Same here. Neuropathy fucked my hands so I drop shit all the time and phones have become unwieldy as fuck since touchscreens became the norm.

I literally shattered my phone screen dropping it on a skittle once.

Yea. Also have an old moto g and am sad to find that E and G os are not compatible.

Glad we could settle that miscommunication then.

Transporting goods via car does not require structuring our entire society around them being the primary method of transportation. You can still transport goods via vehicle while having accessible public transit and cities/towns structured around pedestrians. Rural included.

Entirely false claim.

People used horse and buggy to transport goods between towns. Inside of towns themselves, people just fucking walked places mate because we didn’t needlessly build them so far apart in order to accommodate vehicular traffic.

We absolutely have the resources required to overcomes these distances and enact functional public transit with a restructuring of our towns and cities.

I’m over this conversation if you’re just going to keep repeating that bs.

Only because we have made society this way. There is ZERO material necessities that stipulate that it must be this way. None, absolutely nadda.

Other countries have done it. The size argument is bullshit, China is able to do it and has equivalent landmass. No excuses. The entire point of trains was to traverse these vast expanses. Trains are what drove the Westward expansion of American society. So arguing that trains can’t handle those distances is absurd.

Also, public transit is more than just trains, it’s also walkability and bus services. Cars can exist in society without them being the primary method of transportation.

“Economically feasible” is a bullshit excuse because we create the economy. If the economy can’t meet the needs of people then the economy is what needs to change, not force people to go without BASIC SERVICES. Money is not a materially limiting factor.

Humanity existed without cars (or a horse and buggy since someone made that flippant response) for hundreds of years and we absolutely can restructure our societies to go back to being pedestrian centric in both urban AND rural locations. It is entirely possible and there is no legitimate excuse not to. Economically feasible as stated is not a legitimate excuse.

Except this is entirely false of a claim. Human society worked for thousands of years before the car. European countries prove it is possible as well with their rural public transit services. It is absolutely not a necessity. There is no reason to design our cities and towns around personal vehicles being the primary method of transportation.

Removing them from the road is a complicated issue with the stated issues of public transit access being limited. Limiting someone permanently from driving in some places might as well be a death sentence depending on their finances, which is also a big issue with punishment as a deterrent. The point of punishment is inherently to coerce people’s actions by way of threatening them with socially harmful consequences enforced by the state to deter them from acting in specific ways as dictated by law. Revoking their license and removing them from the road is the threat that is supposed to deter people from drunk driving. Yet, removing an offender does nothing to prevent more drunk driving from happening, thus not solving the issue at hand, as drunk driving is an impulse decision made in the moment (usually being a result of how convenient and accessible alternative means of traveling to the intended destination are) and not an action that is made out of habit or direct choice, though there are exceptions to this but those are also much larger issues usually, like mental health and such.

That’s all a much larger discussion, though, and let’s not digress.

The issue at hand is with privacy and data collection with cameras that are recording in modern cars with onboard computers connected to cellular networks via SIM cards. I would not put it past modern, capitalist driven companies to not utilize this for those ends under the guise of it being for “public safety”.

They can claim it is offline but so long as the vehicle computer that it is recording to is connected, which most modern ones are, then it is a privacy vulnerability risk that I absolutely believe modern companies will abuse; the most probable excuse being “analytics data collection for improving the device operations”. There are ways around it, like disabling the modem, but that puts unnecessary burden on the consumer which may void warranties and the like.

You do realize in countries across Europe with cities that are actually designed around pedestrians, people bike all the time during the winter?

Jackets exist. And it isn’t nearly as bad when everything is less than a 15 minute bike ride at the worst.

It is when you live in a car-centric society with an abysmal lack of accessible public transit that necessities the ability to travel by way of a personal vehicle in order to survive.

Your excuse is just as pathetic as “if you don’t like the working conditions just get a better job”. Such simple-minded, ignorant bullshit.

Must be nice being so ignorant of economic and class based interests and being that oblivious to the systemic forces of our society and how they manifest.

It doesn’t have to exist yet to readily assume, using class based analysis of our society, that it will be used against us by those who control the means to its distribution and implementation.

Except for the thousands of years that humanity was able to exist in low population density towns and villages completely fine without the need for personal vehicles.

That statement just isn’t true in the slightest. It’s only part of rural living because that’s how it has been designed in roughly the last century of human society.

There is no materially restrictive reason it has to be this way. It is entirely a problem that is artificially created.

Your point is good up until you start naively slandering Anarchism out of nowhere. Way to absolutely undermine yourself there.

It’s only a ticket to freedom because rural living is structured like ass. It’s a bandaid on a bigger, festering issue of poor city planning.

It is readily proven that punishment does not work as a deterrent mechanism against criminal behavior, including drunk driving. Most crime is done on impulse, with no consideration of future consequences, regardless of how impactful those consequences may be.

The solution is proper public transit and urban design going back to focusing on pedestrian-centric instead of being car-centric. But that’s a much larger societal issue and unfortunately people don’t like the effort that it requires so they incessantly search for a quick fix “solution” that just puts a bandaid over the problem instead of solving it.

The law is doing its job, the law wasn’t created to help people, but to serve the interests of the ruling class. Naive to think these new policies aren’t the law doing what it was always intended to do.

Yup, same old “think of the children” excuse. It’s a carrot on a string so you don’t look at the stick.