Is heat the reason you want to repeal these laws or do you have others?
I’m on the opposite side of the issue. I think that tinted windows don’t allow for enough visibility for pedestrians and cyclists. This is anecdotal but they also seem to be used in higher portions of the population breaking driving laws. And lastly, I really don’t enjoy the militant “badassness” associated with these. I want the roads to be more chill, not people going around thinking they’re God’s gift to mankind and any who dares cross them will be punished.
These are mostly opinions based on anecdotes. I’ve lived in a few cities now and this remains true. Which is why I’d like to hear your experience.
It's currently 112 F where I am and there isn't a cloud in the sky. Humidity is very low so water isn't absorbing radiation.
Nobody is riding a bicycle or walking long distances six months of the year here, except for the unhoused, and they can only move at night. Cars are mandatory to participate in the economy.
A car with un-tinted windows is impractical for two reasons: solar heat and UV.
The A/C can be running full blast and my legs will still get hot. Normal side window glass doesn't block UV well so I can get a sunburn with my windows closed.
I have to equip my windows with dark tints. It's like a Canadian putting on snow tires except I can't change it out with the seasons.
So my state doesn't have laws against tints because it can't. Ok, so I drive to another state in my car... now I'm breaking the law.
You can say "human beings shouldn't live in such a place" but first, about 114 million Americans live in similar conditions, and second, these conditions are moving north.
Protecting the occupants of a car against solar radiation is a reasonable thing to do.
That is interesting. The high desert is my current location so it's "only" 105 but with the same low humidity. I find that a sunshade massively reduced any issues that I had with the idleness of the vehicle. But I'll give you that the heat is horrible.
I suppose my rebuttal is: how many months do you feel like tint is necessary? I grew up with routinely high temps (100+, in an area with high humidity). In college our first few weeks were normally 100+, and we did walk to class. I normally would come back with swamp ass and a back covered in sweat. People absolutely can live in these conditions. I just don't think we can remove the human element of it. It's hot, we are going to sweat. It feels like we are trying to control an element of human nature that cannot be controlled.
Edit: I appreciate the reply. Apologies if I sound snarky (as another commenter apparently thinks). It's truly just that the only people I know with tinted windows have been controlling and manipulative. The experiences I get on the road do not help my anecdotal stereotypes.
I don't think you sound snarky. I think it's easy to look at an issue like this through a cultural lens. Heavy tint is indeed popular among jerks.
As for necessity, studies suggest that skin cancer rates vary according to the side of the road a country drives on. [1] So even if you're tolerating the radiation it's still hurting you.
It's also important to remember that paneled vans are legal. They are taller than any car and the visibility through them is 0% because there are no side windows. Frequently the back window is covered or blocked by equipment.
You pretty much have to assume you can't accurately see through any vehicle. Seeing the driver's eyes can be useful, but it can be misleading... I've been hit on roller blades by a driver who'd stopped and was looking right at me but didn't process I was there.
I think every car on the road has to be treated like a panel van. Big opaque block that can kill you and will act unpredictably.
Wow that is a lot of F. It's 95 (105 real feel with humidity) here in tropics but people and bicyclists are out. I don't drive but not having issues you describe sitting in a nontinted air conditioned bus
> You can say "human beings shouldn't live in such a place" but first, about 114 million Americans live in similar conditions, and second, these conditions are moving north.
> It's currently 112 F where I am and there isn't a cloud in the sky. Humidity is very low so water isn't absorbing radiation.
114 million Americans live in conditions where it is regularly 112 in the summer?
No. It doesn't always hit 112 F. Temperature is a function of sensible and latent heat.
So Dallas, for example, is only 84 F with a humidity of 83% right now at 9:23 AM central. That's a heat index of 95 F. The high temperature will be 100 F but the high of the heat index will be 110 F.
Corpus Christi recently hit a heat index of 125 F.
It all works out the same. It's brutally hot for months somewhere in every Southern state (including California). These states should all allow tint and account for 114 million people.
Modern automobile window tints do a very job of keeping heat out without impacting visibility. Where I live, temperatures cross 45C every summer. Heavily tinted car windows are banned and we manage just fine.
