DRM has absolutely nothing do to with this.

Their existence is far more constant than heavily urbanized areas.

Certainly not. Moderately urbanized areas are a historical footnote. They came into existence less than a century ago, with the emergence of automobilism and cheap fuel.

Heavily urbanized areas have existed for millenia.

This is highly unrealistic. Most people do not want to be packed in tighter with other people, they want more space not less.

The alternative is that they stop existing altogether when personal automobiles become too expensive for the average consumer to own and operate.

I’m talking about moderately urbanized places (which there are a lot more of).

Such places exist as a direct consequence of car culture. Their existence is not a universal constant; they can and must be turned into heavily urbanized areas.

What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?

Grocery stores inside cities do not have loading docks. Their goods are typically delivered by this type of vehicle to curb-side offloading sites during off-peak hours.

18 wheelers are not last mile delivery vehicles and have no business being in cities to begin with.

Putting peope in prison was not the point of my original post; preventing repeat dangerous drivers from harming more people was. I’m absolutely open to alternatives to incarceration.

Do you have some examples of what could be done to minimize harm to victims and, in particular, prevent future crime?

You’re contradicting yourself, immediately above you say mandatory prison sentence.

For driving after permanent license revocation. That could perhaps have been clearer; consider it clarified.

Let’s start from first principles and see where we disagree:

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
2. That privilege, if repeatedly abused, should be removed permanently.
3. Once removed, further driving must be disincentiviced, and if necessary, punished.
4. The disincentive/punishment must apply to rich and poor alike.
5. It therefore cannot be purely monetary.

If you disagree with any of the above, I’d like to know which, and why. If you agree with them all, what disincentive/punishment do you suggest, if not incarceration?

The three strikes would not lead to a prison sentence, just permanent license revocation. If the driver in question continues to drive at that point, they have demonstrated that they are a danger to society and must be removed from it for the safety of others.

Further, just imposing fines for unlicensed driving would effectively make it legal for rich people to drive recklessly. That, if anything, would be reactionary.

He pleaded guilty to hit-and-run, his third such offence

Three strikes policy must become a thing for reckless driving and related offences. After your third conviction you never get to drive a car again in your life.

“They’d just drive anyway”

Mandatory prison sentence and vehicle confiscation, regardless of who owns it. Unless it’s literaly stolen, it’s the owner’s responsibility to ensure the driver is legally allowed to drive.

“But not being able to drive is undue hardship”

Tough.

I mean, have you seen the rush hour traffic on Coruscant?

Is that the one about the guy who was so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life?

For convenience, the wagon could be motorized. Perhaps even have a nice, comfy seat or two.

Consider being less unpleasant.

When one of them has nothing to do with the other three, splitting them into separate paragraphs is good practice to avoid confusion.

Forklifts […] are operated in pedestrian heavy areas much more frequently [than cars].

???

What are paragraphs?

What is a gif keyboard? What’s wrong with copy and pasting from ~/Pictures/memes/?

(Yes, I realize my old is showing)

Everything.

Every programming language is an abstraction layer between the programmer and the machine that will run the code. But abstraction isn’t free. Generally speaking, the higher the abstraction, the less efficient the program.

C++ optionally provides a much higher level of abstraction than pure C, which makes C++ much nicer to work with. But the trade off is that the program will struggle to run in resource constrained environments, where a program written in C would run just fine.

And to be clear, when I say “low-end hardware”, I’m not talking about the atom-based netbook from 2008 you picked up for $15 at a yard sale. It will run C++ based programs just fine. I’m talking about 8- or 16-bit microcontrollers running at <100 MHz with a couple of hundred kB of RAM. Such machines are still common in many embedded applications, and they do not handle C++ applications gracefully.

I mean yeah, if you restrict yourself to the C part of C++ it can do everything C can. But then you’re not getting any of the advantages of C++.

Once you start using things like classes and templates heavily, your program will quickly outgrow low-end hardware.