I don’t beleive my worst car is anywhere near as bad as some terrible cars I’ve driven/borrowed/rented. Background: I’ve been driving since 2008 and have owned 7 vehicles with 4 wheels between my y wife and I. And it is a diverse range of slow, small, unequipped, unreliable, and unattractive. But almost everything was bought for the purposes they exceed at so I don’t complain about informed decisions.

The only car I didn’t really choose was my first car, a 98 Taurus inherited from grandparents. I could call it the most boring, or the most mediocre when weighing all metrics, but not the worst I’ve used for at least an hour. I had it for 10 years before rust made it too risky for a long commute. The cheap leather seats were durable enough, the power was enough (faster duratec), the interior was roomy enough for 4, the trunk as normal, and the wind noise was low (slippery dickens aero design). The appearance was a distinct product of its time, out of place by time I owned it - they went TOO round. Parts supply wasn’t great on some key critical areas that did change over the years, such as coolant and transmission tubes. I could handle it now, but it’s long gone.

The one that would resemble OP’s situation remains my favorite, a Lincoln LS. Knowledge is what makes this one tolerable when it fails (by recognizing symptoms before catastrophic failure) and keep the memories net-positive. The handling is superb, as Ford/JLR sought to directly compete with BMW with this car and the Jaguar S-type (same chassis). Power was good for 2000 but didn’t inflate to stay good by 2006, but the good noises offset the actual performance for me. But these things are notorious for misfires (which get misdiagnosed), overheating (which gets misdiagnosed), transmission issues (which get them replaced when they can be maintained better and fixed easier), need more frequent suspension rebuilds like a real BMW, and have a slew of unique parts because this is closer to a Jaguar than a Town Car. But every time I drive it, there’s just something special about it.

A short version of what many consider terrible is a Geo Tracker and a 4cyl 90s Ranger. People call the Ranger way too slow. I’ll tell you what’s slow, a Geo Tracker. The Tracker works just fine, you just have to crank it out on on-ramps and hope no one jams your flow by merging at 20 under. But it’s tiny size (smaller footprint than a Miata) is a treat to maneuver, the 4x4 is realer than a common modern suv, the convertible top masks the mediocrity with summer thrills, and the heater is one of the strongest I’ve ever owned for the “cold winters in a soft top”. Meanwhile, the Ranger is a little quicker, happier to cruise on the highway, has more than enough power for a competent well-planning driver, and hauls bulky stuff the same as a bigger engine/pickup. I’ve had 800lbs of plywood and barely noticed a difference. I’ll take the improved MPGs.

So what’s the worst car I’ve driven for at least an hour in town, city, and highway? My dad’s 2011 Hyundai Sonata. I don’t know what went so wrong, but I just hated everything about it. I did my best to adapt and get comfortable, but it was just a terrible experience. It exceled at mediocrity. The interior materials were 20 shades of hard gray, the displays were uninformative, the doors closed with the sound of a door 30 years older, the buttons were unfriendly, the visibility was lacking, the front is hideous, the headlights are atrocious, it eats tail light bulbs, the arm rests are all wrong for me, the dash buttons and indicators all used deep blue LEDs for illumination which is atrocious to see at night (too much UV intrusion and blurring), and despite already being familiar with an 80hp Geo, this Sonar felt more underpowered with its vague automatic transmission and polite engine noise.

Was it a pre-96 boxy taurus? Those were excellent for the time and very reliable because they had to be to be competitive. 96 brought the doughy redesign that triggered a decline. It held the top sales figure a little longer, but mainly due to continued fleet sales. The transmission was a weak point, the fuel economy was lacking, and “Taurus” was kind of your father’s brand. The redeeming benefit was that the 2000 redesign only changed half the car, so they were quite repairable by having a 10 year run. The door skins are identical for the 3rd and 4th gens.

Nah, the official girl figure came first. The porn version they had on hand was a boy.

I can’t beleive the number of New Yorkers (NYC residents and expats) that trust Trump. He has wreaked havoc across the city and metro area with terrible buildings, stiffed contractors, and constant financial mockery. His post-TV show perception has done an insane job of making even the most affected people forget what a sack of shit he his. They really think 1. He runs businesses well due to his continued financial growth and that 2. Running the country like his businesses will somehow benefit them, the national equivalent of those laid off from his private endeavors.

So anyway, that’s how I know they just racist assholes.

Despite the larger size and bright colors, they’re a bit more discreet than cigarettes. Most places that ban cigarettes equally ban vapes, so they’re often concealed more. That probably has a spillover effect to areas they’re allowed. They’re only activated when sucked, so, unlike a cigarette that’s burning whether you suck it or not, most people take a puff or 3 of vape and then go a few minutes without it. It’s not as obvious as a person deliberately smoking one whole cigarette.

But maybe they’re not around you. I think the other comments covered the locations well enough, sarcasm included. But if you suddenly smell something sweet like fruit or cereal, casually take a look for someone vaping

They did. In the 90s, the FRA figured out plastic bearing pads caused a wobble in one exact type of intermodal car that triggered derailment.