I just find the arrogance humorous, I don't see how it's unkind. There are politer ways of saying it but you don't deserve it. You didn't care to be polite when associating window tint with: not being 'chill', militant, and associated with reckless criminal drivers. Just say what you really think:
"I don't like window tint and others agree with me, so let's take the rights from others to lower the heat in their idle cars and also keep the sun out of their eyes away. Now let me find a list of disconnected anecdotes to justify this"
I think you meant to reply to me, the person you replied to was just restating the rules.
That being said, I still disagree with your assessment. I don't really have a better way to describe completely dark tinted windows, blacked out windows, blacked out rims, other than militant. How would you describe this? In movies they use this look to describe the bad guy. We now sell those vehicles to match that "vibe".
Once again, I did say it was anecdotal. These individuals tend to drive at a much higher reckless rate in the areas I have lived. If I see someone coming up behind me at 15+ MPH faster than speed of traffic, they'll have windows tinted darker than the majority of others, a majority of the time. They also tend to swerve and run individuals off the road.
Please note, I asked if heat was the issue because I genuinely wanted a shared experience. I haven't seen a good example of the need for these windows. But most of the areas I live only get to 105. Looks like sibling comments of yours have warmer experiences - which is what I needed to know.
Your characterization of tinted windows seems to be draped in generalizations and anecdotal evidence(as you stated) rather than an exploration of their practical applications. You draw a line connecting the aesthetics of darkened windows with reckless driving and assert a sense of assumed arrogance on the part of the driver. Yet, you overlook the practical and safety benefits that window tints provide.
Let's disentangle the aesthetics from the usage. To claim that a tinted window is a symbol of militancy or a display of superiority is to judge a book by its cover. A film on glass does not a character assessment make.
Now, onto the practical side of things. It's not merely about beating the heat - though in regions where temperatures soar well above your mentioned 105 degrees, the difference can be crucial. Window tints can block up to 99% of harmful UV rays, offering significant protection against skin damage and eye ailments. Furthermore, they reduce glare, enhancing driver comfort and safety.
Your anecdotal observations of tinted-window drivers might be biased by a confirmation bias. You remember the reckless ones because they fit your preconceived notion, and you discount the countless tinted-window drivers who operate their vehicles responsibly because they don't fit the narrative.
There's also a point to be made about privacy - not in service of "militant badassness", but for the sake of personal comfort and security. And while visibility for pedestrians and cyclists is a valid concern, it's worth noting that there are laws stipulating the extent of tinting precisely to address this issue. Complete blackout windows are generally illegal for this very reason.
Finally, to characterize this discussion as a matter of 'rights' may seem overblown, but it highlights a broader point about individual choice and autonomy. It's about finding a balance between personal preferences, public safety, and common good.
Sure but in the US it is 4 (undergrad) + 4 (med school) so in total it is 8 years rather than 5 or 6.
Agreed regarding the US high school standards but students that take AP courses in high school can take the MCAT. They may not do the “best” but they will know some of the material. Schools in the US like UMKC have 6 year programs were high school students take the MCAT.
In a lot of ways, the first two years of US undergrad are "remedial high school". This also explains how, e.g. American undergrads typically declare their majors until mid to late into their second years.
I went to get a standard STD panel at an urgent care a few weeks back. I asked how much it would be beforehand (since I don't have insurance). The front desk person said "between $100 and $200". I left and paid $340 - which pissed me off but whatever. Then, the following week, I received a bill from the lab testing for $380. That infuriated me. In total I spent $720 after being initially quoted max $200.
I tried to fight it but medical billing places remind me of the South Park episode about Cable Companies (where they're rubbing their nipples as the callers describe how they're being exploited). Truly an asinine system.
You have to demand a coded bill ahead to time or you must refuse treatment. If it's not in writing, then there's no evidence. If they refuse, then you have to be willing to walk away.
Also, pay by check including the phrase "payment in full".
Agreed. I will be trying to get a coded bill beforehand but most places will tell you "everything we do is an estimate". Which is so bullshit, but brings me back to my original point: they know they can fuck you, and they enjoy doing it.
I had not reached the deductible on whatever plan I had at the time when I made an office visit for chronic sinusitis. I had been suffering for at least 6 months. It was affecting my work.
