november

The fuckcars community is the last place I expected to see “you can’t regulate this industry because it’s too predatory”, but okay.

Right, so it’s okay when lawyers take the lion’s share of a settlement. Not like the whole point of a settlement is to reimburse the wronged party.

I just said it’s sus, but what is actually objectionable in the bill?

I’m a bit confused.

The California proposal, dubbed the “Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act,” is slated for the November midterm election. It would require crash victims to keep 75 percent of their total settlement awards, leaving lawyers and hospitals to split the remaining 25 percent.

That… seems totally fine? That “would make it harder for victims to sue after a car crash” in the same way that raising the minimum wage “makes it harder to find a job”.

The text of the bill is here if anyone wants to take a look. I’m reading through it and it seems to deal entirely with fees and contracts. It is a bit sus that Uber’s supporting it, but it’s important to have all the facts.

That’s especially weird, since Piefed usually shows comments from crossposts too but didn’t this time!

My instance tells me this post has 25 replies, but I don’t see any. Did something happen?

You should read it, actually. Coffee should not be hot enough that you need skin grafts if you spill it on yourself.

“Why should pedestrians have to make themselves visible, it’s cars’ fault” is basically the same argument as “I had the right-of-way, that car shouldn’t have hit me”.

Technically true? Sure! But useless in practice. Stop wearing all black at night, and don’t fucking chase a car that almost hit you.

It’s tires. Saved you a click.

Then maybe they should implement some traffic-calming, if they actually want slower traffic and aren’t just trying to get money.

There is a street in Chicago that runs straight through a nothing-ass area. On one side there’s a fenced-off neighborhood, yeah, but on the other side there’s nothing but an elevated toll road.

There is no reason for anyone to cross this street on foot. I cannot emphasize enough how much nothing there is on the highway side of the street. The sidewalks are physically separated from the street by actual trees. There are three lanes each way, no stop signs, and very few stop-lights.

Just a mile down the road is Hammond, Indiana where speed cameras are illegal, and the speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

As soon as you cross the border into Chicago? It’s 30.

Tell us more about how speed cameras aren’t just transparent revenue-seeking.

It’s not that LibreWolf deliberately blocks Claude. One of their anti-fingerprinting techniques messes with it.

“That sounds like an endorsement” referred to how they don’t want to waste their time or weaken their privacy tools just to make the slop machine work.

I did check. It’s not there.

Pocket’s dead now.

Like another user said, where’s “open image in new tab”? (I notice you didn’t reply to them.)

Remember XUL extensions and real browser themes?

Remember when you didn’t need a developer account to make extensions and you could distribute them via your own website?

But of course, Firefox never takes away choices that were previously offered.

All the freaking time?

Librewolf being so anti ai, using claude in it freezes the page and they seem unwilling to fix it.

For real? That sounds like an endorsement to me.

Yeah, these things suck. Computers shouldn’t be able to accuse people of crimes.

Also, in Chicago at least, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these in a “nice” neighborhood. They’re only in the low-income neighborhoods where the speed limit is at least 10 MPH lower than the road design would suggest it should be.