> The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident
The linked article just looked at collisions that happened and compared danger by vehicle weight. If I had to guess, I would assume lighter vehicles generally have a shorter stopping distance and hit pedestrians less.
The vehicle stopping distances are generally close enough that the only things that will matter in a practical sense is the reaction time of the driver and the condition of the vehicles. From 60mph to 0 in a Toyota Camry is 122 feet, and an F150 is 129 feet. The age of your tires/brakes blow away that 7 feet of difference.
I think it makes sense that video games shouldn't be resold. Do you think you should be able to resell a movie ticket? I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. In the same way I think purchasing a game should give you a right to download a game from your account.
The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.
When a game costs $50 and I can't get any of that money back when I've finished playing the game I need to think really carefully before buying it. If I know I can get some money back by selling the game it makes it easier for me to buy it.
> I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once.
So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
> The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.
Digital games have their own benefits — sales. If games can be resold, one person may buy a game and then sell it to another person. With non resealable games, both of the people in the above example would buy the game later in a sale. Sales are one of the best uses of price discrimination; practically everyone gets to play a game eventually if they want to, but those who especially want to can pay more.
> So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
I don’t see how my statement implies this. Single use tickets and subscriptions services are different things.
I think there are many more counter examples than supportive to your argument here:
- should you be able to resell a book?
- resell a CD?
- board game
- lego
- badminton racket
_ad nauseum_. the idea of a movie ticket, is that it provides a closed-in-time temporal experience. The movie screens at those given times in a theatre and then never there again (be it months or whatever post-release). A video game is an experience made whenever wherever a person wants.
Hey, Dang, Idk if this is allowed because this is politics, but I thought it was a noteworthy thing for a world leader to do. However, I understand if you want to delete it.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Yes, but even if the referenced security risk is patched you would still be able to find out if some has an account or not since a password reset page will tell you if it has successfully sent an email to an account.
A good password reset page would not disclose such a fact (it would return a successful response with a message "if this email exists, we'll email you" regardless of whether it actually exists) however attempting to create an account would disclose that fact by rejecting an account creation attempt with an existing email, unless they use emails purely as communication channels and accounts are uniquely identified by username/account number instead.
>however attempting to create an account would disclose that fact by rejecting an account creation attempt with an existing email, unless they use emails purely as communication channels
They can tell the user to await an e-mail from them with the confirmation link. Then if the e-mail address is already in use, send an e-mail saying, "somebody, probably you, tried to register as <new-username> on <site> but we have you down as <old-username> already". Otherwise, send a normal confirmation link.
It is the governments job to deal with this. Polluting the atmosphere may be cheaper for an individual consumer, but is a negative externality for everyone else on earth.
If the government didn’t involve itself in any green energy, Tesla would not be profitable.[1]
You should look into Ernesto Miranda. He did horrible things but the Supreme Court said that he incriminated himself without knowing his rights. Because of this, his conviction was overturned and now cops have to read ‘Miranda’ rights to everyone they arrest.
> and now cops have to read ‘Miranda’ rights to everyone they arrest.
This is a common misconception, but the requirement is not quite that broad. The police are not obligated to read you your miranda rights immediately upon request—it's possible that they might not at any point read you your miranda rights.
What they cannot do is begin to question or interrogate you if they do not read you those rights. Any questions they ask without having read you those rights are at risk of being thrown out in court. Police will usually interrogate people after an arrest, so will often read them their miranda rights. (Edit: I also found out that any spontaneous statements you make are also fair game, if they didn't ask a question or prompt the statement)
But, it's not an obligation for every arrest. If you are arrested the police might not read you your miranda rights, and your rights probably haven't been violated if they don't question you.
If you are ever arrested, and interrogated, DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE BEFORE YOU CONSULT YOUR LAWYER. Never, ever, talk to the police without speaking with a lawyer first. Here's an excellent video that explains the reasons why better than I can. I highly recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=4s
I do know about Miranda, I was tempted to mention him but I didn't want to end up implying this sort of sentence is always about bad guys - "often" was already a bit too strong for my taste.