The doctor was an hour late. My visit was terse and his recommendation was to use a saline nasal spray. Then he charged me $140.
But I'm sure some right wing jerk in this thread is going to whine about how other countries pay more in taxes or something equally useless.
Hahah I always love the useless appointments where it would be better care to talk with a nurse on Telehealth. I wonder if MDs realize their actions are losing them the war.
I used to think it was dumb that NPs are gaining further ability to treat patients, but my last few experiences with MDs has been so poor that I am no longer "rooting" for them. If that makes sense.
My story really isn't a story of price, but of quality and patient experience. I am hoping patients can start seeing these things before visiting a doctor.
I think this is about as “productive” as the threads regarding the Rust foundation debacle(s). Did you believe those should be flagged too? I don’t think they were.
Personally I believe the communication from Asahi’s leadership regarding the users of HN to be relevant. And as others have pointed out in this thread, especially when HN users have supported development of Asahi.
Be suspicious of anything that includes DNSSEC in the "tech fundamentals", since it's rarely implemented (low single digit percentage uptake in the major TLDs). What other complexity are they failing to screen out?
Agreed and yeah he mentions that. I think he mostly just makes you familiar with DNSSEC because he sells AWS certification courses and it will come up on the Networking Specialty. The entire segment is only like 90 minutes so it’s not crazy in depth.
There is also an issue with “it doesn’t compile? That’s a 0.” So you have students that may have written 90% of the proper code but can’t figure out the bug in their makefile, Java build, etc.
In the students mind they’re going to ask “is it fair to get a 0 when I feel close?” Then they (might) cheat. Obviously there are ways around this, like going in to office hours for help, but some schools start kids with C++, which seems like a wrong first language.
My experience (I am a CS professor) is that, even when you attempt to provide partial credit for programs that do not compile (as I do), the code is almost always seriously flawed. We all know that attempting to write an entire program in one go is not a great idea. It’s hard to anticipate where a program might go wrong if you’re not developing it incrementally. So I don’t blame instructors who just decide to cut their losses. It may be painful for a student, but it stops that kind of behavior very quickly.
As long as you give bonus points for the most horrific part of software development... getting the goddamned IDE configured correctly or close enough to do work.
That brings you 90% of where you need to go, especially for a CS course.
It's not obvious to students. The insight to simplify and simplify until things work and only then keep piling new things on top, that's a really powerful one and is underappreciated in teaching CS.
I certainly don’t blame professors for doing that - partial points are difficult. But you probably know students are asking for help from other students on how to get things to compile.
And you didn't notice before handing in your assignment?
Doing things last second that didn't give you any chance to fix issues before a deadline is a flaw in and of itself and should be a lesson.
Unfortunately many don't understand this and I have many colleagues who slack off until it's almost too late and then there is a huge scramble before a deadline.
Most exercises I have seen are made up from multiple parts building on each other. The first one is so trivial that frankly, anyone not being able to write a hello world in the language that was the subject of the whole semester should get a 0. You just submit every substep, and you get the mark for the highest you were able to reach.
Of course your mileage mag vary, but I think it was very fair, and most of my classes were already way too easy - many students are just terrible and lazy. My classmates who became teacher assistants told me also that they felt terrible but they had to fail some students because they didn’t even turn up to their one past the last retake exam at all.
I didn't get credit for the first few assignments in my first CS class because the automated grading tool couldn't find my code. Finally I figured out that the tool only worked if the code was in the default Java package, which I wasn't using because Eclipse told me I shouldn't.
And the mirroring issue with “computers are hard and some teachers can’t do it.”
I got a 60% one for an assignment that demonstrably implemented all required features including the “for extra credit” ones, and a few more besides. I can only think it was scored by grams of documentation.
I’m on the opposite side of the issue. I think that tinted windows don’t allow for enough visibility for pedestrians and cyclists. This is anecdotal but they also seem to be used in higher portions of the population breaking driving laws. And lastly, I really don’t enjoy the militant “badassness” associated with these. I want the roads to be more chill, not people going around thinking they’re God’s gift to mankind and any who dares cross them will be punished.
These are mostly opinions based on anecdotes. I’ve lived in a few cities now and this remains true. Which is why I’d like to hear your experience.