Sure. Australia has had mandatory helmets since 1990, and there’s been endless studies and debates since then, it’s still ongoing. I could find no clear evidence that helmet mandates decreased overall harm over any timeframe.

To quote a review I read from 2007

The following general principles should have widespread support: (1) Any legislation (including helmet laws) should not be enacted unless the benefits can be shown to exceed the costs. Ideally, the benefits should be greater than from equivalent ways of spending similar amounts of money on other road safety initiatives.

And their conclusion did not find a consensus other than

A majority of brain injuries >AIS2 are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions. Traffic calming, enforcement of drink-driving laws, cyclist and driver education, or other measures to reduce the frequency and severity of bike/motor vehicle collisions, may therefore represent more cost-effective ways of reducing serious head injuries to cyclists than helmet laws. Indeed, countries with the lowest fatality rates per cycle-km also have the lowest helmet wearing rates

Given that, helmet mandates are a bad law that takes away our liberties for no proven benefit.

Discouraging people from driving is a good thing, although with the amount that’s wasted on pointless expressways some governments haven’t noticed yet.

Anyway, there’s clear evidence from countries with mandatory helmet laws that it discourages people from cycling.

Danger, clearly. We shouldn’t have encouraged them off the ebikes.

I agree and always wear a helmet, but helmets should not be mandatory. It discourages people from cycling which means they drive instead and make the roads overall more dangerous.

Can I have some of whatever supplements you’ve been taking. 48km/h is really fast. If you have a fast bike and you’re trying hard some cyclists could hit that speed briefly on the flat before they become exhausted. With a tailwind or a downhill it’s easy, but then you don’t need the help from the motor.

But I agree that we need to focus on the real danger, which is cars.

So a property development company is developing a property. What’s the mystery?

Linus is negligent and well intentioned

But any of those can also include well intentioned. Well intentioned, negligent, naïve, egotistical, arrogant, focused too much on business. All are fair adjectives.

Even huge assholes are usually well intentioned (Elon Musk springs to mind), but they have a warped view of the world and get distracted by other things, and without realizing it end up doing more harm than good.

And a trust me bro guarantee that no employees were harassed in the designing or making of this product

If you’ve seen enough wan show you can get a pretty good idea of his personality. He spouts so many controversial takes without thinking through the consequences, so he’s doing a terrible job if he’s actually an evil mastermind. Most people are well intentioned and Linus is no different.

He’s also naïve, arrogant, and defensive, as we’ve seen lately.

Linus hasn’t distanced himself enough from the company. If LMG “wants to be a real company”, which it is now, it needs to be able to take criticism. Nobody is criticizing any individual at LMG, we are criticizing the company. Companies are not individuals and need a mechanism for dealing with any criticism, abuse, harassment, dogpiling, ect that’s not a defensive CEO taking it personally and blurting out their emotional reaction. I don’t know how Linus can live being the sole punching bag for such a large company.

“Nobody should buy it” is probably true, but it’s not the problem here. LTT did not do their due diligence before publishing that conclusion. Even a product that no rational consumer should buy deserves a fair review that explores why you might buy it anyway.

Linus does this all the time, he makes excuses based on some technicality that only he understands. He’s said in the past that “it’s only a review if we explicitly say it’s a review, and if it’s not a review we don’t have to be held to the same standards”, despite the fact that most of their viewers won’t assume that distinction, and it’s not exactly obvious with their nonsense clickbait titles on all videos. His ego is way too big and he cares more about being right than making good content.

True, but singular they is undeniably clunky. Unfortunately it’s the best we have, so we will have to get used to it. Opposition to the natural evolution of language has never worked.

We aren’t saying that they should be driving, quite the opposite. We’re saying that it’s completely fucked that in some places you have to drive to participate in society, precisely because many people shouldn’t. There needs to be alternatives to driving so that law enforcement can remove anyone’s license without effectively placing them in house arrest.

Since I don’t know how well their manipulation works

I do. It works really fucking well. $900 billion per year well.

47°C! WTF?! Why do people live there?

But they said unknown threat. Everyone knows that TikTok is a tool for CCP spying and propaganda, but somehow most of us don’t care.