Practically, outside of second-hand sales, there’s no difference between e.g. GOGs offline installer and a physical copy of the game. No, you don’t technically own it, but for all intents and purposes you do.

Okay thank God I’m not insane hahah. I’m over here like, man I’m in tech support, surely I’m just not that bad with Nvidia drivers 😂😂

You know, this may be it hah.

Well at least you didn’t call my body pasty white, I haven’t been to the lake as much as I wanted this year.

Joking aside, I believe vsauce had a short about this, was useful to get a visual.

Yeah, that’s pretty basic. I seem to recall the option to even search by OS/GPU being fairly hidden, but again, probably just misremembering.

I’ve done that before, yes, but I seem to recall it being a lot of hoops to go through. Could be misremembering it, as well though.

I’ve done that before, yes, but I seem to recall it being a lot of hoops to go through. Could be misremembering it, as well though.

Can I not have to log in to download a bloody driver without jumping through a thousand hoops? Can I choose not to use it at all? Probably not, probably still shit.

I address all of this in other areas in this thread. I don’t feel like rehashing it with you, given your unwarranted aggression out of the gate. If you want to read some actual rebuttal, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your life.

I didn’t say it was created to hinder the poor.

I said fines DISPROPORTIONATELY PUNISH THE POOR.

If you have $1000, a $200 fine is 20% of your money.

If you have $2,000,000 a fine of $200 is . 0001% of your money, basically nothing.

This means that, relative to their money, a poorer person hurts more from the same fine. This is a BAD IDEA for enforcing rules everyone is supposed to follow. Essentially, we’re encouraging people to drive slow, unless they can pay the toll for speeding.

There are ways to mitigate this - sliding scale fines, for instance. I personally don’t like fines as punishments in general, though. I’d rather use neutral traffic calming features, that always invariably impact people who use the route the same, and make it a criminal offense to drive recklessly, akin to drunk driving.

There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you’re less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it’s more likely to be fatal?

Overall, like I said, I don’t really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don’t really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.

The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you’re doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you’re always going to have dumbasses.

((yeah it seems like there’s a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))

I’m not sure what I said to make you reply about traffic jams? Want to elaborate?

Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.

I’d be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.

Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn’t for another.

Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you’re just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can’t use the area but bikes can.

And as long as the penalty is fines, it’s literally “pay the toll to go fast”. At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can’t just say “ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail.” That’ll do way more harm than good.

I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they’re implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can’t be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren’t revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.

I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It’s HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it’s subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.

From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.

Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that’s going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it’s something.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.

The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren’t able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying “hey! Slow down or pay the toll!”

I would love to see a more recent study. Safety tends to be a weird subject, particularly the treadmill of introducing safety features, which means more drivers drive unsafely because safety features give an appearance of safety.

Overall, I still stand by what I said outside of maybe the very first sentence. Even if they DO slow traffic, there are vastly better ways that don’t have a disproportionate impact.

My city started putting in speed cushions at roads that were constantly over-traveled. Neighborhoods that would see increased traffic during rush hour, for instance. They’re aggressive, you have to go BELOW the speed limit to safely drive the route. Those roads see SIGNIFICANTLY less traffic, and the traffic that is there is slower.

Fines just don’t work to deter your average driver, or at least not as much as physics does.

If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at… Realistically, people are going to drive the speed that feels safe for that road, and a speed camera is just going to disproportionately punish people without the money to pay the fines.

Make roads that are designed for the speed you want people to drive at, not wide open expanses that give no actual reason to slow down.