underrated comment

@@Lisa_Minci96 Video just came out like a few minutes ago.

@@automatanpotato9527 Ah, that explains it. Could've sworn this vid was a couple of weeks old but it was his last one.

the worst part is you’re not wrong

I literally made this comment on the last video are we deadass plagiarising comments now?

Yeah I see people go pass the speed limit on a highway every time and I bet most of them want to get home fast to sit and watch reruns

Can you imagine the weather forecasts? Every day would be "extra chance of flaming debris and Darwin Awards."

On hindsight giving regular people cars might've been a mistake in the first place

So we are assuming you would be able to buy a flying car without a pilots license?

It'll be like 911 again and again like groundhog day but with killer planes

They would then be completely unqualified to flt, making it so they wouldn't get a license.

@@anakinlowground5515 Then there's no point painting it as an invention that'll go mainstream... If the mainstream can't use it. It'd be just like flying a plane, at which point the invention wouldn't take off or be relevant in any discussion thus proving the point of the comment and video.

@@anakinlowground5515 this is why so few are actually pilots

Who freaks out in tall buildings lol

@@planefan082 people who freak out when they look down. I'm not afraid of insects and I can handle snakes yet most people scream and run when they see one in proximity

Correct.

The passenger drone is way safer than the flying car because it flies itself.

@@dansaber8435 no

Though it's also only a matter of time until there is a high profile accident with a drone. Some drones can get really big. Those predator military drones are a lot larger than most people think they are. They are not like tiny robots, they are full sized unmanned airplanes that weight over 8000 lbs.

Even that doesn't matter, ultimately. Planes today rarely crash, but they do sometimes. If we multiplied that same rate of failure for well-maintained planes and qualified pilots by thousands or even millions of air vehicles .. the consequences are terrible, particularly for the buildings, homes, and people on the ground as now in large cities, there will be a multi-ton missile hitting somewhere several times a day. No thank you.

Or do a maintenance check most people just hop in and go

I think AI could solve this

@@hdvaughan87 ai cannot interface with our modern air traffic control systems, handle all emergencies reliably, or have the ability to operate after an electrical failure. AI would solve nothing

@@sam-rs8wg We almost have self driving cars I'm sure they could make self flying planes if there was as much demand for it

With modern drone stabilising technology I don’t see why these would be any harder to drive then older cars

No storage, no towing capacity, seating capacity of one, sucks to use in winter, short range, no airbags or survivability in a crash of any kind, the human body isn't aerodynamic at all, having a jetpacker crash into you would be like getting shot by a rocket launcher, and if anything malfunctions you just fall (at least a flying car might be able to glide). And it would probably difficult to fly too, like an airborne high speed unicycle.

@@42billybob exactly, it’s a motorcycle, but even more dangerous ! Sounds like a lot of ppl will want one :P

@@42billybob “Sucks to use in winter” Bruh did you ever ride a bicycle in winter? The cold isn’t so bad lol, maybe that’s just me.

@@fellipedasilva99 Cold + High speeds are a brutal combination. Motorcycles & bikes have terrible traction on ice & snow. And I'm using Canadian winters as a frame of reference. (-20° average, plus wind chill, spikes down to -40° & constant knee-high snowfalls.) My experience with cycling during the winter was at college during a bus strike. I had to leave so early in the morning nothing was plowed. It was faster and easier to walk half the time. And my bike rusted to death by the end of the season. Failed my morning class that semester because I couldn't physically get there on time, was exhausted on arrival and I just fell behind. In short, it sucked. You must have some bush league winters or I have to assume you're some kinda masochist.

@@42billybob lmao high speeds and cold is definitely not a walk in the park. I’m from the USA, state of Massachusetts. It doesn’t get as cold as Canada, (unless it’s probably the more southern parts) but it can dip to -9 Fahrenheit in the winter. Which is about -22 Celsius. I would mostly take walks on those nice snowy days. But when I would take my bike out, I wouldn’t go very fast. Especially with the icy roads. However the cold doesn’t bite me, it’s almost a numb feeling instead of pain like you describe. I would definitely say I’m genetically gifted with handling cold temperatures. (I’m mostly Italian so idk) But what also helps me is the Wim Hof method. You should look up Wim Hof. He teaches you breathing techniques that raise your body temperature. It’s also very good to eat something fatty before trying this outside in the winter. All that fat is then converted into heat.

