this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
304 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

59329 readers
4477 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Imotali@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.

It's just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It's only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can't afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn't be able to afford.

Now change it to a system where there aren't executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I'm all for it. But I'm vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.

IMO if you can afford it, it's dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn't covered by someone's homeowner's insurance.

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol. So, you've never gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver then? Because you wouldn't be saying that if you had.

[–] Imotali@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I have gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver. Twice. Both their fault (running reds out near Mulholland).

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it's a safeguard against someone destroying your fucking car and not having the means to pay for it.

[–] Imotali@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

If they can barely afford the insurance and hit you their insurance isn't paying.

I've been hit by red light runners thrice and while biking in a parking lot (ironically got more injured here) and only two times the drivers didn't have insurance..... not a single one paid out.

Insurance is a scam and defending it is akin to defending a Ponzi scheme imo.

[–] slumberlust@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting state run insurance or no requirement for insurance?

[–] Imotali@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I think there should be no requirement or a govt funded baseline