shortcake27

Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?

If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.

You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.

In 2048, it would be 40.

In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.

So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.

The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.

Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.

The point isn’t to stop that particular age group from smoking; it’s to eliminate cigarettes in the long term (eg 70 years).

I’m just saying that’s how the old systems worked, as that was a limitation of the time.

A modern system doesn’t have to beep. It can tell you what it’s doing, in your language, visually on the dash and audibly. Also, there’s no reason a modern vehicle designed for this type of system needs to cut all power immediately. It could cut power or limit speed over a period of time, allowing the driver to safely pull over. And there’s no reason for it to ever cut power to steering or brakes.

I think a lot of people, yourself included, are having a visceral gut reaction instead of looking at this rationally. The people responsible for the safety of vehicles aren’t going to write a law that requires a vehicle to cut its steering and brakes while the driver is cornering, when there are so many alternatives that would be equally effective but safer. You need to take a step back and apply logic and common sense to the situation.

the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state

You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis?

you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world.

I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.

Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected.

To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda?

It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up.

“I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.

Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.

I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.

Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?

For thousands of years people have been fixing problems caused by the previous generation. Why does the buck stop with gen z?

What makes you so sure the data in your study is truly representative of gen z?

A few months ago a study was posted on HN which claimed 30% of gen z supported police cameras being installed inside homes to protect against domestic violence.

Meanwhile, in Dunedin, the number of cameras on the street was reduced in consultation with university students (aka gen z).

How can both of these statements be true? The answer is, they aren’t- the study posted on HN was fearmongering, manipulated data, trying to discredit the younger generation, to get older people to vote a specific way.

I’m a millennial but I’m sick of this rhetoric that gen z are stupid / oblivious / complicit etc. They aren’t.

Drunk driving already has very harsh penalties

There are no penalties if you don’t get caught.

I think the OP is saying that if it’s triggered, you can override it, but a report would be filed with the police so they can investigate.

It would be ridiculous if the car just shut down and stopped immediately. I really shouldn’t have to point out that it obviously doesn’t work this way.

In-vehicle breathalysers have existed for decades. They way they work is they give you a warning that the vehicle will shut off in X amount of time. Eg 5 minutes. The car doesn’t just shut off without warning leaving you without boosted brakes or power steering mid-corner.

With modern technology, most cars could also take over control from the driver when they deem safe to do so.

So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?

There’s a common saying, “you can’t outrun a bad diet.”

I hate this saying so much. I can’t imagine how many people don’t bother to exercise because they already have a bad diet, read stuff like this, and think “what’s the point then” and give up. Despite the fact that exercising on a bad diet is so much better than not exercising on a bad diet.

Google pays creators out of the revenue they make from ads, and Google doesn’t make revenue from ads that were blocked. I think that would be fraud.

I think this is fair TBH. If you want Google to pay creators, but you also want to access YouTube for free without paying or viewing ads, something isn’t lining up.

This is why I let the ads roll. Even though it’s crumbs for the creator, if enough people do it, they do make money.

Same experience for me. The first video I watched after my premium sub expired, I was given two preroll ads. Then, 30 seconds into the video, an ad. Finally, at the end of the 5 minute video, another ad.

It was jarring. But I’m also not sure complaining is fair. Hosting and serving video is expensive. I definitely don’t expect to receive it for free.

It’s shocking because Alphabet is in the business of making money at the expense of their users. They aren’t building Chrome because they believe in the open web, they build it to extract every last cent out of us. Ad blockers cost them millions, perhaps even billions, a year. Despite having the ability to stop it, they allow it to occur. And that is shocking from a capitalistic point of view.

and haven't had an issue.

Every lithium battery in every device you’ve used has degraded. It’s not a manufacturing issue, it’s a chemistry issue.

If you haven’t had an issue, then you aren’t paying attention, or you don’t keep your devices for long enough for the degradation to be a problem. This doesn’t mean there’s no issue, this just means the issue doesn’t affect you personally.

A small change in charging habits could prolong the life of billions of devices, a huge win for the environment. You shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea just because you personally aren’t affected.

It’s impressive how some of the most successful tech companies in the world get this wrong.

If you give your phone number to Google, they will pressure you to enable SMS MFA and SMS account recovery. So your phone number becomes the weakest link into your account, which is pretty bad considering the state of sim swapping.

Google and other companies should make this clear to users. You should never have both SMS MFA and SMS account recovery enabled. If you must, only ever enable one. Ideally, neither.

There is a specific issue with SMS that I hate more than any of the issues you mentioned - the state of roaming.

