Comment on Why have we as a society just accepted the increasingly blinding bright lights of cars?
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Because it’s the sole responsibility of the owner to repair the car (and sometimes passengers) when it hits a wild animal, and brighter bulbs are an inexpensive preventative measure. And you really can’t replace people.
Other people complain about the bright lights, but they get real quiet when you say you hit a deer and now you have to pay hundreds you can’t afford to fix your car.
It’s the same with ad blockers. People say they cost websites money, but as soon as you get ransomware they say that’s on you, you should have used an ad blocker.
It’s a catch 22. Those who are proactive are painted as the problem by those who won’t help those who aren’t and wind up owing or paying more.
That’s what we gotta figure out. Otherwise we’ll all just keep talking past each other.
DistrictSIX@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
So basically what someone wrote above: “what’s important is that me and my family and property are safe”. Fantastic way to live in a society with other people.
What are you saying? Why would other people get quiet about what’s bothering them because you have to repair your car? Why is that everybody else’s problem? You are aware that you could slow down at night to avoid hitting wildlife, right? Blinding other innocent people at night is not “being proactive”, and it’s in no way morally comparable to ad blockers. The people being subjected to this aren’t trying to harvest your data to make money on you.
anon_8675309@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
This is why we’re in such a mess now. People have been trained that society sucks and it’s every man for themselves now.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
So that’s what I’m saying. People are talking past each other, no one is accomplishing anything.
And yes, the lives of my partner and kids is worth more than your inconvenience. I’m sure your partner and kids are worth more than my inconvenience. That’s just how people are. Maybe you don’t have kids, maybe you have elderly parents you care for. Maybe you’re a lone wolf and you don’t have anybody, but surely you recognise that there are other people with people they love and value over the convenience of others, so the point stands.
I don’t like bright lights either. But I’m also not donating to some stranger’s GoFundMe because he hit a deer being a nice guy who put your convenience over his safety, and now he’s got a broken leg, smashed fender, thousands in hospital bills, and hundreds in auto repair bills. I’m a nice guy, but I got needs and I also got wants. Does that make me an arsehole? If so, then so be it. The question is, are you donating? You said “why is that everybody else’s problem” implying it isn’t yours. So you aren’t, either. You put the blame on the guy for not driving slower. You’re saying his safety is his problem. Okay, fine. Now you don’t get to judge how he fixes that problem.
But don’t get me wrong. It’s the Internet, you can say what you want. But talk is cheap. Or as we said in the 1980s, “money talks and bullshit walks.” All we’re doing is walking in circles. I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. Therefore, the problem will not get solved, at least not between us. The silver lining there is that it is statistically unlikely that we will ever meet face to face, or on the road.
It is interesting, however, that you take the opposite position with ad blocking. True, they are not exactly the same thing, but it is a similar situation. And, like headlights, or slowing down, there are multiple solutions. But you passionately defend both sides of a similar argument when the subject changes. That should at least inform you that you are capable of reason, and that you can see that there are valid arguments on both sides. So, if nothing else, maybe you can at least appreciate that we will solve nothing by talking past each other. We’re tilting at windmills.
There was one moderately useful comment when I made mine: someone mentioned adaptive headlights. What they failed to mention, likely because it would undermine their point, is the cost of adaptive headlights. Ars Technica recently (week or two ago, I’m not gonna go dig for it) had an article about adaptive headlights. They sound great. They sound like they are the solution. In short, you get extremely bright light when you need it. When you have oncoming traffic, you still get stupidly bright light, but a smart array of LEDs makes sure none are pointing at the oncoming driver. Everything around them is lit up like high noon, but the other driver isn’t inconvenienced. That sounds awesome, but it’s also prohibitively expensive. The good thing is, cars will have this standard in a decade or so. Just like things like power windows and locks, power steering, and automatic transmissions became standard, so too will this. Then people will look back and call us savages.
Soggy@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
But not worth more than your inconvenience or you’d just slow down when you can’t see as well.