You always need to take the user into consideration.

I presume the concept of "flying car" for most people entails the technology of relatively automated piloting. This does exist and has existed for a long time. Modern airplanes can take off, fly a course, and land, all without human piloting. Of course, these systems cease to be safe & effective in high traffic situations.

Meh... You can't take a futuristic concept and apply it to the present. Imagine what Americans would've thought in the 1800s if they saw President Obama? In the same way, as details of our present change, so will the need for flying cars. By the time we have flying cars, no one will " drive" like how we do... Think another way, imagine explaining a regular car to someone from the 11th century... They wouldn't have a need or desire to travel as far as a car will take you. They would ask " what to do with all the horses" or where to attach the horses....see this concept? If the future needs cars that fly, then they will be created. The terms of their creation are out of our hands.

@@blackleague212 what

Meh soundproof walls you bozo for it.

@@vana8ium he's saying applying logic to technology we haven't discovered is pointless. It would be like someone from the 1800s talking about computers. We don't know if we'll discover something crazy allowing the breaking of some of the fundamentals we believe in now.

@@razerscale3590 thanks friend, I like your brain.

I find your lack of confidence.... *Disturbing!*

Flying cars ARE viable. The government just has to share their secret antigravity tech..

@@joshweickum They will never! They must hide the Earths flat shape!

All the issues he brought up in the video are solveable though. The BIGGEST most glaring obstacle that makes flying cars nonviable is actually our cities and towns. There is no city on earth that was designed with flying cars in mind. You'd need to design road and busing layouts with three dimensional traffic in mind, which is too damn expensive and time/resource consuming to rebuild existing cities for. Maybe if climate change doesn't kill us all or knock us back to the stone age and we actually manage to start permanent settlements off-world, we can plan for them at that point since we'll have new and fresh real estate to work with (plus in lower gravity environments the energy and weight problems.become easier to work around)

@@GenericCorporationMedia The funny thing is, most flat Earthers also deny the existence of gravity, so according to their warped perception of reality, antigravity technology wouldn’t even be necessary

Tbf, if I'm not mistaken it's because the traffic on Coruscant is completely automated

It's not that Coruscanti traffic was automated. There were designated skylanes for everybody to travel on. Only air taxis, military, government, and other essential personnel were allowed to travel outside of them. There's been little to no accidents because of these skylanes.

The sky lanes might ligit be the only sensible path for the flying car. Having designated places that can, at far enough away from public life, fly without concern of greater casualty would make more sense. I can really only see flying cars used in the shipping/ business side. Flying convoys would avoid traffic and environmental hurdles at a quicker pace and "hub cities" could be designed for that in mind. It would basically be the old railroad network but without the miles of tracks.

@@notaraven i think the main benefit of flying cars would be less space taken up by roads, the roads would probably need to fly too for that to be beneficial but I don't think the driving experience would be that different from driving on the ground if it was ever made

Exactly. More space for traffic equals more traffic, no exceptions. If you're dealing with a traffic jam, adding more road or even a 3D road isn't gonna fix that.

A better example would be submarines

@@Haildarklordvader i mean submarines mainly have sonar and animals can fuck with that because of low calls or something

Will we see a diss track? That's what I'm interested in

Ok Gabriel White Tenma

I'm working on it.

People only want it because it sounds cool but never think any further than that

@@user-nn5dh3cs9s if it's cool, then who carss

@@thomaspanditfan2435 The people who die in flying car accidents, their friends and family

I wanna have tho possibility to scare my friends by saying that im going to drive to their house FAST.

