Yep that’s us–maybe half of us have CS degrees.

The funny thing is that the pushback is coming from the “regular” development folks. At least we’re using git too :)

Ooh, a whole new world not limiting myself to Canon–from glancing around and some of the other comments it looks like Sony has some really nice options.

Thank you!

I am on an on-call schedule for a hospital and i need to be able to answer my phone when it rings, even if I’m driving. If I don’t, it may negatively effect people in a real way. I can pull over, and doing so on the freeway may be more dangerous than simply answering the call. My reason for posting this post is to help understand how folks are using hands free technology and other strategies to stay safe while also doing what they need to do. Entertainment is there too because I, honestly, want to get better at not being distracted while driving, I have terrible ADHD.

I didn’t mean to offend with my response above, pardon me. I was trying to understand how this ties into other equity vs safety vs freedom topics more generally.

I don’t think anyone thinks that folks should be recklessly endangering each other for no benefit but entertainment. People do endanger themselves and others for all kinds of reasons, including entertainment–folks motorcycle in the rain, they drive tall heavy cars, they don’t run their headlights 100% of the time, etc.–should all of these things be illegal too, because they are less safe than convenient alternatives? Is that “reckless endangerment”? Honestly, I would probably say yes–but it’s not like I’m an expert.

If we say “there is 0 tolerance for making our roads less safe”, even for “good” reasons, then why not say men under 24 may not drive, and anyone over 80 can’t drive at all. The safest thing for everyone would be to never drive, and that seems silly to say…not that I wouldn’t love to walk to work, my kids’ preschool, and the grocery.

I totally agree from a safety perspective.

To play devils advocate just a bit–this is objectively reducing folks productivity and quality of life, particularly for folks that aren’t privileged to work from hom, live near work, afford to purchase hands free tech, or be child-free etc… These folks probably already have inequitable quality of live/productivity challenges. Not saying it’s a “bad law” or anything, safety is almost definitely worth it, it’s just annoying that as usual the measure will most negatively effect more vulnerable people.

It would be fun to quantify productivity loss and quality of life loss vs. gains in safety/public health–i’ll look around for statistics.