Because every company on the planet forces me to provide my phone number to auth me with SMS, I now need to pay for roaming to use this god-awful method of authentication I never signed up for. On top of the local sim card I still need to buy, because roaming is often throttled to unusable speeds.

But it gets better. If I break my phone, I can currently move my physical sim into a new device in a matter of seconds. No problem. But with Apple removing the physical sim, soon I’m going to be forced to switch to eSIM.

eSIM is marketed as more practical, yet in reality it is anything but. I’ve been following forums for many telcos in the UK and Australia to understand the problems people face with eSIM.

First of all, if it is even possible to provision a new eSIM, most telcos lock this behind SMS 2FA. So if you break your phone, you can’t log in to provision a new eSIM. Also, usually this needs to done using an app, which is often only available in the telco’s region. So if you live between countries, you’re again out of luck. Some telcos require you to visit a physical store to move an eSIM to a new device. Some telcos won’t provision a new eSIM electronically, requiring you to use a physical cardboard QR kit. And some telcos can only activate a new eSIM when the device is connected directly to their network, so even if you somehow managed to jump through all these hoops, you still wouldn’t be able to activate a new eSIM abroad.

So if you break your phone overseas, you either need to live without banking and a range of other services, or book an immediate flight back to your home country just to provision a new eSIM.

Calling this madness is an understatement. Any company forcing MFA must allow users to pick from a range of open standards.

I disagree about Ryanair. Yeah, they try and upsell you like crazy, but there aren’t any tricks. They warn you to buy bags in advance because they will charge more at a later date - that’s not a trick, that’s how they subsidise the ticket price for people who plan ahead. And it’s not as if they advertise the price at £12 then it triples at checkout. Maybe there’s a CC processing fee and that’s it? Also if you come back to the site later, the price is the same unless those seats have been sold which they very clearly communicate at the very first step (x seats left at this price).

Yeah, this is it. People who are used to having their ticket price subsidised by other people who don’t have luggage are angry that those other people are no longer subsidising their ticket.

All this, despite the fact that the same ticket with luggage today, adjusted for inflation, is significantly cheaper than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago etc.

essentially what you're advocating is lower wages for some service workers just because the rest are possibly overpaid?

How have you arrived at that conclusion? I am arguing that a) the tip should be included in the price, and b) people should be paid a fair wage by their employer WITHOUT sneaking hidden fees onto customers.

Also, I’ve made it abundantly clear I’m referring to the UK, yet you keep bringing up America. You seem determined to misunderstand me.

In Australia and the UK there are no fees for withdrawing from a bank ATM (independent ATMs can still charge fees).

IMHO this is superior to the bank refunding you. It doesn’t cost the bank $2+ to allow you to access your own money from a different ATM, it’s just rent seeking.

Yeah, I’ve also travelled extensively around Europe, west, central, and east, to some of the most touristy cities in the world, and never been ripped off. OK, my current hostel is charging €8.50 for a continental breakfast, so I just go elsewhere. I don’t think it’s a rip if you’re informed of the price and choose to pay - that’s on you.

Unfortunately I have been ripped in SE Asia, and moreso in Central America, where prices were almost never displayed, and I was charged US prices for almost everything.

There’s a Hard Rock cafe in Wrocław charging 2x the price of every other restaurant. From memory 70PLN for a burger. And yet it’s always full. I genuinely don’t understand.

The United Kingdom, which unlike the United States is quite literally comprised of different countries, has managed to solve this problem.

Australia also has a similar setup to the USA, and has also managed to solve this problem.

I don’t know the inner workings of every country, but I assume there are more in the same position.

I’m sorry, but the USA is not in some crazy unique position that no other country has ever faced before. You just choose believe this inaccuracy.

There are a lot of people who want to get software built, but have no idea how to go about it.

I’ve been around for a while and I’ve got 10 years of networking under my belt. Someone knows someone who knows someone who needs something built, and my name comes up. When I was working full time, I turned down a lot of projects, but invited people to contact me at a later date. This worked in my favour as many of those people ended up contacting me again years later.

So just put yourself out there. Tell everyone you’re taking on random projects. Anything goes. It may lead somewhere.

For me it’s various things these days - static sites, small apps, ecommerce builds etc. Solo work, and perhaps not the most sexy or exciting. However, the flexibility is unparalleled. I pick my hours, location, and timezone. Most “remote-first” companies aren’t this flexible.

States in the US are analogous to countries in the rest of the world.

But they aren’t. States are states, it’s literally in the name. Almost all countries in the world have states or an analogy to states.

Again, only an American would consider each of the United States as seperate countries. Totally disconnected from reality.