It’s bit reductive to put it in terms of a binary choice between an average human driver and full AI driver. I’d argue it has to hit less pedestrians than a human driver with the full suite of driver assists currently available to be viable.

Self-driving is purely a convenience factor for personal vehicles and purely an economic factor for taxis and other commercial use. If a human driver assisted by all of the sensing and AI tools available is the safest option, that should be the de facto standard.

For $700 they could at least throw in a 4k Blu-ray player.

Then again, I ponied up extra for the disc version of the original ps5 for that exact reason, only to find out the media player software is a giant piece of garbage that was clearly given no effort. So I can’t say I’m too surprised.

I have to disagree a little bit personally. It can be a chore, but sometimes there is a sense that you’re taking this generic piece of tech sold by the millions and tailoring it to your personal preferences. It’s a little silly and superficial, but it can add a little extra enjoyment to that whole experience of getting a new shiny that you’ve been looking forward to.

All that said, paying $95 for the experience of setting up a used exercise bike is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

I actually didn’t, which was the main reason I replied.

It’s fairly common to see people arguing as though a thing is either risky or not risky, without any sense of context.

Risks exist on a continuum, and something not literally being forcibly banned doesn’t mean there is zero risk in that thing, just that the risk is lower than those things that are forcibly banned or that the risks can be mitigated in other ways.

Same reason you go through a metal detector to check for weapons before getting within half mile of a plane, but were left pretty much on your honor to not bring a Samsung phone with a spicy battery on board.

That’s asinine. It’s like saying “If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning”. Brakes are pretty damn important, but very few places (in the US at least) have any mechanism for ensuring yours are in working order even periodically.

Proper risk mitigation takes into account (at minimum) the likelihood of an event occuring, the severity of the event occurring, your willingness to tolerate a failure, and the cost associated with implementing corrections.

Airlines have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for any kind of risk that could conceivably lead to a catastrophic failure, so the fact that you’re allowed to have a device, despite potential safety concerns, comes from a combination of a few factors:

1. The chances of some kind of major interference with flight ops happening are demonstrably pretty low
2. People would likely push back quite hard on not being able to use electronic devices for entertainment on a flight.
3. Most people comply with the request.
4. Related to 3, there is little reason for airlines to change the rule, since cell operation is next to impossible in flight anyways, and wifi/bluetooth are not in the frequency range of concern.

The real issue is that airplane mode should really only affect cell signals now and leave WiFi alone since planes have WiFi now and a lot of applications share between devices with WiFi, and leave Bluetooth and NFC alone since they’re short range and low power and unlikely to cause issues.

I’m not sure how common it is, but my S22+ will remember if I turn bluetooth or wifi on while in airplane mode, and leave them on in the future. That’s especially nice since I use a CGM that pairs to my phone via bluetooth, so I don’t have to worry about accidentally losing that connection.

Spot on about there not being any point in having cellular service enabled. You’re 6 miles up and traveling a mile every few seconds, so you might as well just shut that radio off and save a bit of battery power.