I almost didn't click here, my only thought upon seeing the facepalming headline was "Why are we still moaning about short term pain = long term gain?" But I'm glad I clicked. I see enough logical people that are pushing back and presenting clear and easy to understand points, like the one I'm replying to.

Will the detractors and whiners listen? Of course not. I see interesting insults about "people who need to control others" (?!) which is "not even wrong"... But I feel better about humanity that enough of you have defended something that is good.

If only more people these days could pass the cookie test. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F15...

Also, it doesn't cause more deaths, it just moves a few of them from the fall to the spring. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican...

The other reply I saw somewhere here that was great mentioned "if we only" did certain things to minimize the difficulty in making the switch so people don't need to moan about it... and it turns out we do do those things!

I haven't had mod points in years, but anyone who has them, please mod parent +1 insightful. I also agree that the tone of this /. submission is as problematic as Coke, but the comment I'm replying to gets at the real underlying issue.

Yup, this is what I came here to say.

I'd be in favour of retroactively changing all fonts to make I and l, and O and 0 distinguishable.

(looking at my screen right now, you have a chance at the oh and zero above, but not the other two, without maybe a magnifying glass and a lot of patience)

The discussion from all angles near the top of the comments section here (from my filtered view, anyway), is good.

I'm just here to acknowledge the comedic beauty of your lead-in (I assume unintentional, but nevertheless....)

> Words to matter.

[slow clap] :)

...ones that were getting cancelled by tv networks, like Lucifer, Fuller House...

Mod parent up. This is the first thing I noticed that was clearly wrong about the objection also. Let alone the whole premise for the objection is hogwash.

I really hope you typed this normally into vim and then :s/ //g before copy and pasting here, rather than tortured yourself to actually write it that way and/or go erase the spaces one by one afterward!

Respect.

IMHO that article you linked ends up sounding equally in favour of it NOT being a myth, if you read the whole thing.

All of the parent post was pretty much exactly what I was going to say - this sums up both issues.

It's obvious from human nature, that after the initial novelty of it, a human cannot continue to pay attention to the road when the car has handled all the driving for hours, days, weeks, etc. with no problems.

Engineering-wise, they need to figure out why she wasn't detected by the car, even if she put herself in danger by dressing for poor visibility at night. No car (or human), can be ready to avoid all objects (even previously noticed ones) to possibly dive out in front of them, but we need to know what data the car "Saw" through whatever imaging or radar systems it has, and whether there was a failure to detect an object that must be avoided, or if it had no chance due to physical layer lack of usable data (equivalent to a human being unable to see the person in the dark).

What a time to not have mod points. Please mod parent up.

Very well put

Side note - I remember when Google (Search) first came out. Sure, the results tended to be better, but most noticeably, compared to Yahoo which had started to use high-contrast-blinking banner ads, all you had was some mild, related text ads which you sometimes noticed and were definitely not in any way annoying. Once in awhile, I even clicked them because they were relevant and just to say thanks for not doing <blink> blinky </blink> ads like everyone else.

And you wonder why there was mass migration to Google as the de-facto standard.

Maybe you haven't seen or heard the words of the current POTUS. We live in an age where people can say things clearly and patently false, and yet have no intention of it being taken as sarcasm.

I had the advantage of seeing the comment modded +5 Funny before I read it, but without that benefit I'm not sure if I wouldn't have thought it was a person of low intelligence or character actually writing seriously or not.

Mod parent up

I'm a bit disappointed at this Ameri-centric article. So Michigan might lose maple syrup. Ontario has lots, and Quebec is like "tiens ma biere".

Canadian sugar maple range is lower than Michigan, and has plenty of water sources - it'll be one of the last places in the NE to dry up.

I think we'll be ok....