This is an excellent science fair project. This is not some hidden solution to derailment. The article is devoid of details other than the student observed great variance in truck spring condition and did extensive hypothetical testing to show it can contribute to derailment.

A contributing factor to both frequency and severity of derailment, sure, but a rare initial cause. “Springs” are not outside the considerations of the FRA. If you ever have trouble sleeping, read an FRA derailment report of some non-catastrophic event. Back in the 90s, they went so far as to identify dampening pads - thin plastic plates in the trucks - as the cause of derailment for new heavier intermodal cars. 1" thick plastic that deformed 1/8" under the 250,000lb+ load hit a harmonic frequency that led the trucks to hunt (wobble left and right but never finding a steady center) until the wheels hopped the tracks when entering a curve.

There is a massive test facility in Pueblo, Colorado that has the smartest engineers on the continent working and testing there. There’s straights, curves, a super loop, road crossings, bridges, and even a concrete wall for crashing. They pull rail cars wired more than your road car all to find something, anything in the data. So can resonant frequency be a big contributor to derailment? Yeah, of course. A push becomes a shove 3 cars later and hits some limit. But there’s absolutely no way to predict or control it because every car, ever load, and every piece of track is going to have some unique critical frequency.

And, for the record, the vast majority of those “1300 derailment per day” are low speed (which the article mentions) inside yards when assembling the full train (which the article does not mention). And, while the individual root cause of other derailments is varied, a majority of them are triggered by hard braking. It takes a few minutes for the brake signal to reach the end of the train - it’s a system operated by air pressure that’s used for both signaling and applying brakes. This means when the locomotive slams the brakes, the back of the train is still trying to shove it ahead at full speed long after the locomotive passes the engineer’s original line of sight. This force can be so great it makes the rail roll out form underneath the train. Add in coupler cushions and the train can shorten itself by a few hundred feet under this pressure, shoving couplers to the sides, taking out all the cushion slack, and adding slack towards the front as the middle and rear cars apply the brakes, creating a slinky longer than a mile weighing 140 tons per link. And yes, they’ve certainly “figured out” that empty cars in front of loaded cars is a huge contributing factor to these forces, there’s nothing easy about staying competitive. This platform shows it’s well aware of how much ground rail is losing to truck transportation. By rate and by severity, trucks vastly outweigh trains in terms of damage. The problem is rail failure is much more catastrophic and gets more news. 1 fiery derailment is news. 100 fiery trucks are a statistic. Same as planes. Way safer per passenger mile, way more deadly in failure.

And why do brakes perform so poorly? Because the benefits that come from “interchange” of rail cars between trains, lines, and companies, also comes with a massive interchangeability headache for any changes. I’m not defending the rail industry as if they’re innocent bystanders, but we should all be able to understand the difficulty in trying to convert 1.4 million freight cars to a new system for the first time in, literally, 100 years. Many of these cars reach 50 years of service before being scrapped. Someone owns the rail, someone owns the locomotive, someone owns the freight car base, someone might own the freight car body, and someone owns the cargo. These are often entirely different entities for each. You can’t really do a soft rollout, it’s all or nothing. So here, we sit, with centurion technology. Ironically, the only type that has the same loco and cars every day is the least progressive load - coal trains. It’s runs from the coal processor to the coal plant and back, nothing else. Every other freight train can be diced and hashed multiple times a day.

It’s not all doom and gloom. The East Palestine derailment put “wayside detectors” into the general public’s lexicon. They were talking about relatively simple infrared sensors placed next to the tracks to look for hot bearings. That’s old tech. There are currently massive sheds being implemented filled with cameras that record terabytes of info for each train passing through. It can identify missing bolts, cracked springs, and other failures on the spot. Control is notified and if it’s urgent, the car can be routed to a repair shop or the train can be stopped. There’s even a type with a trolley that rolls along with each truck to image the entire circumference of the wheels, looking for chips and cracks. A stall in the rolling tech doesn’t mean a stall in the industry. Make no mistake, derailment are expensive and companies and trying damn hard to sell solutions to the rail lines.

Passenger trains have their own headaches. Practically each line has its own design engineers reinventing the wheel. While some lines may buy existing designs (notable, the Amtrak Acela that runs from DC to Boston is a French TGV), they have their own design flares (such as doubling the number of trucks for the Acela). These trains do run as consistent units, so they tend to have intercar communication systems and hydraulic brakes, minimizing the overall braking time. That’s why their derailments usually come from speeding or collisions rather than “random” accidents.

Conrail has left the chat.

Farmland? Or near-residential plots?

They’re trying to do every type of game and act like Fortnite is it’s own OS/device, in a sense. It has racing, it has Lego, it has building, it has guitar hero

Dept of Education? D O Emissions? Can’t figure it out even with some searching

A deer will shatter your nose fairing and snap handlebars at speed. The next object to catch the deer is your head and torso. No, the burly batwing fairings on a full dresser cruiser are not any stronger than the nose cone on a sport bike when it comes to a 200lb meat bag approaching at 70mph.

