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.

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 ?

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).

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.

So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?

Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.

There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.

Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.

Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.

You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.

Women may not not be a mathematical minority, but they absolutely are a cultural/societal minoritiy.

Cultural minorities have nothing to do with the absolute number of members the group has, but how much political and social power and influence the group holds.

That’s why black africans during apartheid Africa would still be considered minorities, even though they made up the mathematical majority of inhabitants.

Reminds of the old pile of gold (empty) meme

I mean that is kinda exactly what the developers want to provoke with timed dialogue choices. Timed dialogue choices are a game design mechanic to try and get a player to answer on instinct/gut feeling, rather than over analysing and trying to optimise the dialogue.

You not getting to think about it long is very much the intended effect, and allowing a pause would entirely defeat it.

There are of course definite accessibility concerns that should be considered and worked around, such as people with dyslexia who may not be able to properly parse the dialogue options before the timer runs out, but as a game mechanic I think forcing the player to pick on instinct definitely has merit. It helps make the game more immersive, because it puts you under the same pressure to react as your character is in the story right now, and it can lead to more interesting and ultimately enjoyable games by forcing players to potentially make a mistake, and having to find out a way to deal with the fallout.

Games that don’t allow you to pause and skip cutscenes.

I don’t want to have to miss half of the cutscenes just because someone interrupted me or the phone rang or something half way through. Alternatively, when I’m on my 23rd replay of a game, I do not want to have to sit through every cutscenes I already know by heart.

Oh, and modern games that allow manual saving at any time, not having any kind of regular auto save (looking at you here BG3).

If you’re fine from a gameplay pov with having the player save whenever, then there’s really no good reason whatsoever to not have one or two auto save slots that get saved every 10-20 minutes or so, at least as an option in the menu. ESPECIALLY in open world games (like BG3…) where you can easily go literal hours at a time without hitting a checkpoint save. And yes, I am still salty over learning about BG3’s lack of regular auto save when I lost like 2.5 hours of progress on my first run.

That’s like a principal letting the bully keep all the lunch money they stole from someone, let the bully chose what lunch they’re allowed to buy in future, in exchange for the bully pinky promising to stop bullying the victim, and then acting surprised that the victim doesn’t fall on their knees in gratitude for this amazing deal

That’s pretty much universally the view on freedom and rights that today’s neo conservatives have.

They cry states rights and freedom when someone else wants to ban them from doing anything at all, but the instant someone else is doing something they don’t like, they suddenly make up moral panics to justify federally banning those things.

That is to say, conservatives by and large don’t have any principles beyond being selfish and hateful towards minoritied. Everything else, including fundamental freedoms and human rights is negotiable so long as it doesn’t negatively affect them OR negatively affects the people they hate more than them. They just use terms like freedom or rights to virtue signal when it suits them, but are just as happy to drop the pretence the millisecond doing so becomes beneficial to their goals.

A good example is the free speech screeching of conservatives in the heyday of fact checking, Vs. Their tortured justifications and dismissals of Trump’s blatant attacks on free speech and press today.

Or alternatively, many TERFs and their open willingness to draw support, and work together with misogynistic conservative groups and even straight up open Neo Nazis, just because those groups also hate trans people, all whilst turning around and claiming with a straight face that they’re doing this for women.

The quote in the original french version is, at least iirc, let them eat brioche, so cake isn’t even a good translation. More something like “let them eat sweet bread”.

But translating brioche as cake instead makes the quote sound even more tone deaf and outrageous.

The ISS orbits at about 400km, or about 250 miles.

“Thousands of miles” away from earth’s surface would be further than any astronaut, except for the ones on Apollo 8, and 10-17, have ever been.

Did the north not decide to abolish slavery federally until after war was already over? Because surely otherwise, the south would have fought for both of these things.