe conditions led to me crashing my car into a tree and almost dying.

Get off your high horse.

There still is. Nuclear disarmament is going backwards.

I think I remember a similar statistic about most people during the cold war believing humanity would soon be extinct but I can't find anything about it.

Threat modelling. In most models, if someone has uninterrupted physical access to a device, it's theirs.

Phones are more important in that you want to protect the assets from thieves, so we do add non-destructive physical access to our scope, but it's with a higher bug-bar. Someone being able to take your phone, compromise it, then give it back to you so you can input new assets means that a vulnerability has to be severe to be as important as a minor remote vulnerability.

>usefulness of a hatchback

i.e. very? They've sold millions of them, that's not for the track performance.

I'm impressed that it's only slightly higher than 1/3rd of the 2920X's TDP for the same number of similar cores. That doesn't feel like a normal jump whether it's massaged by marketing or not.

Most people won't undervolt, so the heatsink manufacturers won't pander to those who do. You're also limited to the manufacturer's bounds for undervolting before you're in unstable, warranty-breaking territory.

Handling doesn't matter in city commuting. People also seem happy to buy SUVs and crossovers which have much higher centres of mass than hatchbacks.

The last mass extinction event caused by an asteroid was probably only about 66 Mya, about 1% of the Earth's lifetime.

Good jokes are.

I notice some jokes, especially on Facebook etc., where the punchline is far too early and it feels like they're obnoxiously drilling the joke home. It's also the same when you have someone make a reference in a comment thread, then the next person continues the reference with less subtlety.

I imagine most voters do not read proposed bills in their own language as it stands, instead relying on reporters' summaries as they would for foreign language versions.

Vertical integration of the OS and kernel means that users can use the UI to respond to running out of memory where Linux just kills using heuristics.

I've heard of other things but don't know enough to verify them.

I'm open to the concept but not where this article takes it.

Registry backups shouldn't be expected to be any easier with a different kernel. In fact, if anything it will introduce a lot more bugs, even just from programs that rely on kernel bugs.

There's no reason to believe NT is any less 'fresh' than Linux. It undoubtedly does some things better. Even as a Linux user, throwing that away would seem a massive shame.

While basing Windows on Linux may make some development easier, it also throws away the unique proposition that Windows provides.

It would take a lot of internal motivation to overcome the people who founded their careers on building an operating system for Microsoft.

I did read it, much as I read the guidelines for this website.

SJW is not an antonym of hacker. Whatever hacker culture's norm is, breaking work relationships and censorship for someone's words or actions is much older than hacker culture and is done my many more groups than 2010s American Democrat voters. Consider 1984, or Mary Whitehouse.

This has nothing to do with 'SJWs' unless you're implying that 'statutory rape is bad' is a political stance of the far-left. I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.

It's a shame English doesn't distinguish between non-inclusive-we (the writer and the writer's peers) and inclusive-we (the reader, the writer and the writer's peers).

Non-inclusive-we 'need' it because we want it and will make it ourselves. Inclusive-we do not because your individual needs were never and should never be the concern of a project that you have no investment in.

Anything that Special K mod works with will let you replace a texture after it's loaded, even with no developer support.

They could just as easily buy a car and cut it up. IP is generally protected by (threat of) a courtroom, not obscurity.

It's a very similar looking car, even down to the T E S L A matching the L O T U S. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'new' parts had conspicuously similar mounting points.

That's exactly my issue with going by market share. By installations, desktop Linux is massively successful compared to where it was in the 90s even though its share is low.