US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drunk driving

Re:US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drun... by chuckee on Friday November 12, 2021 @11:35AM (#29201163)

Is it user hostile to prevent the user from speeding? From parking in front of a fire hydrant? From driving to an illegal gathering? All of those can result in jail and death (including the last one, as those protest epidemic studies can attest to).

How about driving without a license, or past curfew?

Any action contrary to the user's wishes is user hostile. You are welcome to give inanimate objects (and those who control them) power over you, but don't drag the rest of us into your utopia of begging our cars and appliances for permission.

Ah but I'm committing the slippery slope fallacy. I'm sure that unlike all the other surveillance state creep, this particular genie, once out of the bottle, won't spread.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drun... by staticman2 on Friday November 12, 2021 @05:25PM (#29205257)

If you define anything against the user's wishes as user hostile I don't know why you are using that term. If you had said "I don't like this technology because it operates against the drunk driver's wishes and technology should not do that." then at least your position would be clear.

If you need a poorly defined buzzword like "user hostile" to make your objection sound more convincing, maybe it wasn't so great.

I just looked up the definition of user hostile and it doesn't seem to matcb your usage, either.

[ Parent | on HN ]