Everybody asked: "Wheres flying cars?"* I think you dont care,but grammer *MATTERS*

more like en*flight*enment >v>

@@figs-oliomedley no.

@@bananafone1414 yes

@@sethmichel6138 *YES*

Agreed! I think we should be content with hover cars, and make sure they can't lift more than a certain amount of distance from the ground. It might solve driving in unsafe roads or heavy rain/snow, but I'm pretty sure there are many things to figure out on the engineering side

Don't worry most of them(pretty much tiktokers) will just leave for moon or mars n never return.

Cars are smaller

@@Grgrqr But make them go fast and they could still do damage. Not that much, but still a lot.

@@cortster12 yeah. Nothing on the scale of 9-11 though. Still really dangerous

That power is reserved for the US president and CIA

Or leave main street in a river of blood

Even as a 7 year old im thinking: why would you give poeple this power if you run out of fuel... game over I realized I said I'm a 7 year old lol I meant as a 7 tear old I knew. Apparently my grammer never got bettwr

@@James-Salty-Sunderland That's where you're wrong, the kamikaze game has only just begun.

@@robbieaulia6462 true

@@James-Salty-Sunderland you won't need fuel for a flying car because it will more than likely " fly" using the Earth's gravity field. People in the " 70"s wanted flying cars because they were selfish... They selfishly wanted to " fly over traffic" . You humans cannot evolve unless you create things from love.. NOT from selfishness. You cannot selfishly drive.over traffic. In the future more humans can be moved with geo gravity crafts ( GGCs). Keep in mind we are talking about a future with 1 unified government... A future that will ore plan every single humans life and purpose. A future that will have computers control the movement of all " cars" All it takes is a writer to create and inspire... All it takes is love and creativity. Maybe soon someone will write something interesting for the world. Who knows 👹

@@blackleague212 "You humans" are you an alien? Lmao

Because it was a semi-satirical semi-exaggeration of a problem spoken in a comedic way

@@redberry6395 sound pretty realistic to me

You laughed because it was a joke

@@akielsteewart8577 thanks captain obvious

@@iSomeDood they said _"for some reason"_

People barely graduated from Cracker Jack Drivers Education, no way are they getting a pilots license.

+@@malarie-susangold9259+ That would be the point; you can't get a pilots licence then you can't use the flying car.

@@cnlbenmc people drive without licenses all the time..

@@malarie-susangold9259 If the FAA was aware of this, you could expect many, many subpoenas to be mailed.

@@foxadee if they were to be classified as a light plane it'd only be a fine. Even then good luck proving that they were operating it without a pilots license.

HOLY HOLY!!! I can proudly say that I have the two HOTTEST women on this planet as MY GIRLFRIENDS! I am the unprettiest KZfaqr ever, but they love me for what's inside! Thanks for listening wi

@@AxxLAfriku cool story bro.

Hey now; I feel personally attacked

That is a good meme to ddescribe of an futuristic optimist....~

All part of growing up.

@LilHeinz94 It won't be worse than regular cars unless every new flying car uses a jet engine now that would be loud

I’ve decided that cars shouldn’t fly.

@@dacstudios1168 Amen

@@asandax6 have you ever heard of how loud a helicopter is yeah its like that but times however many flying cars you want

Altitude and there won't be many anyways (even less so in urban locations), most of you guys struggle to afford next months rent so how exactly are you going to pay the expenses for the pilots license let alone the actual car

*The portable aeroplane that cannot take off and land on roads.

There has been thousands of tests called "first flying car". Guess how they all ended.

Oh, this comment is 2 years old. I guess that speaks for itself.

I didn't see any?

@@internetguy7319 0:00

Shut mouf hammock

That's honestly why I believe flying cars dont exist already.

Facts

Hit the nail on the head there. Besides ppl driving regular cars would get to there destination way before you do lmao. Cause you're too busy trying to fucking pilot lol.

Traffic

Flying car is actually pretty pointless,it can cause so many casualties and is not worth it the effort

And aeroplanes.

Well he must’ve been a shit mechanic for things to fail that regularly!

