Yeah, it definitely rehashed the trope, but I still think that movie is underrated.

For sure. What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to be confident in the privacy of software if one were to treat it as a black box, ie an average consumer.

Hm, I feel that it’s inaccurate to say “we wouldn’t be able to tell”. It’s not exactly a black box system — the app would have to run on an operating system, and if you are able to know what the operating system is doing, and what instructions are being executed by the CPU, then you can know exactly what the app is doing.

What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to treat software as a black box and be sure of its safety without having to fundamentally audit it.

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

I’ll preface this by saying that this isn’t an argument in favor of the imperial system, nor is it an argument intending to detract from the usefulness of the metric system. But I have wondered if there is some merit to having a simple, colloquial, “human friendly” system of measurement — something that’s shown to be the best system for people to grok, and is the most convenient to use in day-to-day life. If you need precision, and well defined standards, then certainly use the metric system, but is the metric system easy for people to grok? Say you ask someone to estimate a length. Would they be more likely to accurately estimate the length using the metric system, the imperial system, or some other system? Likewise for telling someone a length and asking them to physically reproduce it. Would they be more likely to do so with the metric system, the imperial system, or some other? It’s an interesting problem, imo, and it doesn’t seem to get much attention.

It could very well be that people can, indeed, grok measurements the best when using the metric system, but I currently am unaware of any research that has been done to show that. If anyone is aware of any research that has looked into this, then please let me know! I’d be very interested to read it.

While topically interesting, a lot of those graphs are either saying the same thing or are misinterpreting an exponential.

Windows -> Ubuntu -> Arch Linux

Reminds me of r/dontdeadopeninside.

Ahh, the good ol’ sunk cost fallacy.

That only exports settings (general account config, saved posts and comments, blocked users, communities, and instances, etc.). That won’t export all of the user’s own posts and comments.

Without it being open source and not providing reproducible builds, the privacy claims are borderline weightless.

wat

When did they start adding noise to low speed EVs?

At least 2016 (in the USA) [source (archive)].

How do you mean?

I think the distinction is important so as not to detract from what is arguably more horrible and worthy of condemnation — pedophilia.

especially given safety features that now exist on newer cars

Do note that the dataset that they used is from 2013-2017.

That doesn’t make much sense. ICE vehicles have got so quiet, especially at low speeds, that most of the noise is tyre noise.

What doesn’t make sense? The point that you just stated was precisely the motivation for the study — there was a concern that EVs and H-EVs are too quiet to be safely perceived by pedestrians.

There were far fewer models of electric and and h-ev cars being available during the time of they’ve taken their data from (7 to 11 years ago now) than ICE and even compared to how many there are now. Therefore it’s entirely possible that an issue with a particular model (for example visibility issues caused by a pillar blindspots) could skew the results.

In the “Strengths and weaknesses of the study” section of the paper, they touched on the age of the data being a weakness. In addition to the concern that you pointed out, there are also new regulations that have been put in place to mitigate these issues — e.g. the NHTSA mandates that cars have a minimum amount of sound that they must emit [source].

It would be interesting to see if they can get the same results with 2019-2024 data.

Agreed.

No thanks, electric vehicles being quiet is a bonus.

Now if they had the forward sensors made a moderate lebel honking noise when a potential collision with a oedestrian is detected, that would be great.

Personally, I’m not bothered by the sounds that EVs emit at slow speeds (the minimum sound is required by the NHTSA) — I think they even sound kind of cool. I do agree that collision detection is also useful. I would argue for a combination of mulitple safety systems. That being said, I do completely understand the noise pollution concerns of vehicles; however, given that the sounds are only emited at very low speeds — IIUC, these sounds are intended match the sound pressure generated by a vehicle travelling at 30kmph — it shouldn’t be too much of a problem; I believe that it is worth the benefit.

So it is! [source]

Your title says that people are more likely to be hit by an EV than an ICE.

No it doesn’t. It says that EVs and H-EVs are more likely to hit a pedestrian than ICEs. That doesn’t necessitate that more people are hit by EVs than ICEs. A reason for this potentially being that there are more ICE vehicles than EVs and H-EVs.