Way to demonstrate the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.

Seatbelt sensors, automatic brakes and back up cameras are not annoyances dude. They LITERALLY fucking save lives.

Reverse roll overs are on of the most common types fatal car-pedestrian accidents involving children, and they can be entirely avoided by having rear cameras, and or/lidar with auto braking.

Driving a car is incredibly fucking dangerous. In fact, for the average person, driving a car is likely one of the most dangerous and risky single actions they are ever going to take in their lives. And it’s concerning that you seem to think it’s like riding a bike, and the safety features are overkill.

I absolutely think they should. Seatbelts are legally required to be worn in almost every western country. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be up to you if you wear it or not. And whilst a lot of people do it, something heavy enough to trigger the seatbelt sensors should absolutely NOT be unsecured in your passenger seat, because it absolutely IS going to turn into a lethal projectile if you crash. Heavy items need to go in the boot, tucked in the foot space, or be belted in.

A crash without seatbelt is going to lead to far worse injuries, which will put a bigger strain on emergency services, hospital infrastructure, you’re more likely to require organ or blood donations for injuries that could have been trivially avoidable, blood an organ which are already in short supply, and then can’t be used on someone who actually COULDN’T have avoided their injuries, and the accident can be far, far, far more traumatising and mentally devastating for others involved if you go flying 10 m through your windscreen and your mangled body wraps around a tree.

If you’re willing to accept all that just because you don’t like a bleeding seatbelt, frankly you deserve more than to be dinged at.

Yes it should change sentencing, because the primary goal of the justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment, and there are absolutely people who have commited murder and are capable of being fully rehabilitated, and those that can’t, and they should not be sentenced the same.

Or do you seriously think, for example, people who end up murdering their abusers out of revenge or desperation should actually receive the same punishment as someone who murders a random person purely because they hate something about their identity, or an abuser who murder their victim ?

It’s a way to take the severity of the motivation into account when sentencing.

Someone who committed murder could have done so under all sorts of mitigating circumstances, classifying the crime as a hate crime speaks to the horrificly unjustifiable motivation, and is indicative of someone who should be less likely, or ineligible for parole.

Sure, we could just keep calling it murder, and take those things into account anyway, but I think it’s ultimately good to have these distinctions, and there’s plenty of other similar cases where we do distinguish between crimes based on intent, rather than outcome, particularly for crimes against people (you may, for example, apply your exact logic to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or even murder and manslaughter. It’s not like a murder 1 victim is any better off for their killers crime being called murder instead of manslaughter)

Doesn’t have to be cling film. Any flexible, non toxic, non permeable sheet will do. You could cut a square out of bag of chips, and fold it up. Or cut a corner out of those emergency blankets, if you have a spare. They’re impermeable to liquid, and ultra thin and lightweight.

You should include some flexible plastic, like cling film. In case you have to bandage an arterial or jugular wound, you need something that is impermeable to stop the bleeding. In case of jugular wounds, it’s also necessary to stop the heart from sucking air in through the dry end of the severed vein, which could make a bad situation worse.

Witch nanny systems specifically only annoy you if you do something unsafe ?

I mean, that’s better than selling to a private person, still feels weird, since disclaiming a patent is absolutely possible, and has a 100% chance of leading to the desired outcome, vs whatever small chance there may be that the University starts taking profits on it. Or even just sees themselves forced to sell the patent, because of potential financial issues.

Yeah, the risk is small, but eliminating it in it’s entirety would’ve been easily possible, so it just feels a bit weird he didn’t do it.

US Europe Round trips in the 70’s/80’s would you run you between 600 and 1000$. That would be 2300-4000$ adjusted for inflation, and could be as expensive as 1000-1500$ (up to 6000$), so I don’t really care what you think, facts disagree with you.

(Also, round trip tickets are ALWAYS cheaper than two individual one way trips, so you can’t just double to price of a one way ticket to arrive at that of a roundtrip)

You can definitely get business class seats in that price range, and if you spend some time comparing prices, I’m sure you could find first class seats in a similar range. And be real, if you’re spending 3-4 thousand dollars JUST on the plane ticket, an extra couple hundred bucks won’t kill you.

And of course segregating classes is going to make upper classes more expensive. That’s the whole point. Instead of distributing the costs of the service and seats across EVERYONE, only those who actually choose to use them pay for them. They’re more expensive because the passengers who don’t want those amenities are no longer bein forced to subsidize them for those that do.

And for comparison, an economy class round trip would cost less than a 1000$ if you book a few months advance. That’s less than half the price injusted for inflation vs. the 70’s/80’s.

And finally, believe it or not, Economy class is barely, if at all profitable for airlines. They make most of their profit from service upgrades, higher classes, shipping cargo and, in the U.S., credit card rewards programs.