@@MrSupercar55 not everybody can afford lightweight indestructable materials for air crafts.

Your average driver will never be allowed to drive it you idiot. Think of it like someone having to get their pilots license. A hell of a lot of hoops you gotta jump through first.

@@arechi3208 Thats exactly the point of my comment

@@arechi3208 dude op just said that

@@arechi3208 at which point you should just buy a helicopter or a cessna instead.

@@arechi3208 Calling someone an idiot when the point flew over your head? Ironic.

2 words actually: Houston drivers

@@luciiidnights 2 words: American drivers

@@luciiidnights 1 word: drunkards

Boston drivers, if Overly Sarcastic Productions is accurate.

China town drivers

So not only could these thing crash at people, there is a chance it would explode and turns everyone near it into crispy critters? Nice

Yeah. If shit goes wrong in your car, you stop or pull over, problem solved. If you're a kilometer above the children hospital at that time, that's a whole different story. Not one I'd want to read in a news flash.

Have you heard about autogyros? You can land safely with complete engine failure with those things

@@38vocan autorotation landing is anything BUT safe. It's better than just dropping like a rock, but that's about it. And it works only if you haven't lost the orientation of the aerodynamic surfaces. Which is rare in a crash. Furthermore, it depends on a big surface area/weight ratio. So it doesn't work with drones with small propellers, for example. At that stage, you basically need a helicopter, not a flying car. And we have those.

@@LoisoPondohva That's why they're redundant, multiple batteries and connections (I don't know the technical terms when it come to electronics) as well as ballistic parachutes. what they are though is ugly so I'll pass on them and what do you mean by "orientation of aerodynamic surfaces"? you mean lost a rotor or something?

Just the amount of damage one could do in a GTA style rampage with grounded hrududus Times the factor of air. Wowzers.

@@viscountrainbows6452 just imagine how much crashes would happen daily

Yeah, because obviously personal airplanes haven't been a thing for a long time already and just look at how many people are doing 9/11 styled events. Oh, and I suppose they won't be AI driven, and you won't need to pass some form of tests before you're qualified drive one. Yep, making a car that converts into a plane totally means we're gonna see a massive spike in terrorism. Good job on this one, your opinion has saved billions of lives. Look at you go hero! 🙄

@@magnom3922 its gonna be a roller coaster 😂

@@arechi3208 the difference is that with personal planes average everyday citizens can’t get one very easily If you haven’t noticed there are all that many people who could afford that. And to even own and fly a personal aircraft you must go through a lot of registration before being able to fly. So if your average joe was able to fly personal aircraft like they drove there car that would make it a lot easier for crazy people to do crazy things. Just think about one day some dude has just had it with life and wants to kill as many as possible. The best way to do that assuming he’s a mostly normal dude is to get a gun and kill people or drive into a crowd. But with flying cars he could just fly into the base of a building killing hundreds. Just saying

We do We do a little trolling "inverse gravity incident"

Accident implies there's no one to blame. - Sgt Nicholas Angel

Every flying car accident wouldn't be 9/11. The flying cars would be smaller than the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers so they theoretically would do far less damage. That being said the frequency of aerial crashes would go up and people would likely be dying a lot. The only mitigation I see is if you drink and fly then you get your flying car license revoked forever and even if that's enabled some people are reckless drivers, speeders and ignore traffic laws so maybe if the punishment for any personal commercial aerial vehicle violation is your license being taken away forever that might make people more cautious.

@@DracoMagnius Yes, Malfoy. That's the point.

