Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol
Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.
Cameras are not a suitable replacement for rear-vision mirrors for the same reason that screens are not a suitable replacement. It’s even addressed in TFA: focal length.
>>> But more importantly, current screen technology requires the driver to focus on the surface of the screen itself, which is mere feet away from their eyes. This is a large change in focal distance from looking at the road ahead.
If you’re over the age of 40 or so, it takes time, a few hundred milliseconds at least, to refocus your gaze distance. A screen is near. When driving, you’re looking far. A mirror is something to glance at.
I test-drove a Polestar with a screen for a rear-vision mirror (and no actual rear window) and it was completely undrivable for me. It takes longer for my eyes to refocus on the near distance than I feel comfortable removing my gaze from the road ahead. I turned around after 10 minutes and returned it to the lot.
Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.
I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.
People that only use their rear view cameras scare me. Move your head, be aware of your environment and the people (kids) around you. And use your cameras (again, kids).
Sometimes I sit in a coffee shop and very often see people just using their side mirrors (no rear cam, not looking back) ... scary.
Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.
I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.
Sorry I meant to say their mirrors - but rear view cams do not give much in the way of peripheral vision (yes, I have modern cars too). I've regularly had dumb people cross right into my rearward path even though I'm currently backing up, have the white lights on, etc.
What I meant was: people backing up just using their side/rear mirrors are scary. They don't have good spatial awareness of what's around them. A rear-view cam for them adds a whole lot of safety though.
And the camera's have been better for over a decade at thing point. I have to imagine people are just willfully antagonistic to them for some reason. How in god's name are you going to see a kid directly behind you, below your trunk height, with your mirrors?
That was a typo/thinko on my part - I meant to say mirrors. I find it scary when people just look from side to side, perhaps looking in the rear-view mirror, but not ever turning their head. This happens WAY more than you'd expect it to.
Using the rear-view cam in this context is definitely a lot safer (esp for kids!), though you really should also look around as well, the side mirrors are more for driving, not parking-lot type situations, and have a really limited field of view.
And I totally agree, but I still use mirrors because when I need to pass and park next to a pillar (my garage has a few) I can never tell how far I actually am from it through the cameras, whereas the mirror will tell me without lag and with absolute precision whether I'm about to scrape my car or not. Not to mention that it's very difficult to tell depth from cameras, which is what I need the most when the back axle has passed the pillar and I should start turning in very tight spaces.
One discrepancy is that B&M says consignment was against their operating instructions, yet the former franchisee shared the franchise contract, which explicitly allowed it.
And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.
Beyond glaring omissions such as that one there's conflicting information between the linked article and what commenters here say the various linked videos contain. The article also lacks the necessary level of detail regarding the various legal claims, counterclaims, and entities involved which in this case are absolutely essential to understanding what's actually going on.
I'm inclined to believe that there's corporate wrongdoing but the piece itself comes across as a blatant attempt to stir up drama as opposed to objectively informing the reader. It's certainly not the sort of thing I come to HN for.
Is there value to copy/pasting a Press Release that is known false?
How does this lead to interesting discussion?
Is it right to just parrot lies? Because B&M is very clearly lying in these statements, knowingly so. The CEO himself is part of this and is on camera talking to the people in this situation demonstrating that he knows there was a consignment agreement and they refuse to respect a matter of extremely clear law. There is literally video of the new franchise owner and a person from corporate saying "We will take over the consignment"
I believe people have a duty to not just thoughtlessly repeat things like this. I feel it is a serious issue on this site specifically, that people think it's valid to copy/paste known falsehoods, whether they themselves knew about it, and then defend the act when faced with evidence that they parroted known falsehoods.
Shouldn't you have taken any effort to ensure you were relaying good or accurate information?
> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.
Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said.
I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it.
This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation.
> You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said.
I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?
> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.
Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?
> These services cost less than traveling across the country to film yourself sitting on the person’s lawn for YouTube content.
Your claim was it costs $100.
This does not balance with the facts where they say they were quoted thousands.
> This is easily Google-able.
Google says it's far more than the $100 you suggested for evasive people.
> I’m baffled
That's clear. If you are baffled, maybe you should stop defending evil corporations until you get all the facts.
> that so many people think this is a normal thing to do
They don't think this is normal.
Why do you think these people think that having a YouTuber try to serve papers is normal? Please, show me the person who says that this is normal.
At least you're not the type who uses an anonymous handle on HN to defend evil companies.
I find it kind of pathetic to think so highly of HN points, to admit to gaming the system, to be so cowardly to say what you believe. Not that I would apply any of that to you. Those types of people are worthless.
In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation.
Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way.
Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
I feel like I once heard a great word/phrase for this thing where people attack the "civility" of the messenger instead of the actual injustice being reported on, but I can't remember what it was now. It came up a lot during black lives matter protests.
He's not doing any favors to a case that was essentially lost and dead by bringing tons of attention to it to the point where there's a chance it might actually see a positive outcome, plus a good amount of cash via GoFundMe? Sure...
>He is neither affiliated with the person who lost the legos
I haven't watched part 2 yet, but he absolutely is affiliated with the person who lost the LEGOs. He's explicitly working with the son, who was the previous person that was running point on trying to get the sets back until it ruined his life.
Watch part two and you will understand the claims of "the police are in on it". I agree it sounded like a joke in part 1, but after you see the rest of the story it makes sense.
I think you're right. I can't think of any reason an entire organization would act this way unless it had been repeatedly successful for them in the past.
Its a different kind of rational though. There is a world leader who gets away with all kinds of obvious theft and bribery and grift and fraud and self-serving out in the open, but to reasonable people, he doesn't seem rational at all, despite getting away with everything.
reply