I've only had a couple weeks in rentals with automatic emergency braking, and was very nearly been rear-ended twice due to false positives. Anecdotal, and I'm sure they'll improve with time, but I would never allow the system I experienced anywhere near a car I owned. It was profoundly unsafe.
Some years ago, I was in a major crash. The traffic in front of me stopped, I braked hard and stopped in time, the truck behind me rammed me into the car in front. Nearly killed me.
Some time later, I was on a snowy road. The cars in front of me stopped, I stopped, and checked my rearview mirror. There was a truck, who clearly wasn't going to stop. I pulled off to the side, and he hit the car in front of me.
>was very nearly been rear-ended twice due to false positives
To be fair, if the cars behind you had automatic emergency braking you would be at much lower risk of getting rear-ended when there's a false positive.
Assuming you're already stuck with such a vehicle, is there any benefit to a dashcam that captures the alert-noises to prove the that you, the driver, never chose to brake unsafely?
I realize this relies heavily on the questionable sanity and ethics of insurance companies. Even if they agree you aren't personally at fault, they'd probably just increase the premiums for everyone with that model, rather than sue the car manufacturer.
Never hear of someone who was rear ended being liable. Guy behind should keep a distance that allows him reacting in time and he is responsible for keeping that distance.
The same for skiing you don’t have eyes on the back of your head, one behind you is responsible for not crashing into you.
In car you have rear mirrors but if you have something in front of you and breaking you are not going to look in the mirrors.
Yeah, I suppose this could vary by geography, but my understanding is that in Canada, you're nearly-absolutely responsible for hitting anything in front of you, and nearly-absolutely not responsible for anything hitting you from behind.
The only exception I could think of would be if someone intentionally jumped in front of your car, or if you did a patently and clearly unsafe maneuver, but even then I think there'd be a sort of rebuttable presumption of fault.
More like the busybodies who have never experienced an adverse event in their life and are utterly ignorant of recent history and think some news coverage means the entire country is in terrifying threat of pedophiles grabbing kids off the street.
These were the same people who insisted in the 90s that we teach every kid about stranger danger while the actual causes of that kind of stuff, which has always been overwhelmingly someone known to the family, is ignored.
The same people who insisted you were going to be constantly bombarded with offers of free drugs which had of course been spiked to kill you, or that your halloween candy would definitely be poison because one time a weird uncle harmed their family that way, or that "Rainbow Parties" are a real thing that anyone should have ever cared about.
These people are insanely credulous, and live in perpetual fear of whatever Nancy Grace insists is coming to kill them tomorrow.
Our neighborhood in the northeast US does the same (minus the hard prohibition against parents going with them). Our 5 and 9 year old walk to school daily, usually picking up the neighbors' kids (6, 6, 10, 9, 7, 7) along the way. If we happen to be free sometimes an adult will walk with them, sometimes we start walking with them and then stop for coffee with a neighbor while the kids continue on, sometimes they go by themselves.
I can't imagine living somewhere where that was prohibited.
This comes up every so often, and while it's sort of almost true and attractive, it isn't actually correct.
The correct rule is "follow the C grammar". An easier to remember and also correct rule is "start at the identifier being declared; work outwards from that point, reading right until you hit a closing parenthesis, then left until you hit the corresponding open parenthesis, then resume reading right..." (this is sometimes called the "right-left rule": https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gbournou/CSE131/rt_lt.rule.html).
The best summary--and easiest to remember, IMHO--is that variables are declared as they are used.
Want to write an array of function pointers that return a pointer to an array of pointers to int? Well, that's:
array ... -> x[N]
... of function pointers ... -> T (*x[N])()
... that return a pointer ... -> T *(*x[N])()
... to an array ... -> T (*(*x[N])())[M]
... of pointers ... -> T *(*(*x[N])())[M]
... to int ... -> int *(*(*x[N])())[M]
It doesn't make it all that easy to read, but you can at least write the complex types pretty reliably.
(The real answer is of course to just typedef every function pointer type or pointer-to-array and not worry about it anymore.)
Why would you do that? Ignoring for the moment arguments of prototypes and sizes of arrays, read C declarations the way they were designed: “char *a[<whatever>]” means that the expression *a[<whatever>] has type char; “char (*a(<whatever>))[<whatever>]” means that the expression (*a(<whatever>))[<whatever>] has type char; and so on. Then you apply the normal precedence rules for expressions, and in this case only knowing them for the prefix and postfix operators is sufficient. (Hint: all prefix operators have one precedence and all postfix ones another, and you know which one binds tighter if you know what *i++ means.)
I mean, yes, you’ve given a correct algorithm for parsing this simple precedence grammar, but it still leaves the impression that there’s something new to learn in addition to C expressions, whereas the whole point of the declaration syntax is that there largely isn’t.
"Centrist" in practice means "more or less content with the status quo." That is fundamentally a conservative position orthogonal to any notion of "facts".
Field hockey is almost exclusively a girls sport in the US, while boys have (American) football in the fall. Both draw from the potential pool of soccer players in US middle and high schools.
“in a real race we have no actual chance of winning” is an absolutely wild thing to say in response to a link to a real race in which the human has won the last few years in a row.
The race is pretty much designed to be a difficult for horses as possible to give humans a chance. Except for the parts that are extremely difficult for horses, horses steamroll the human competitors.
reply