There are about 3000 deaths per year in Sweden attributed to position from cars, and 300 physical accidents. So it is a really big issue, but it is almost impossible to make people understand that their car use and modification mains people.
Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
You can ban modifying your car to pollute more (which we do) without banning modifying your car.
This isn't complicated FFS.
The difficulty against this in the US is the unfortunate reality that the people coming to these shops to enable their stupid trucks to roll coal are the people who should technically be raiding and shutting down these companies. This can be fixed.
Physically, you can already modify your car to be controlled by a stupid program and that has been possible since at least the 90s. You can do the supposed harm by not being aware of damage to your exhaust system.
The solution to exhaust harms of ICE engines is electric cars, not a reduction in consumer rights.
The EPA heavily regulates any emissions defeat devices. The problem is they spend most of their time going after tuner shops where most cars run on ethanol rather than diesel shops who cater to brain-damaged customers who think rolling coal is "cool"
In Spain (but I think in every EU country) you must go through legal inspection and certification if you do modify your car. And most of the aftermarket mods people install are totally illegal and would not pass that exam. I mean changes like putting a spoiler, lowering the height from ground etc
It's not whataboutism, it's a legitimate question. How does it increase safety on the road to reject local SSH connections by a dumb user, when that same user can mess with the car physically?
Simplest example: a driver could probably disable attentive driving checks by pasting a script in from a web search in a few minutes. Nothing like an inattentive 3750 lbs weapon.
Yeah and they could hire a professional driver or a engineer and IPO for billions a life sized driving AI powered crypto robot too. Look, like clearly google + ctrl-v scripting or running an one click deployment exe on your computer on a whim is different than physically ordering/picking up something and then installing it into a vehicle?
Of course they're different, but you're trying to argue that the former takes objectively less effort than the latter, and it doesn't. One or the other may take less effort depending on who you are and what you know.
There is some kind of middle ground here.. My first HTML file still renders like it did on Mosaic. The HTTP server I used back then still works today 35 years later without maintenance. I do agree that HTTPS is a simple solution but there is too much cargo cult around it. Honestly I do not see the use to maintain everything published if you follow sane practices.
EDIT: I have 15 year old things at work that do not compile, you have to maintain it for sure, biggest problem is cryptography. I am not sure that unstable tech should be part of the application ever.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, your HTTP server from 35 years ago is still working today without any maintenance?
Does that mean no security patching and no updates for bugfixes? or does "no maintenance" means something else I'm missing?
I find it difficult to discuss these topics when comments like these pretend that you can leave your system exposed on the internet for years without any maintenance.
If we're talking applications that don't actively listen on the internet that's fine, and I would agree that we should have complete software that just works.
But a webserver, unless it's for personal/home use, it's on the internet and I don't see how it could work for 35 years without any update/change
Static html webservers don't really have any need for security patching or bugfixes constantly like dynamic complex stuff. They literally can just live forever. The sites themselves are just files. Not applications.
Over 85 years and that's an inflation adjusted number. We give away more money each year (USAID/soft power efforts) than we spent on average on nuclear weapons. And neither of those items are of much significance on the US federal budget. Currently, social safety net programs are half of the federal budget and the total military budget is about 1/6th of the budget for reference (that's 2/3rd total between those two parts of the budget).
> And neither of those items are of much significance on the US federal budget.
$95 billion / year is $620 per US taxpayer.
> social safety net programs are half of the federal budget
I suppose you are referring to the big 3: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are programs that people pay for. In the same way that retirement savings, pensions, and private health insurance is something that people pay for.
But whatever, every dollar wasted to blow up people in another country can be excused because the federal budget includes programs that provide services to people in this country...or something. It is extremely revealing how some people are completely unbothered by some spending and are extremely bothered by other spending. The nuclear weapons don't bother you, but spending a bit of money to help alleviate famine for people in destitute countries is just unacceptable.
