Guessing they believe that mileage is inversely proportional to metaphorical inchage.
If it doesnāt seriously annoy you*, itās really a bit funny. The reduction in sound is largely caused by back pressure in the exhaust. Reducing back pressure in theory improves fuel consumption and power. But that implies re-mapping the injection system and possibly changing things like inlet valve lift and timing, none of which these people do. The result can be explosions in the cat.
Itās like coal rollers. Annoying and [word deleted at request of @MarjaE] as they are, they are also damaging their engines every time they do it.
How some of them reacted when the 911 went from air cooled to liquid cooled and an immediate 16% improvement in miles per gallon was interesting. It was like Porsche had been trampling on crosses and announcing that apple pie was toxic.
*It annoys me but fortunately all our current neighbours are sensible people.
Can you not use eugenicist slurs? I believe that Carrie Buck was classified as a ām****ā when she was sterilized, but the supreme rubberstamps classified her as an āi******ā when they wrote their opinion supporting forced sterilization.
I think, if I may say so, you are being oversensitive. Eugenics is a discredited pseudo-science from around a hundred years ago and I really donāt think that in 2017 anybody takes the word other than to be how the OED defines it - an informal description of a stupid person. As a matter of fact I had no idea of the connection to eugenics - I assumed it was simply a derivation of the Gk. moros - foolish. The OED does not suggest that it is in any way an improper word.
Iām usually the first person to be correct about language and especially to tell people who are not professionally qualified to stop using psychiatric terminology for people who havenāt been diagnosed, and where they donāt understand the term anyway. But I think this one is a dead letter. Would you prefer āidiotā which means almost exactly the same but is more classist in Greek?
You can refer this one to the moderators if you like.
Iām routinely beaten and/or endangered. And until abled people start respecting disabled people, considering our various accessibility needs, and considering our various safety needs, Iām still going to be routinely beaten and endangered, Iām probably going to be hit again by a car again, and Iām likely to be killed. But right now I canāt even find studies asking about how atypical sensory processing affects safety needs.
If your survival depended on other people changing their attitudes and their safety standards, youād be hyper-sensitive to their attitudes and their preferred insults.
And even if youāre unaware of that ām****,ā āi******,ā and āi****,ā were classifications in forced sterilization campaigns, you canāt really avoid that they are insults against intellectually and/or neurologically-disabled people.
Let me assure you, a lot of people donāt consider mine. If I got uptight about āablist languageā I could point to so many adverse examples of the use of the word ādeafā I could probably write a (long and tedious) book. But Iām not going to. Literally the only benefit of my condition is I get out of jury service. The disadvantages affect me every day. Except when responding to posts like yours, I choose not to let it get to me.
Iāve just deleted a whole lot of stuff I wrote about this because it was degenerating into a rant, but Iām just going to say that your attempt to find a way to blame someone you considered to be fully able isnāt appreciated. Youāre just doubling down on your attempt to turn this into a debate about forced sterilisation, because you canāt answer my point that the meaning of a word has changed.
You are running the risk that, for instance, it will be impossible to express any negative opinion of Trump, Boris Johnson or Erdogan because to do so might imply a mental deficiency. Taken to the extreme, we should never describe someone as being unfit for office because that would indicate a lack of capacity.
Iām not trying to blame you. Iām trying to get rid of the slurs, and get rid of the attitudes that endanger us both.
Iām in bad shape, with a nasty migraine, after getting hit by more @#$%^ turn signals. @#$% turn signals. Can people stop using dangerous weapons and calling them safety signals?
Theyāre called safety signals for a reason. They save lives. Theyāre the opposite of ādangerous weaponsā to 99.9999% of the population.
(Edited at request to take out my concern about consequences.)
I donāt want anyone to die. I doubt that these weapons protect more people than they kill. Iāve looked for studies-- without success-- there are some studies of flash/strobe/flicker hazards on helicopters, but hardly anything else.
Since I canāt really conceive of how flashing lights could be anything but blinding and disorienting, itās possible that most people donāt immediately conceive of how flashing lights could be blinding or disorienting, and that there havenāt been any studies of how dangerous they are to how many people.
Sorta like āhow could a safety test kill 3 astronauts?ā except that the victims are hidden among the 5,376 pedestrian crash victims per year, so the problem is invisible.
Alsoā¦ can you not reduce my not wanting anyone with neurological issues to get hit by cars to āin order for you to be more comfortable.ā Getting hit by a car was more than uncomfortable.
I wonder if the change from filament bulbs to LEDs in flashers on cars has made it worse? Iāve noticed that LEDs go on and off abruptly, while traditional bulbs sort of ramp up from off to on and vice versa ā over a short period of time of course. But the difference is sufficient that Iāve noticed it. Itās kind of annoying, but it doesnāt cause the problems you seem to have.
So has it gotten worse for you because of that?
I donāt know how society could change that, though. Iāve never been really susceptible to flickering lights despite my seizure disorder (maybe because meds have stopped them), but I know some people with seizures are. Flickering lights in restaurants really annoy me though, but just because theyāre very distracting.
11 posts were split to a new topic: How to create traffic signals and headlights that accommodate all people?
Also, deer.
Those high beams are useful when Iām on a country road in Ohio late at night and thereās nobody around except all the fucking deer that are everywhere. I will use my high beams then, and only then.
Talking of fearbeasts, you donāt want to get too close to an elk, even in a car.
My general rule is:
- if itās night and the road is not lit,
- if you canāt see taillights ahead of you, and
- if you could legally pass a car directly in front of you, meaning:
not with oncoming traffic,
not on curves, and
not near the crest of a hill.
then you may use your high beams.
That seems to be sufficient precaution to keep them out of other peopleās eyes. However, Iāve experienced many examples of people who donāt follow the same rule set.
German makers have some very annoying strobing turn signals - not stop signals. Audi is the worst; I guess they have to do something to justify putting a Ā£5000 badge on a VW. I am surprised they are allowed. But possibly the most annoying things of all to me are the flashing lights people use on bicycles. I am not even sure they are legal here, but May has cut our police so much that these days criminals are relied on to turn themselves in.
Filament bulbs are bad for a whole lot of reasons but it is perfectly possible to make LED bulbs follow the attack/decay curve of filaments - most of my LED bulb controllers do this. I guess at some point car makers will stop trying to market LED bulbs as a ālook at meā feature.
Definitely easy ā but will add $0.10 to each car!
Some of the new taillights just look ridiculous. I guess the designers have to obey non-designers at the top. āMake it look distinctive! Itās branding! No, more cowbell! More!ā
Just saw racist shit goblin Sessions on the TV here. Little prick is testifying to some committee. Never had I wanted a meteor strike on DC more.
Thanks!
Section 508 isnāt really enough. It considers tty/relay services an accessible alternative to phones, but by law they require registration, which requires people to be able to use a phone and to prove we canāt use one for certain specified reasons.
And government websites donāt always have an accessible accessible alternative to the phone.
Ah, 508. I needed to buy (that is, license) a commercial computer simulation package for research when I worked for th US govt. I had to go through hoops to get around the 508 requirements for software bought by employees. The available codes just donāt adhere to them. I was going to be the only user, and I donāt have any problems with vision that arenāt correctable.
Besides, I really canāt understand how someone with really poor vision (like I used to be without glasses & before my lens implants) could use such a program. It required CAD to make a 3D model, and advanced visualization graphics to interpret the results. Am I missing something? Are there alternatives to CAD and typical scientific visualization for people with vision problems? If so it would be amazing but I just donāt know of any.
ETA missing ādonātā in last sentence.