Go off queen

My argument is that when it involves a car, it should be impossible for someone not in the car to control the car.

Yes it’s bad if the abuser forces himself into her car and is physically restraining her from controlling the speed, ie gas pedal/brakes. If done remotely, they may as well have physically hijacked the car.

I’m saying it’s an unacceptable product bc its even more dangerous than a car that can only be hijacked physically. I’m arguing risk and liability, not however about abuse and morality.

What’s the consequences look like of nanny-state-ing everyone who buys spoon-fed mainstream products, yet allowing an out for people “smart” enough to configure their own systems with Linux/open source? (“Smart”, I don’t have a better word for people who don’t require government parenting) This is of course making the wild assumption there are in fact people who need the government to parent them/their own children, of undetermined proportion of the population. The more cynical take being it has never been about the children, but I’d like to explore the absurdity that it could be. E.g., allowing an out surpresses pushback from the motivated, where the resistance-path-of-least-resistance is personal exemption

Meanwhile the French

Imma be real chief, if my car can be controlled by anyone but the driver, it’s an unnaceptable product. I even disagree with parental controls - if someone isn’t mature enough to drive without their parents, they don’t get their license.