All of your points have to ignore so many things. You said that flying cars can only fly at about half the height of most single engine planes. The cesna 172 Skyhawk has a service ceiling anywhere from 14 thousand feet to 18 thousand feet. And a cruising altitude from 13 to 15 thousand feet. Even if we go with the lower end of that spectrum, a flying car on average would have a service ceiling of 7000 feet and a cruising altitude of 6500 feet. Well that is well above the 1000 feet above cities and 500 above rural areas. And because if this service ceiling limitation you will not have an issue of overcrowding for two reasons but the first is that most planes cruise well and above what these car planes are capable of. The other reason is that these planes would be regulated just like cars boats. You would need to be licensed for both depending on the size. So if had an ultralight that was road legal then you would be fine but you would have restrictions for flying. And if your car plane was over a certain weight you would need a pilots license and all required equipment for a plane. And as far as the safety and quantity is concerned, they would be made the same way super cars are. So the materials would be quite strong but be able to crumple and not be anymore dangerous than the other parts of a car. And since they would be made like super cars they would cost similarly and thus making them quite rare. So in the end it wouldn't cause any more congestion on top of the existing plane production. The engineering problem also is pretty easy to solve as cars and planes have similar aerodynamic properties. The difference is that the aerodynamic shape creates downforce which can be provided by a retractable spoiler. And since wings don't provide lift unless they are actively catching air then they are perfectly fine. In the end none of your concerns are founded. Especially since these would just be toys for the rich like jet ski atvs. Anyway thats all I have to say on that matter. Ugh this is a slight bit copied from an earlier comment of mine but re writing my points would take ages and my points still stand.

@@casematecardinal uhm, ackually

Yea but dude, think about it... If you were 200IQ you'd invest in home insurance after flying cars were mainstreamed and soak in the benefits from your basement (safety first) as you rack up them claims lmao. You could go a step above and move all of your valuables to the basement as well and when the inevitable car comes barreling through your living room window you could plant "scraps" of them lol

@Alex Jossart That's.. actually a valid point as well. Well played lol

Not anymore so than what it is right now, if there ever is an introduction of commercially available flying cars the amount of aircraft wouldn't go up by much

@@Themurderin Is that a valid point though? I doubt there are very many cases of cars flying through roofs of homes.

Not if we invent the force field first.

Plus would probably fill up the sky unless they somehow make the traffic lights but still because you just go around the trafic light, so there would be many crashes 24/7 and a lot of filling up the sky. So much for the future is "bright" lol.

Well you could put an ai to these cars, But well the video addressed it in a good way so it's still not a good argument

@@tokeners The traffic system wouldn't be effective sense everyone would want to go there own way aka creating chaos lol. "Its enough space for me to go to my house. It's only 5 miles away" - said everyone in the air

@@justcallmekai1554 true

I mean if some r bad pilots then just give flying cars auto pilot and then life would be easy

Excellent, this is the highest echelon this meme has reached. Thanks for a laugh. Achievement Unlocked.

@@andrewvella7829 I don’t know what a echelon is but that made me smile

Congratulations, you got 9/11ed

@@masterspongebat2387 fancy way to refear to a rank on some kind of hirearchy.

I view it in the opposite way but to the same reason, I would only really use it for long distance and duration travel. example: going out of state to visit family, when there you can drive for the short distances

@@midgetman4206 This role is filled by planes, though. It'd be a waste to have all this equiment you only use once in a while weighing down your car every time you drive.

@@gogobrasil7185 Yeah and sports cars usually never get to use their full potential, yet that doesn't stop people from dailying their V8. This still isn't enough to deter me

@@midgetman4206 Well, sports cars aren't really known for being efficient. Also I'd bet heavy flying equipment would make flying cars even less efficient than sports cars. But if you're ok with that, then sure, have fun. I'm not saying they can't exist, only that they would be wasteful and shouldn't/couldn't be widespread.

@@gogobrasil7185 Oh, ok, I understand what you mean and I agree, the obstacles to obtain and use one should be enough of a blockade to most people (and that filters out the ones who shouldn't use one). I just see this kind of vehicle like an enthusiast's dream Do you think a flying car using something like lifting gas (hopefully a vacuum) could work? Not 100% but how does half sound? I have an idea, I don't know how well it would work though

Your mom

Overtime, if the market hypothetically was viable and allowed to continue unimpeded, the price would drop, this is true for microwaves, phones etc. So it would be true for the flying car market as well.