If you want planes to all have even just premium economy levels space, airlines would NEED to increase ticket prices by 20-30% just to stop from selling at a loss.

If he wanted it to be freely available, why did he even sell the patent ? Just disclaim at the patent office. Selling is just asking the new holder to start enforcing.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

Weighing the benefits of an action vs its effort is a bizzare way to look at things for you ? Interesting stance to have, I’m curious how you decide if something is worth it or not.

And the goal of my comment was obviously not to make or save money, so that’s a shit comparison. If you take an action with the explicit and singular goal of saving money, I do think it’s absolutely worth it to consider if you even save enough money to be worth the bother. Yes switching on and off an outlet is only a tiny effort, but you’re literally doing it JUST to save money, and the amount of money you save is EVEN MORE tiny and miniscule.

The plug contacts are basically never the limiting factor current wise. They are massive solid metal prongs, they can easily handle 20-30 Amps without getting too hot. The cable will always be limiting factor for current.

a 110/220 auto sensing plug

There’s no real need for a plug to be able to sense what voltage it’s plugged into. That would be handled device side, not plug side. And for devices for which handling both 110 and 220 makes sense, well those pretty much universally already have a switch mode power supply that does so automatically, or at least a dip switch with which a user can manually select their grid voltage (check your phone or laptop charger, I can virtually guarantee it already supports both).

And the issue with devices that don’t already do this, is generally that they are basic resistive or inductive loads (anything along the lines of heaters or motors), with little to nothing in the way of digital control electronics, which need to be designed for a specific input voltage in order to achieve a specific power output. Making these devices both 110V and 220V compatible would require either giving every single one of them a voltage transformer, or to include a 110V motor/heating coil, and a 220V one, that can be switched between. Both of which would massively increase the price of these devices.

I’m not being hostile, I just fail to understand how your point with multi phase standards has anything whatsoever to do with safety. Multiphase standards, and standard intercompatability are convenience issues, not safety issues, and therfore irrelevant to the discussion.

And other standards notably, explicitly do NOT include all those safety standards. For example, the ground pin on UK plugs is longer than the L and N, which A) can be used to place child safety shutters in every single outlet, that are lifted out of the way when the ground pin is inserted and B) in the same vein ensure that GND is always the first prong to make contact. The wiring of UK plugs also requires a some slack in the L and GND wires, so that if the cable is yankes so hard the wires tear out of the plug, L is always the first to go.

The internal fuse also allows you to safely use super thin gauge wiring on low power appliances, and allows you to create cheap, low power extension cords, that are still safe because they have a fuse in the plug (yes, in theory any country could do that, but resetable breakers are expensive, and replaceble fuses are inconvenient for the user, unless the contry already has a decades old standard surrounding them, and they’re already available for sale basically everywhere).

If other plugs provide safe alternatives for the issues I’ve reiterated, shouldn’t we be looking at those plugs as safer alternatives?

No. Not unless the current plug is outright dangerous. Rewriting an entire countries electric code, and introducing an entirely new type of plug, especially one which would be neither forward nor backward compatable with the old one, costs billions, and is a major nuisance for consumers in the transition phase. It’s simply not worth it, unless it’s necessary for fundamental safety.

Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours. If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 3 seconds to switch off, and 3 seconds to switch back on, you won’t break even unless you keep it switched off for at least 4 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging/switching off idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.

There’s also no real reason to unplug something, even if the plug isn’t switched. Modern electrical appliances have idle power draws of less than a watt.

Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours.

If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 5 seconds to unplug, and 5 seconds to replug, you won’t break even unless you keep it unplugged for at least 7 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.

As for electrical safety, generally speaking if something is unsafe whilst plugged in but switched off, it’s typically not legal to sell in countries with properly enforced standards anyway. And with whole house RCD protection being relatively universal in western europe, even if something were to go wrong, chances are the RCD, or AFCI if the breaker panel is real fancy, will stop the bad thing happening real quick.

Oh and quick PSA: Regardless of it’s whole house protection, or individual socket protection, you should test the function of your RCDs every now and again. Officially at least once a month. Every RCD breaker has a little button somewhere labeled “test”, that connects L to GND across a resistor, to check if the breaker actually does it’s job. If you’ve never done this (and haven’t recently had the RCD trip for an actual fault) GO DO IT NOW. THOSE THINGS ARE LITERALLY LIFE SAVERS AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE ACTUALLY WORKING.

And who gets to decide who gets killed ? Who is infallible, incorruptible and flawless enough to decide who gets executed ?

And if you cannot name them, then tell me: How many innocent people are you willing to murder, per 100 executions. If you cannot name a flawless judge, then innocents will be executed. That is a fact. So tell me: How many innocents are you willing to murder, for heinous criminals to be executed instead of getting life without parole ?

This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.

This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.