Pika

lol no, Too many impatient drivers on the road that'll take the lower efficiency to get to the destination faster. If anything, I think a lower average speed is just going to increase road rage and potentially increase accident chances

oh hey, they last line of the page even confirms that theory

Honestly, this isn't a horrible idea. If the motion sensor is in a different location than the actual disposal,, Like a motion sensor under a black panel instead of the light switch to remove the electrical hazard chance

hard agree

People act as if the everyday person has this imaginary power. That's going to make things better. No. Collected efforts have this power that makes things better. And for some stupid reason, at least in the US, we are extremely against using that power.

people would rather try to support it as an individual instead of support it as a collective, so instead of it being an actual impact, it's only like a drop in the bucket that the companies can ignore. all for a pittance of extra income.

They only expose approximate, not precise, locations, so they shouldn't be a risk like GPS that exposes precise locations?

Be aware, this is VASTLY dependent on your ISP. Smaller ISP's especially DSL based ones in rural areas are notorious for giving almost exact address when you reverse look up it.

My old ISP used to do that. like I had to try super hard to mask my IP if I went somewhere like IRC or Chatango that disclosed the full address to people joining, because if someone wanted to they could have looked up my address down to the house just by following the remote lookup because it would show my address instead of their nearest hub.

Thankfully now it shows me somewhere in NY which I feel a lot more comfortable with, but still don't take for granted that it's only an approximate.

As for actual privacy risks? It really depends on how private you want to get. A reverse lookup will give you your provider, and sometimes as I said above more. And if you have any forwarding enabled they can also try to get through your services using any exploits or misconfigurations you may have.

Additionally, some routers will disclose a worryingly large amount of data if misconfigured, for example ATT modem/routers will give customer information, connected devices(including names) and VOIP phone configurations if you can get the router to think you are a local device or manage to misconfigure the management port to allow external connections. This is all without the requirement of a password/no auth

It likely is going to fall under child neglect. I don't know of an actual law specifically for locking a kid in a car.

As for the exceptions thing, that is the same in the states, it usually falls under law(s) categorized as "Good Samaritan laws". They are moreso meant to protect the bystander if they see someone in peril but, breaking the window to save a kid or pet that is clearly in distress would normally fall under that. Personal injury also usually fall under these laws, like if you accidentally injured someone getting them to safety (like after a car accident) when it was clear they were in a dangerous location, it helps relieve the bystander liability.

It's also supposed to be the reason that EMS/Fire/Police have Qualified immunity. because when the call to action arises, you don't want your first responders first thought to be "How will this negatively affect me" you want it to be "how can I do the most in this situation"

So many steps were taken here that made no sense. Like why would the mom even think it was ok, and why did the office tell the mom "Yea they can wait in the lobby" like I assume she didn't give an age or anything cause no office worker is going to knowingly allow this to happen, or allow a 1 and 2 year old to just sit in the lobby.

I agree, but I think that hurting the companies bottom line is more effective than waiting on an archaic court system to do something. Just look at how slow the /current/ monopoly case on google is going.

please don't pancake vs waffle me, especially considering that I have clarified to you what I meant by that post. Just because I explicitly state neglect in one, doesn't mean the other isn't neglectful. Neglect still falls under bad choices, however I would not call intent to kill just a "bad choice" which is was the point of the comparator in the first place. Not debate over if its neglect or not.

As for your analogy, I don't really think that is a safe analogy to apply to this situation. A child left without food and water for a week will always lead to death, a child being left alone for a few hours in a climate controlled area will not. It's a false analogy.

instead I will respond with a fairer analogy. "Would it be considered neglect to leave a child unsupervised for 3 hours but leave food in the fridge" which I would still say is yes, but it's weighed significantly less then someone who decided to go on vacation for a week leaving food in the fridge as was your first analogy. Or someone who didn't leave food at all, which is more compatible to the first glace at this page.

it would need to be advertised as a change and have it as a setting that had to be set yea, just have it default blocking abusive trackers, having Google bot or whatever it's crawler name is as on there, with a toggle to allow it again

I mean, with a company as large as cloudflare. I think they could /easily/ strong-arm this move by making blocking google crawlers a default setting on websites. The amount of traffic drop alone from that would make google think twice about the whole ordeal. And people who care about the google search indexers can turn them on again which will allow indexing again. but a default block would cause a lot of disruption google side and many people I don't think would go in and fix the setting till later on down the road.

Firmly agree with the statement that it was irresponsible because yes it was regardless.

However, disagree with the statement that a climate control system is not meant to be operated while idle. That is an old myth that I expect came from back when there was fewer electrical components in the car so not turning the ac /off/ before turning the vehicle off would risk damaging the cars electrical.

To a vehicle's climate control system it doesn't give a damn if it's driving or idle. Now, while being idle, you have less fuel efficiency, And if you don't have the engine running, it will drain more battery than needed, which will make your battery less efficient. But as for actual wear and tear on the components, running it at idle is almost no difference than whether you're driving with it on.

Again, though, didn't claim it wasn't irresponsible either way, But it's highly unlikely that Climate system would have failed if the vehicle had stayed on.

I'm not. I'm just saying that one imstance is significantly worse than the other. Just because I'm saying that doesn't mean I agree with either instance, But out of the two available instances, this one is the preferred instance over intentionally putting a child in a vehicle for two and a half hours with no AC.