imo We've come a long way in a short period of time when it comes to vehicle safety, and i get the impression automobiles are going to be quite a bit safer in the near future.

I've been the cause of three minor fender benders in my life, and all three would have been avoided if i was driving a new fancy car equipped with collision avoidance gear.

lol; well, yes.
Actually, as a civilian, for short trips in bad traffic areas (yes, I know that light rail and mass transit would be better)---I would try this out.

And---for Air Ambulances (yes, mixed evidence on efficacy) and Military MediEvac---farther, faster, safer with more load?

Safest...of those we discussed, maybe. It's certainly not safer than well designed solar, wind, micro hydro, wave/tidal, etc.

Some in Fukushima have seriously elevated risk for cancers, but no one died of radiation poisoning that I've heard of (but many still can't go home). Not true in Chernobyl. I've not seen claims of thousands dead since the very early days, but a short investigation shows estimates vary widely, from 4000-60000 early deaths from radiation related cancers, and even the lowest estimates are unacceptable. Direct radiation related deaths seem to be around 100 there.

It does seem that today the evacuations cause more deaths, likely because of safety measures required after Chernobyl and the fact that most are only exposed for extremely short times because they evacuated and are not allowed to return until exposure levels are low.

There are real, honest health concerns involved, including indirect impact caused by evacuations or shelter in place stress. That said, there's plenty of exaggerated fear mongering too.

Nikola*

Due to software glitches? Are you sure it's not mechanical issues due to the fact that batteries in general still fking SUUUUCK after centuries of remaining fundamentally unchanged?

Until we can come up with a method of storing energy in a safer and more ecologically responsible manner than batteries in their current form, making everything electric can never fully take off.

But I digress.

Sounds like poor people making their house safer from teh local criminal element.

I spent 25-30 years waiting, hoping, expecting those good cops to toss out the bad ones and be the upright pillars of our communities they take credit for being. I was sorely disappointed and decided I better change my assessment and expectations.

That doesn't mean all cops are bad people, many are outstanding people. It means they are part of a culture that puts even terrible workmates above the public and the law they enforce, and that, by their own definition, makes them as guilty as the known criminal cops they harbor.
I can only blame the police leadership and unions for protecting police criminals instead of the public, and the current fight about misconduct investigation records only highlights it's an ongoing and worsening issue. They should want total transparency so the public knows the police aren't harboring and protecting rapists and brutal thugs. That would make the job safer and easier too.

I don't think I'm giving the bad cops power, I'm recognizing the reality that the bad cops apparently run the show and make their own rules whenever possible, including investigating themselves in secret when they're caught breaking them.

Foolish test subject, that was a hologram of cake.

Funny, but the robbers had axes. The owners had a defensible position and swords. Since this is known now, the robbers can bring bows and...soon you end back up with guns.

The only alternative to this is to disarm everyone, knowing the criminals will not obey, and hope that the 'safer' weapons the criminals do use will at least allow for a less wounded victim. This method also relies on the victim to capitulate completely in mortal fear.

Many might prefer the second method, I do not. Sadly, most nutjobs and criminals know that good targets can be found in any state, some much more than others but realistically any state is vulnerable.

Why? Because even in gun friendly states, 'gun free' zones exist. Nine times out of ten, that 'gun free' zone is going to be the target. You will hear stories that say "Oh, a person was shot at a gun range/show" or "Chris Kyle was killed with a friend at a gune range." What those stories leave out are the details, because the headline is what matters when you are pushing an agenda.

The gun range Chris Kyle was shot at is an outdoor one, the three men were alone and isolated. The mental one shot two men and fled. You will hardly read that, usually the image they want to present is that multiple other gun owners were standing around and did nothing.

You will see stories about people shot at other ranges or at gun shows. What they generally won't mention is that almost all of them are due to either a self wound (suicide) or an accidental shooting from poor handling.

I started driving in Montreal for 12 years, and moved to Toronto for another 13 years. These 2 cities always had a bit of a rivalry. Montreal drivers calling Toronto drivers stupid idiots and Toronto's calling Montreal's crazy speed demons. These stereotypes are both accurate. Comparatively I'd feel safer with Montreal's crazy speed demons all around me any day -- they speed pass you of the left, they signal, they don't hog the left lane most of the time. Overall more skillful. Things like the above video happen in Montreal once in a blue moon. Toronto, way too often.

I often road tripped around the Buffalo, NY - Washington DC corridors and I'd say even they are better drivers (in terms of skillfulness & situational awareness) than Torontonians...

I wondered if your use of the past tense should be taken to mean that they are no longer in business, so I googled. It appears that they are still going.

Interesting stuff in the Wikipedia article. It notes that the Surgeon General warnings about tobacco still apply, and in fact they have to include a disclaimer that says "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".

So now I guess I'm back to being surprised and a bit suspicious about the lack of evidence for smoked marijuana causing cancer, as opposed to tobacco being very clearly linked to cancer...

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.



And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)



Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)



Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.

-scheherazade

But... they mostly do that with helicopters.

When they use boats they drop a line and winch the crew up/down because the oil rigs are generally way too tall to go from deck to deck.

Also, I'm not entirely sure this technology is safer in rough seas than a traditional hull, especially when you factor in the added risk of mechanical failure.

Nuclear prices are going up because they are under attack from the fossil fuel industry and they are not allowed to innovate with new technologies that are much safer and cheaper.

This guy kept showing up on that horse and he is the shittiest rider possible. Really, it's painful to watch him. If he had an ounce of self awareness he'd understand how bad he looks.

If I was on a trail ride with this guy I'd make him get off the horse and walk it to an enclosed arena where he'd at least be a little safer.

And I feel bad for that horse, getting it's head yanked around with a tom thumb bit like that.

You’re right. Cars and trucks are deadly in the wrong hands.

Which is why we regulate them. You need a licence to drive one. You are tested to see if you are a competent driver. People with serious mental health issues are restricted from driving and there are MASSIVE industry regulations that attempt to make these vehicles safer.

There’s also entire departments dedicated to studying road fatalities.

None of which is true of guns. The CDC can’t even STUDY gun violence.