No. My point is not that something costs more than something else.
Look at a city and the traffic there we know that everything can either feel empty with only a ~8% decrease, or be completely gridlocked with a ~8% increase. Small adjustments in what we spend money on has a great effect. Being destructive is the easiest way to show this. If you bomb a hospital, does that cost ten million USD for the bombs or one billion USD to rebuild and handle loss of quality of life.
In Sweden the most useful and supported way means that you need this.
1. An identification approved by the EU. You get this from the national Police. (A government agency)
2. An SSN which is your birthday and four extea digits. E.g. 1212121212 is a valid "PNR", you get this from the Tax agency
3. A bank account (you need 1 and 2)
4. A patched Android or iPhone.
5. The BankID a app from a company owner by the banks in Sweden.
6. A Certificate downloaded from your bank to you BankID App
7. A PIN to Protect the key in you BankID App.
8. Normal internet connection.
9. A camera on your phone to read QR code on Service Provider webpage for session initionation
When you sign something the app will send lots of metadata to "the Identity Provider" (BankId), e.g. how much root you have on your phone, if you run known malware, your current ip, and your phone HW info. This is used to calculate a score that you as a "service provider" (i.e. banks, government, companies) can choose to ignore (they usually do)
When you as a Customer either sign in or sign you will see a document that you sign maybe "I give you 100SEK", and who you sign that to. You enter you pin or use biometric to aprove.
You will not find any reputable source for those statements, sure maybe as opinions. This is the issue here we are talking about facts. I have been able to look up this information for as long as we had a government in Sweden, and it works.
Financial privacy is a complicated subject, could you perhaps agree that there is a use for transparancy?
The problem is that when you get a high amount migrant from very different ethnicities and cultures than you, it starts to change. Those people do not necessarily want to play the same social game as you, and you risk having structured crime networks arising.
Just like in France where those kidnappings were made by the algerian "DZ" mafia (DZ is a slang for Algeria). Or in Netherlands, with the "mocro" mafia (= Morroccan) who put a price on the royal family's head, forcing the princess sibling to leave the country[0].
In the case of Sweden, this is now the case, although that many Swedish people continue to do as if it wasn't. Don't tell me that such news happens in a "safe" country:
And I don't see why there should be transparency about how much I own, or earn. I don't want the neighbors to know about it, or feed your voyeurist pulsions. The line is thin between "social justice" and "mob violence", or discrimination, in that aspect. Which is likely to happen in a country that sterilized "socially unfit" people for a long time.
I am wary to continue this, because you post unrelated tidbits and opinions.
My opinion is that opaque financial markets only benefits people with lots of money and power. Financial privacy is important here in Sweden, but having the net worth and income as public records has worked for us the last 250 years. I do not know where you come from and what society you live in. I do sense fear in your posts and that is usually a personal feeling. It might be different for us since it has been ingrained for so long.
I am talking from experience in our safe society (fact). Which obviously has severe flaws (opinion).
> Financial privacy is a complicated subject, could you perhaps agree that there is a use for transparancy?
No, because I don't believe in income tax or capital gains tax. I do believe in government taxes but they should be made on land holdings (Georgism) and on corporate activities, not on individuals' financial status (their earnings & capital).
It is usually those with little power that suffer when you do that, and those with a lot of power that suffer from financial openness. I ask this in the most naive way possible I think the Pandora Leak was a good thing, do you not agree?
Richer people have many ways to protect themselves from society, unlike poorer people who have to bear the envy of others and can't escape it. Just ask any homeless person.
A rich man can just (and likely should, given the comments here) leave the Swedish crab basket.
Having society obsessed with watching how their neighbor is doing is a very good way to get everyone to look away, while, in the case of Sweden, a single family owns a large part of the stock exchange.
You can start a signing process saying you are who ever owned that certificate. E.g. if you call someone. You can not use those signatures to gain access, and it is rather in phishing.
Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
reply