168
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
168 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
6785 readers
434 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It works because liability coverage should be basically the same for both vehicles, and insignificant compared to non-liability insurance for a new car. The latter is not a legal requirement, but it is much more necessary for a new expensive car because it would be much more difficult to cover the cost of replacing such a car out of pocket if something happened to it. If you can cover the cost of replacing your car yourself, then you can avoid paying the insurance company a premium for their service. Also if the new car is purchased with a loan that insurance is probably a contractual requirement.
For these reasons these types of insurance are better considered separately, and the legally required insurance won't affect the conclusion of the analysis of which car is a better financial decision, so it is reasonable to omit mention of it.
While your logic seems sound on the surface, the simple omission of any insurance mentioned in the first set undermines the rationalization. Whereas, including "and minimum required insurance" to said set would correct the inaccuracy, if only slightly.
Assumptions in formulae should always be clearly notated, if only to prevent their absence from otherwise implying a null/negative value. ๐ค
Good effort, though. ๐๐ผ