Children are going to be assaulted and taken advantage of by people they know who are in positions of power.

While this is true, the power isn't always obvious and actually the most common people to harm a child are family members. The second most common is people known to the family, not just the child - so yes priests or pastors are included, but aren't most common and this also includes friends of the family, coaches, babysitters, etc. People that the family trusts.

It's parents' job to protect their kids, not any site/game (and I say this as a parent). And it's infinitesimally easier to protect your kid from people you don't know on the internet than it is to protect them from someone that has gained your trust over years and that live with you, or that you let into your home, or that you let your kid into their home, or you trust to give your kid a ride home after practice. Really, I think that's why people are up in arms about this, and stranger danger in general - because it gives them something to focus on that they feel like they can control. Even though actually not talking to strangers isn't feasible (because everyone is a stranger until you get to know them - classmates, teachers, neighbors, doctors, cashiers at the store, the mailman that may ask you to sign for a package, heck family when you're first born), you can feel like you're doing something by preaching stranger danger, or by forcing Roblox to change. But it's not feasible (and wouldn't be mentally healthy for the kid) to actually protect a kid from the people most likely to harm them (you'd have to, just for a start, never let even the parents be alone with the kid; but even then, who could be the supervisor? Any family is just as much danger. You'd have to hire people and replace them often enough that the family doesn't get to know them, but even then predators could take the job...), so we have to live with the assumption that we can trust the people we trust.

When you're driving, you don't notice because you're moving fast (which means it gets more data) and hopefully not looking at the map (so you don't necessarily notice if it's inaccurate for a moment). You're also bigger, likely to be on one side of the street depending on which direction you're traveling (so if it just estimates, it's usually right), etc.

I've certainly noticed a problem in downtown Chicago while walking and biking. (In other places with skyscrapers too, but I'm in Chicago a lot so I notice it a lot). GPS often can't accurately gauge which direction I'm traveling, will say I'm a street or two over from where I actually am, etc. This at times renders the directions completely useless.

I recently went on a long bike trip somewhere there were no skyscrapers, and it was like night and day. I was just amazed at how well the GPS worked.

Maybe 10 years ago. If you're too stupid to use Wine directly, Lutris, Heroic, or Bottles makes it just as simple as using Steam on Windows. Or you can simply "add a non-Steam game" to Steam - it doesn't care if it's not actually a game.

You're supposed to be imagining you're not a complete idiot, which means you would say that Google Maps isn't giving accurate directions. The agency might have already gotten different directions, because you're not the only person using Google Maps. But yes, calling the place is also an option. Maybe don't trust AI to give you the phone number lol

Now imagine the same situation, but without you being a complete idiot. You'd use that phone you just used Google Maps on to call the agency and ask for directions, and not lose any income.

If you have double check everything the Chat bot tells you, why bother with it in the first place? Seems like a way a stupid person would waste a lot of time.

Why indeed? You're right, that does seem stupid.

Asking the AI if the hardware store is open when the consequence of it being wrong is I drive a few extra miles to Lowe's and deal with the more limited selection of whatever there. Is a great use of AI. I have saved time trying to make a call waiting for someone to answer or not, or trying to find their website, trying to locate their hours on said website, so on. If I drive by and see the open sign isn't lit i don't even have to stop the car, the consequences for being wrong are low.

Or you could have saved even more time by just driving past and not asking AI at all. So yes, why bother wasting time with AI?

It's just BS "to drum up engagement". There are signs (with English too) that say the ropeway operating hours (09:00 - 16:00). And besides that (she got me on her site long enough to find this out so I guess it worked), they live in Japan and she is preparing for the N1 exam which means she speaks and reads Japanese very well. And with running a blog about traveling in Japan, there's no way she's that clueless.

Well for the people using ChatGPT to plan their hike, the fact that they were using ChatGPT should have been their first hint that the information was AI generated.

Aside from that, we could get into the intricacies of identifying AI-generated content and argue about if it's stupid to be fooled, but it's irrelevant. You don't even have to know information was AI generated; it's stupid to not double check and to trust Google Maps or a Youtube video, because even if it was posted by a human, humans can lie or be wrong. If there's no official website that has clearly been recently updated (so you know it has up-to-date information), then you call, or ask when the last ropeway is before you go up a mountain, or look at the signs. If you can't do these things because of a language barrier or something, then consult with a translator or guide, or just don't for example hike up a mountain that you can't hike back down. That's being smarter, and it would indeed protect you from getting stuck on a mountain top.