@@tombolt13thexehanort29 yeah maybe if we could become a type 2 civilization and harness all the energy of the sun, otherwise, think again. In other words, YOUR MOM

@@spiritualopportunism4585 you basically just called his mom rich

@@spiritualopportunism4585 sadly solar is too inconsistent to be viable for everyone, wind is likewise inconsistent. Water destroys the environment more than it helps and nuclear can be vary dangerous (though accidents are rare, all it takes is one to destroy the entire area for years). Some theorize that better optimized battery systems could remedy the inconsistencies with Solar, but others remain skeptical (it wouldn't work ever in places like Alaska).

Uh, hello? buoyancy is a thing

@@midgetman4206 Please be fucking joking.

@@hernehaugen6878 Nope, I want to see the return of airships

@@midgetman4206 Okay fair enough I was just following the wrong train of thought then. Carry on, airships ahoy.

@@midgetman4206 would be sick tbh

In one of the worst sequels to a movie franchise, yes.

@@warrenbradford2597 finn mcmissile's theme is cool though, so that's a bonus

@@warrenbradford2597 -Remove Mater -Reduce McQueen to a few cameos or remove him too -Don't call the movie a sequel -Gud movie

Whaaatt?? I've not heard of this before

Ok but that is FICTION. And so is good flying cars.

FLYING CAR 2! *Now with wings*

@@flaccidweentheii6684 FLYING CAR 3!! *Now with Saturn V, F1 rocket engine*

Planes itself was a crazy endeavour because of just how dangerous it was.

Because it's just something that sounds cool and in practice probably wouldn't end well

I see what you did there.

@The Dude well that's actually useful

@The Dude fusion energy is very useful but as of right now it's only in it's testing phase but it did manage to make energy but it's not really efficient right now it needs more testing to make it more efficient

@The Dude but at least right now they managed to make energy out of it even if it's not efficient right now

Agreed

They in fact have existed since September 14th, 1939

@@dacstudios1168 hey that date is close to another date that is very important but I simply couldn't remember what it is

They don't drive. But flying cars do exist, there are ATVs that employ autogyros or paramotors

Autogyros/gyrocopters also exist -- they're a bit like a motorcycle with passive helicopter blades. They aren't fast, they can't hover, but they do fly. I want one.

*public starts crashing and landing in houses or any nearby building* Al Qaeda "HEY! THAT'S OUR JOB! Go home everyone, nothing more we can do."

Why would they try it with this? drones (I forget most people think of drones as a quadcopter, that isn't what a drone means) are far more dangerous because of the amount commercially available and the ease of home built. These vehicles are dumb as a weapon

@@midgetman4206 Kind've simple, more directions to attack, in a flying car. You'd have a larger thing to launch at a person,building, etc. than a Drone, and unlike normal cars you can get more vulnerable angles to the target you want to hit.

@@TheUplinkExperiment But they would also be 10s if not hundreds (depends per drone and car) of times more expensive than most drones you could buy on the market right now. You also would need to go through a lot of stuff to get a car because it's classified as an aircraft, a lot more regulation on planes than there is on drone. Also, where are they going to get a car like this? You underestimate the lifting capacity of drones, you could easily put a bunch of explosives on one. And because they're easier to get, you can launch more than one. There smaller so you can launch them from more places than you could a plane or helicopter, even more so if you have a catapult. Have you not seen VTOL winged drones? they have that aforementioned maneuverability, not quadcopter level but not horrible. And finally, I present to you the homebuilt aircraft and ultralights. Not much has to be said.

Imma creeper Minecraft’s grim reaper blowin up blocks like Al-Quaida

I wanted so say something funny here but I'm stumped. This is rare for me. Good job

@@deathkorpswatchmaster2414 "The Adeptus Administratum cannot hold me back!"

...you just had to mention the spiders, didn't you?

@@SupersuMC Yeah flying spiders

Ha! You’ve fallen for my trap card: “experimental” aircraft.

