latencyloser

> So how can I as a pedastrian be responsible for the situational awareness of the SUV driver?

The same way you're responsible for anything you do around other people. Pay attention to who and what is around you, how exposed to danger you are currently. I don't walk around parking lots or other busy areas assuming drivers can always see me, do you?

> I don't know where you live...

It's fine if folks want to regulate their cities like this, by all means. Make vehicles over some size/tonnage illegal in the city limits, do whatever in the city. But why choose a pathway that effects people who live far from them? I struggle to follow the logic.

99% of Americans don't get run over by SUVs or pickup trucks either.

I don't live in Montana, fwiw.

I still disagree that there's a regulatory need here. Are there not consequences for the drivers in these situations? Are pedestrians not somewhat liable for their own situational awareness?

Even if regulation is the only solution (I do not believe it is) there's ways with better locality like limiting access to the roads, providing better pathways for pedestrians, better guard rails, lighting, etc. Regulating the vehicle is a sweeping change that assumes that people who own these vehicles have absolutely no need for them in the first place.

I live in an area where a high clearance SUV or other large vehicle is a necessity for navigating many of the roads. Why should I, and others like me, suffer for the externalities occurring in cities (this seems to pertain to) where I will never drive?

Similarly, I hope folks will reach out with ANY additional data around the lack of danger caused by large / heavy vehicles as opposed to any other non-commercial vehicle.

I'm sorta tired of people regulating or trying to regulate every aspect of life. Maybe just let people make their own decisions.

_Used to_. KKK cleaning up a stretch of road in a rural area 30 years ago doesn't mean there's an inherently a racist police force, voted in by the county constituents, currently. That's tenuous at best. The existence of racists in a subset of an area does not mean that the entire area is racist.

The comment I was replying to cites an article about public pools and racist behaviors from 60+ years ago in entirely different communities that borders on a non-sequitur to these issues of community policing and does so as a commentary to the suggestion that these areas are "cleaning up their Deep south, backwoods" image by behaving this way, senselessly pushing the idea that racism is the cause of this. Talk about hand-wavy.

Give me a break. I spent most of my life in this county and my family's been there for two generations prior. The "everything is racist" argument so poorly applies to the issues of these communities it's absolutely absurd. Come back when you find a different hammer.

CU Boulder advertises the resulting degree as indistinguishable from their on-campus program from a records perspective (you're even invited to the graduation ceremony afaik). How much truth there will be to this, I've yet to see.

I'm enrolled in CU Boulder's MSEE program that's administered through Coursera. It's decent, definitely not as good as in person instruction (for me at least), but is probably a good deal for people who are ok being largely self-taught/directed and only need some light help from TAs if necessary. The content seems pretty good and up-to-date so far as I can tell. The price competitiveness and flexibility is ultimately what led me to give it a shot. I'm also doing it to complement an existing career, not bet my future on it, so the downsides for me are somewhat negligible vs someone with no work experience who might be doing the program. So take that as you will...

The peer reviews are definitely better in the degree program, but there's always a few people not even trying, of course. Nothing that's really impacted my own work.

Perhaps enough time to drop a few in with a parachute, hit a target, then possibly "self destruct" somehow, if I'm being imaginative I suppose.

Oh, thank you. I can see that now. Perhaps that is how they meant it.

Yes, that helps, thank you. I'd read of some officials denying it, but the information around judges is new to me and I will explore it further.

Who do you consider to be reputable sources? I will include them in my reading.

I'm also interested in why it was necessary to refer to the president as a "loser." I thought your point stood without it and all that did was clue me in on the possibility of bias in the rest of the response. Staunch supporters would likely discard your reasoning entirely because of it.

You're getting down-voted without anyone else actually providing a rebuttal. But what you're saying matches, roughly, my understanding of what happened. Perhaps their issue is with the way it is phrased, sounding sort of like rhetoric.

So I'll add because I'm more or less with you: I'm sincerely confused how we can spend years alleging Russian interference and now that on a really close election, with contention over the way the ballots were counted, it's being called by the media without presenting doubt despite polling being pretty off? The inconsistency is concerning, in my opinion. What am I not understanding?

If I'd introduced a new system in at work (my understanding is the mass mail-in ballots are new at this scale, but please correct me if I'm wrong) and was testing it and it gave a weird result, I'd at least double check it.