So many myths perpetuated by people who bucked classes and PRACTICE in favor of their uncle’s advice.

Exactly this. If you commute by car, this is likely the first time in 9+ hours that you’re not expected to perform for someone. Navigate traffic, do your job, navigate traffic. Some people can decompress and turn off in public transportation, but not everyone - and anyone driving from the station is probably navigating a shitty traffic pattern at the hub, adding to the stress of a short drive.

Me, I did it for all that plus feeling listless and like there’s no value in actually going inside. I’m gonna go to my chair and sit on my phone. So why do the walk? Why pass my parents and give some undetailed recount of my day at work? Why deal with a dog happy to see me again today and have to put mental resources into reciprocating when I don’t feel like it? Why see if my girlfriend wants to get dinner (and pick where) when I know it’s going to be 20 minutes of “I don’t know”? There can be so much stress with going into your home that for a few more minutes, everyone will assume you’re still driving but you can just clam up by yourself.

The portion of the global population that experiences fall colors is somewhat high, but I never really thought about how little of the world’s land sees it. Northeast north america, half of Europe, and part of China. Warmer places don’t make trees go into winter mode and colder places don’t support deciduous trees as well. It can’t be too dry for them, either, which precludes much of the southern hemisphere. So it happens across the globe mostly in the same couple of months

I read this as you saying OP’s claim was a fallacy but a re-read (and small dive into what type of Xerox you are) makes me beleive you meant binary thinking itself is a logical fallacy

I think you’re falsely categorizing action as binary thinking and supporting OP’s thought. Say I want to help people with some extra money - I have $100 (in singles) to give and 5 people in need. I’m not locked into “giving or not giving” or stuck giving to 1 person and not giving to 4 people. I can give everyone $20 evenly. I can $10 to one and $90 to another. I can give $5, $15, $25, $25, and $30 to them based on apparent need. I can give $0. Dividing this up into 5 individual binary actions… Actually, 100 individual actions (each dollar), dishonestly represents the overall opportunity and outcome.

And that’s just for one case where it’s a zero-sum game with my limited pot of $100. That’s a prime type of case where some majority groups would beleive anything not directly given to them is, effectively, taken from them - more binary thinking. That doesn’t account for status change, further income, and understand that social welfare budgets are insanely smaller than the gratuitous budgets of other departments.

They’re just saying it in a jovial, not so serious tone lol. Maybe you should lighten up lol

You can answer this yourself. Get rid of your phone and see. If you beleive it’s not a necessity, don’t say “yeah I could do these alternative things to get by”. Actually do it. I hope you’re not job-shopping

AI isn’t useless, but it’s current forms are just rebranded algorithms with every company racing to get theirs out there. AI is a buzzword for tools that were never supposed to be labeled AI. Google has been doing summary excerpts for like a decade. People blindly trusted it and always said “Google told me”. I’d consider myself an expert on one particular car and can’t tell you how often those “answers” were straight up wrong or completely irrelevant to one type of car (hint, Lincoln LS does not have a blend door so heat problems can’t be caused by a faulty blend door).

You cite Google searches and summarization as it’s strong points. The problem is, if you don’t know anything about the topic or not enough, you’ll never know when it makes mistakes. When it comes to Wikipedia, journal articles, forum posts, or classes, mistakes are possible there too. However, those get reviewed as they inform by knowledgeable people. Your AI results don’t get that review. Your AI results are pretending to be master of the universe so their range of results is impossibly large. That then goes on to be taken is pure fact by a typical user. Sure, AI is a tool that can educate, but there’s enough it proves it gets wrong that I’d call it a net neutral change to our collective knowledge. Just because it gives an answer confidently doesn’t mean it’s correct. It has a knack for missing context from more opinionated sources and reports the exact opposite of what is true. Yes, it’s evolving, but keep in mind one of the meta tech companies put out an AI that recommended using Elmer’s glue to hold cheese to pizza and claimed cockroaches live in penises. ChatGPT had it’s halluconatory days too, it just got forgotten due to Bard’s flop and Cortana’s unwelcome presence.

Use the other two comments currently here as an example. Ask it to make some code for you. See if it runs. Do you know how to code? If not, you’ll have no idea if the code works correctly. You don’t know where it sourced it from, you don’t know what it was trying to do. If you can’t verify it yourself, how can you trust it to be accurate?

The biggest gripe for me is that it doesn’t understand what it’s looking at. It doesn’t understand anything. It regurgitates some pattern of words it saw a few times. It chops up your input and tries to match it to some other group of words. It bundles it up with some generic, human-friendly language and tricks the average user into believing it’s sentient. It’s not intelligent, just artificial.

So what’s the use? If it was specifically trained for certain tasks, it’d probably do fine. That’s what we really already had with algorithmic functions and machine learning via statistics, though, right? But sparsing the entire internet in a few seconds? Not a chance.

Edit: can’t beleive I there’d a their

At least it was outside. Better out than in, I always say