There’s an earlier bit that complements that nicely:

“it turns out that the core competency of smiling and promising people things that you can’t actually deliver is highly transferable.”

haha no source, just a dumb joke.

Japan: Checkmate

:: Reveals 10X more laws regulating game consoles ::

BukakkIP

I know, I know, it’s pronounced “Nyïmp”

Full name is GNUIMP anyway

💀

Ok, well, if you ever come across a test framework named AuTest, you can blame me, because I’m stealing the shit out of that.

The “Brick through a widow” bug has been an active exploit since the Model T.

Enabling the PIN mitigates this issue entirely. Can’t drive it away if you don’t know the PIN, even if you have the physical key, fob, or phone.

Up until now most people hated when shit randomly popped up while they were typing.

The Apple went and made the iPhone and now we have a whole generation that expects it.

This ad is literally the perfect opposite of their famous Think different ad:

We have an actual gigantic, unfeeling machine, literally crushing an effigy of the sum total of human creativity, only to proudly declare that everyone now needs to do all those things in the same, apple-approved way.

And the real irony is that’s the actual message they’re trying to get across.

Have you considered writing your own projects that you have to hide from your employers, and be careful with whom you discuss, so as to avoid the legal complications of the company owning your work?

Lemmy’s bigger than ever, and that’s a direct consequence of reddit’s enshittification, so there’s that at least.

It doesn’t pay well, but “park ranger” is exactly that.

Fuck. That’s exactly it.

nothing, it’s an open standard now: SAE J3400

Once more, I’m literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone’s point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you’re talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn’t, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn’t work unless that context is there.

(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here’s the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI’s for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate compared with all,over 20.00 per 1%2C000 drivers.)

No one’s talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I’m not justifying anything because I’m not injecting my opinion here. I’m only pointing out that without context, counts don’t give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that’s just math. You can’t even derive a rate without that context!

If you’re worried about the veracity of the claims, I can assure you they’re true.