Comment on Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users

• ideonek@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    1. I think you may have glossed over the word “drivers” there. The word was used to describe people ignoring traffic regulations, both while driving and walking.
    2. I didn’t “blame” anyone, I just said it was ignorant, as is the literal definition of the word, according to the person I replied to.
    3. Society has this super weird position that there can only ever be one person or entity to blame. You can blame a pedestrian for ignorantly wandering into traffic while simultaneously blaming the driver for being inattentive.

    source

    • ideonek@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)

      But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You grasp the tiniest of straws.

        Absolutely not. Those are enormous straws…

        What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets.

        1. That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote “You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.”

        2. If people are not “wandering into the street” then they are not “jaywalking”, are they?

        People were the rule cars were the exception.

        It doesn’t matter which one is which. The one that is “jay” is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.

        Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies”

        That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean “someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules”, as jaywalking does.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      3. You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect. A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle, and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does.

      When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.

      Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect.

        So there’s no situation where a pedestrian is at fault? If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that’s 100% the driver’s fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?

        A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle

        What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?

        and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does

        No they don’t? And why are we downtown?

        Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking.

        You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?

        We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.

        No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.

        We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.

        I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.

        source

        • -> View More Comments