Wow.. can we focus on the actual outrageous and horrible things this man did... Like commit fellonies for instance.

I mean he has done and said so much actual fucked up shit, it already waters down the impact, no need to contribute to it being diluted further...

You only spray poop on someone once.

Then you get told, and never do it again.

If you are traveling across the Atlantic to get from Los Angeles to New York i would argue that you are traveling the wrong way...

Yes, and?

The point of distance is to take it into aggregate, for both modes of transport.

This is in fact the exact point i am making.

Per trip measurement implies that every trip (regardles of time or distance traveled) has equal danger.

I sort of answered this somewhere else but i will reiterate.

Using this metric you are sort of assuming all trips are equal. No matter how short, or long you are assuming the base danger is the same. This means that driving 100 meters is just as dangerous as driving for a whole day. (See what the problem is?)

And if we look at this premise in isolation: "Am i going to die on this trip"? If the trip is 100m, then a plane is probably out of the question either way. And if the trip is to a different country.. then hey, look at that, the sources you cited come into relevance (where pr distance a plane is safer) and you would have to calculate the danger of completing that specific trip in a car VS flying that distance with a plane.

You are generalizing on terms that make no sense, since "total number of trips" in cars include all manner of different scenarios of some times extremely varying degree of danger. So in order to have data that is statistically relevant and in any form comparable you have to choose a different metric.

So to answer the question again "Am i going to die on this trip?" or to extrapolate "should i drive or fly on this trip", if you cant use generic statistics, the answer will be "it depends. You have to calculate danger for the trip specifically".

I honestly think you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.

"Per trip" is a horribly poor metric. Because there is a fundamental difference between a trip down to the store, or a cross country trip, even with a car. Also it would be extremely dependent on where you are going, where you live etc. etc.

For the discussion to have any meaning you have to abstract it to a metric that makes sense for all people, or else you would have to also figure in where you usually travel, how good a driver you are etc etc etc.

At that point its a completely meaningless semantics exercise because for instance taking a plane to work is not realy valid for me since i live in the same city as i work... Or lets do it the other way around: If i need to go to Spain tomorrow, its safer for me to fly then to drive there. (This is based on your own sources)

I would think real statistics would be more interesting then peoples emotions when talking about what is actually dangerous.

Very interesting 🤔

And your point about metrics is pretty spot on.

In the end it becomes an exercise in trying to find the metric that best supports your argument.

We have also been jumping around a bit on geographical limitations. And in for instance Scandinavia, the original premise might be closer to real due to better road safety.

I think implying some sort of myth or ruse is missing the mark hard on this subject.

From your own source:

Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles[c] flown,[citation needed] and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by distance traveled.

So I guess this is the point you are trying to make?

Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents

Yes, and how many die every year from plane crashes in sweden?

If we take a relatively big plane (450 passengers) as an example. One has to fall out of the sky every 3. Years to match the car accident number...

3186 deaths over 10 years VS 1.19 million every year.

(This is globally. Sweden and Norway(where i live) will naturally have pretty radically lower numbers then globally when it comes to road safety.)

But look at that air travel number again: 3186. Over 10 years. Globally. Commercial Air travel is fucking safe. Its horrible for the climate. But its safe.

Whatever way you slice those numbers it comes up air travel i safer. Feel free to find actual statistics that contradict me. :)

This is complete horseshit.

Are you aware how many flights take place every day?

Vs

How many fatal accidents pr flight?

The fact is that almost every time a fatal accident happens in a (commercial) plane anywhere in the world, you hear about it. Because if a plane crashes a lot of people die in one dramatic (and rare) event.

Fatal car accidents litteraly happen every minute of every day. Almost none of them go on the news. (Cause reporting them all would be impossible).

Let me also post some sources, since you did not:

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

https://www.icao.int/safety/iStars/Pages/Accident-Statistics.aspx/ Air traffic: (3187 fatalities over 10 years)

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries (1.19 million people every year die on the road)

I mean a pianotuneR (as in a guy that tunes your piano) is pretty expensive.

These apps seem to be marketed as tools for professional piano tuners. And looking just at the screenshots it looks like it has a lot of tools and features outside of just showing the correct pitch.

If tuning pianos is your profession, paying 999$ once and writing it off as a business expense isn't that far fetched.

(Better be a bloody useful tool though ;) )

I'm not making excuses for him here... But this is really how he answers any and all direct questions.

He always leaves room to backpedal or leaves his answers as open ended as he can, because he doesn't know anything about anything.

"We will have to wait and see" "I might, or I might not" "Maybe it's round, or maybe it's flat, nobody really knows"

This is the strategy of clueless manipulating dipshits all over the world.

It's not the guy in the trenchcoat next to you you need to worry about.

It's the fact that some unknown entity owns/has set up the WiFi.

Anyone working with complex network setup and admin will tell you how much you can abuse owning the network a user is connected to.

The network guys at work never use public WiFi, not hotels or anything. Neither do I, even with my much more limited knowledge of network administration.

The thing is its only the copyrights of individual artists and creators that will die to this.

The big corpos will find a way to protect their value, just you wait.

They will steal from every single creative in the world and then sue them to hell and back if they use anything they them selves "own"

This is not a threat to the copyrights that you want to die.

Didn't know where in the tread to reply.

This is being worked on from multiple angles.

In the us apple, Google, Microsoft ++ are working on a common framework for this. (Shocking who are working on this in the us)

The EU has a citizens digital wallet program for the same purpose. These programs are also collaborating so that certificates and proof of personhood/citizenship etc can be exchanged between various actors.

The EU model leans heavily into privacy and user control of data, where you as an individual decides with whom to share your credentials, proof of personhood, etc.

This would lead to many possibilities, like for instance being able to confirm digitally prescriptions for medicine across borders, so you can easily get your medication even if you are traveling in another country, without having to spend time and energy getting signed paperwork send back and forth.

The most simple form of this would be that the system simply verifies that yes, you are indeed a human individual. But can be expanded to confirm citizenship, allow you to share your medical data with institutions, confirm diplomas and professional certification etc.

What I find interesting is how often statements like this that are trying to unify the working class (or whatever you end up calling it) just derails into semantics instead of actually people bringing out the pitchforks and shouting "eat the rich"

We are all fucked.

I have a 2018 Passat car net works just fine.

I had to contact the dealer to have them activate the eSIM in the car and register an account their site via the app. (Pretty standard stuff)

And yes it's a subscription like this for locating the car, updating navdata online and remote heating + charging info. (It's a hybrid)

Well.. I say "just fine" their app is slow and unstable. But everything worked nicely with an unofficial home assistant integration. And when VW moved everything over to their new app, it continued to work on my old car, and it took the HA community about a week to sort most of the new API out.

It's not perfect, but it does technically work, even on their older models. I can still download and install updated maps on it too for the onboard nav. (Though i usually just use Android auto...)

Even if you decided not to find out how to get it working, doesn't mean it's abandoned.

All that being said this is one of many genuine reasons to be concerned about this trend. And a good reason for people that write about and review cars to care about the software in the cars, the support you can expect, and the companys track record when it comes to supporting older models.

And like others have stated. The BMW example with the heated seats is just.. rotten.

"why not both?"

Indeed.

Breach of trademark, not copyright, whole different barrel of fish.