This more replaces Doordash/Uber Eats drivers (which is good because it means even fewer vehicles on the road) but yes. I'd choose robots that I have to swerve or step around over drivers of any type. Drivers are not only not my friends, they also regularly endanger my life. Moreso when they're looking at their phone to see where the delivery goes or to get their next order (not that this is a problem unique to delivery drivers).

because you can choose to go where you want whenever you want.

But you can't actually. You're legally limited on where you can drive, where you can stop, where you can get out, and where you can leave it - either when you can do those things or if you can do them at all. You have to stay within range of a gas or charging station. Etc.

And if so much time is saved by using a personal vehicle, why can people not take a few more seconds to pull out or a few more minutes to stop somewhere safe and change settings?

I think what's going on is that most people don't actually like driving/being in a personal vehicle - that's why they try to get it over with as quickly as possible. (The part I don't get is the insisting that they love it. Like we can just admit that our car-centric society sucks, and most people consider personal vehicles the least sucky way to deal with it.) They look at how public transit and ride shares/taxis sometimes take longer, and imagine it's like being in a personal vehicle but longer. Most complaints about public transit are not intrinsic to public transit, but are symptoms of bad public transit. In places with decent and good public transit, transit stops are closer to destinations than parking lots, you don't have to wait very long, etc. Trains are faster than cars, and in places with bus-only lanes (that are actually enforced) buses sometimes are too.

And then there's the fact that, good or bad, on public transit (and in ride shares/taxis, and while waiting for them), you don't have to deal with the stress of driving and can safely do whatever you want - read, nap, play a video game, watch something, adjust the settings on your personal devices without stopping, etc. etc. If other people are going with you, everyone with you can be mentally present, interact, look at the scenery (vs in a personal vehicle the driver has to focus on driving) etc. So it isn't wasted time in the same way driving is, it's leisure time. (If you asked me if I'd rather drive for 20 minutes or read/game/relax/talk to my kids or friends for an hour, I'm picking the hour every time. Not that that's actually the choice most of the time.) Walking or biking to/from public transit stops (or to/from your destinations) means less time you have to set aside for exercise (or it means being healthier, for the people that don't set aside time for exercise at all)... and it's - dare I say - enjoyable. I bike or walk even on days I have nowhere to go. I travel to places specifically to bike and walk and take transit, and actually see places rather than staring at the backs of cars. I'm less limited on where I can go and when, and enjoying life more than when I used a personal vehicle.

The danger is because you (and your friend) are starting to go too fast. You're supposed to take your time, make sure all systems are functioning correctly, make sure everything is set how it's wanted, and then make sure everything's clear and start to go. If you want to change some settings, you're supposed to stop somewhere safe and do so. If it's awhile before you get somewhere safe to stop... you're supposed to wait.

I don't quite get why people insist they love personal vehicles, yet put themselves and others in danger to decrease the amount of time spent in them as much as they can.

I mean, in the US we have lottery vending machines. I guess the fact that they can't redeem winnings (except on more tickets/cards) might dissuade minors, if they realize that, but they could get someone else to redeem it for them if they win...

We also have cigarette vending machines... nowadays you rarely find those anywhere people under 21 are allowed (unlike the lottery vending machines), but I don't know if that's because it didn't work (like, a kid picking up cigarettes for their parents didn't use to be a big deal, the problem would be if they were smoking them) or because of the idea that it wouldn't work.

So point it at some other accounts too, with a timer so you have time to change them if those people get fired before you do. You could make it look like a maintenance thing that was just poorly coded.

I'm not sure why Linux detractors so consistently use outdated information about this. Have you tried Linux in the past ~5 years? Steam (even with non-Steam games), Lutris, and Heroic have made it easy, and games run better when the hardware is able to be used to run the game instead of running the bloat of Windows.

Some specific games won't run on Linux due to the anti-cheat, but almost all gamers can do without those games (and if they would for a little while and say why, more developers would make them run on Linux).

I'm a hardcore gamer, with a family of gamers of differing computer ability. We play recent games as well as old games. Although we used Windows for decades because of that, Linux is now used exclusively in my house.

All car owners are cash cows.