It’s almost certainly against cloudflares tos, and against the open source license terms for the website, so if cloudflare gets wind about you doing this, they can probably send you a cease and desist, and then cancel your contract with them.
If they’re really pissed, and you run a decently large site that regularly runs into errors, they might be able to successfully argue slander in court.
Insurance is to cover the costs of the OTHER person if you cause an accident, so fucking yeah.
If you get in a car, that has the potential to cost someone else tens of thousands of dollars if you fuck up, you better fucking have some way in place to compensate that person, in case you do fuck up.
It’s your choice if you use insurance or capital for that, but it’s unfair to OTHER people on the road if they have to end up sitting up on (tens of) thosuands of dollars because you fucked up, and don’t have any way to compensate them.
And getting rid of insurance is not the solution to bad public transit access, and mandatory auto liability insurance isn’t a bad thing just because shit public transit forces most people into cars.
Like what alternative do you suggest ? No mandatory insurance, and crash victims just have to send up sitting on their own repair and medical costs, and that’s somehow better ?
I feel like ending up sitting on the costs of a crash you didn’t even cause is going to be more harmful to low income people than having to fork over liability insurance payments.
If you can’t afford to give away 75k, then you can’t afford to not have auto insurance, so that’s kinda a mute point.
The difference is that (in theory at least), insurance will pay your full costs, regardless of how much you’ve already paid in. You can sign an auto insurance on one day, pay in 100$, then get into a 20k$ crash the next, and get the entire costs covered.
A retirement savings fund is capped by how much money you’ve put in it. You can never take out more money than you’ve put in (+interest/portfolio growth).
That’s kinda the whole point of insurance. If you want an insurance model like described in the post, well nothing is stopping you from opening an ETF or other savings fund, and dedicating it to auto payments. It’s not like you need a dedicated industry/service for that.
That is an utterly terrible idea, that is going to lead to the very opposite of a healthy or thriving democracy. That is going to lead to 99% of politicians quiting, and the very, very few who don’t care about the constant surveillance will effectively be governing unopposed most of the time.
It’s also a humongous waste of tax payer money, it would cost hundreds of millions a year to host hundreds of 24/7 life streams.
Also, what about politicians who have children ? You wanna publicly livestream them bathing, or dressing their underage children ? Or do you just want to ban parents from being politicians all together ?
No offense, but sounds like the type of idea you come up with and that feels really clever when you’re high AF, and then falls apart as soon as you spend more than 5 seconds sober thinking about it. Like circular runways.
Also, if you’re gonna be a dick, I’m just gonna block you. Piss off, and I sincerely hope you have truly awful day.
Ah yes. Marvelous argement. I’m right, because I say I’m right1
1: Source: Me.
Truly, a masterclass of debate, I am humbled.
I never claimed you strawmaned their argument, I stated you strawmaned the function of smart glasses by comparing to a “useless toy”. Which you objectively did. That isn’t up for debate. That’s a fact.
Smart glasses are, objectively, not useless. Calling them that IS a strawman, and it does very much seem to be based on a childish belief that if the thing you’re talking about is overall bad, then EVERYTHING about it must be bad.
Oh, I did win the argument. You’re objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn’t make them “useless toys”. A thing can be bad without being useless. That’s a literally childish understanding of concepts.
You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as “useless toys”
That someone else made, not me, and I did not address at all.
Where exactly do I claim it’s equally or that it’s equally vital/important ?
So I’m guessing you missed this part, then
don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording […], which I entirely agree with.
And this probably too…
The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
I don’t care if it slows down the legislative process, I am firmly of the opinion that all politicians should be legally required to take a short exam designed by experts on the topic of any legislation they want to vote on (including things like basic understandings of the concept and potential consequences, both positive and negative, of the legislation), and any politician who fails isn’t allowed to vote on that legislation.
Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to vote on legislation that they demonstrably do not understand.
I like that you’re complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I’m going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.
People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it’s objectively fucking insane to claim it is.
Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.
You’re not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.
Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.
Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.
This isn’t an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.
I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that’s why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.
Doesn’t matter, it’s 10 after the loop.