The Wright Flyer is illegal under the mentioned FAA rules. If the FAA had existed in 1903 then Orville and Wilbur Wright would have BTFO.

It depends really, aren't ultralights and motorcycles both able to go beneath most regulations? just slap a paramotor onto a trike. This will just make flying cars become their own thing, probably be required to get pilots license but that might be it. In fact, there already is something like that today, it's just an ATV instead

Nothing's better than a top gear scene.

I think you mean "bottom gear"

@@PauaP I think you mean "Ben Dover" ;)

@@Themurderin no

@@PauaP Yes, confirmed head canon. GFY ;)

I wonder what present day predictions are just as implausible.

+Jeremy W Variety of Viewpoints I could probably think of a few but that would start a flame war and I don't need more of those.

@@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104 gLoBal wARmIng Iz TeH eNd

+VegetaOrAra I guess something like that? I mean, clearly the MIC is a huge mistake. On the general topic of war, I simply think that the goal of "world peace" isn't possible. War is something that humans will just do, so long as two people exist there will be conflict. You can mitigate warfare, sure, but I don't think it can ever be eliminated unless humanity is also eliminated. It just strikes me as a sort of green and orange morality where it's believed war can never have a reason and any kind of peace is preferable to war, such as a dictator oppressing his people in peacetime but being ousted in a war.

@ok ok Colonizing Mars IS inevitable, but it will come in the very distant future. I'm talking like 500 years.

Honestly the people who make flying cars should give flying cars auto pilot basically u can choose to activate auto pilot but at somepoint auto pilot can work if u dont touch the buttons that make the flying car fly so that would be one of the ways to save flying car accidents

Yeah that would be cool i would def learn to skateboard then.

There are fat bicycle

Didn't hear this one before... Like a hundred times already

hovering cars would be better

@@spiritualopportunism4585 because it's a good point

@@vse7327 Press a button for flying cars to happend but the sky will be filled with cars and many crashes that it might even happen in a living room or press a button for just a snack which one will you choose?

@@tokeners I'll gladly take the snack

They should be thanful for that advice

@@Zer01211 the present state of humans have no need for flying cars... You are speaking of a future that is outside of present human consciousness. You must first evolve the mind before you see the need for flying cars... More like geo gravity crafts... A computer would control these cars and they would move groups of people to designated places. No more joy riding. No sight seeing or that other nonsense. That is the future where flying cars live... Not in the present day.

Exactly!

but hey, that's communism or something

@@matheussanthiago9685 Subway Stalinism but unironic

Nah I'm good. I like going to the grocery store at 12 AM and buying my $200+ of grocers and taking them home.

or build a shit ton of roundabouts of you want a biden like solution

Do you expect it just starts falling like if you drop something,m

Drives me nuts when people whine about regulations. When its regulations that help keep rat shit out of food, fire codes, safety regulations. Like you want to go back when it was the norm for a literal child to become maimed by heavy machinery because of a dangerous work place.

@@XWierdThingsHappenX yes

@@GoogleDoesEvil what you said at the beginning makes zero sense. Yes at one point in the U.S children worked and became maimed by heavy machinery. It wasn't just children either plenty of adults where hurt as well. It got better when laws and regulations where put in place. Regulations are not all bad and they are not all good. What I said before is true. Don't act like it isn't because what you said is all so true.

@@GoogleDoesEvil regulations don't stop small businesses it makes them not have rat shot in their food or have workers and customers get injured

@@XWierdThingsHappenX actually the regulations didn't do anything, as dangerous and unsafe machinery were being phased out by the market by the time the regulations were put into place; this is also true for child labor. Companies were well aware the machinery was dangerous, which made people not want to work, so they're solutions were to invest into technology to improve safety; it was only after this phasing out began that the government made the regulations. A better example of good regulation is how the fda approves new medication and how Companies are mandated to list their ingredients (these both leave the market open to experiment and allow the consumer to choose something potentially more dangerous if they want, the big difference is it forces clarity on the company's side, but allows the consumer to ultimately decide the fate of said company).