Simple: Visibility and speed. You look at a parking spot, and if it's empty, it's definitely empty. It's virtually guaranteed to stay that way as you back in, so you don't need to monitor what's in it. No cars, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, et cetera, are going to enter the parking stall as you back in. That's not true of a street or lane when you back out into it. It's often difficult to even see traffic coming, as backup cameras don't have the wide-angle coverage, and there's always the possibility that you didn't see somebody.
As a result of both of those factors, with practice, backing in can be done in seconds, and pulling out is a breeze. Pulling in forward is a breeze, but for most people, backing out is a slower, more nerve-wracking maneuver. (At least that's my assumption from watching how long it takes.) On the other hand, the people who just YOLO it back out into traffic are psychopaths.
I would go further. Most cars don't belong in places where people live. They injure and kill people on the regular, the noise pollution causes mental and physical health problems, the light pollution disrupts sleep, the particulate pollution causes cardiovascular disease and dementia, as well as damaging ecosystems, driving adds to obesity and issues related to a sedentary lifestyle, the physical space they take leads to sprawl and ecosystem destruction, and the sprawl also bankrupts cities and towns. As well, driving in traffic just plain sucks as an activity, and makes people angry and miserable.
It's a good question, though people tend to treat it as a thought-terminating cliché rather than exploring the implications. Why should murderers be punished, actually? Enacting punishment is an external incentive, a stimulus, supposedly structured to make the cost to the potential murderer higher than the benefit they hope to get by killing. Belief in punishment, therefore, is consistent with the non-free will position. But if there's no free will, then why not instead try to "solve" murder, and not have murderers anymore, by discovering the root causes that drive people to murder, and mitigating them? We'd all be better off!
On the other hand, free will implies that the mechanism of punishment may or may not be punishing to the murderer. We don't know what they feel in response to stimulus; they have free will! Like in the story of Br'er Rabbit, trying to determine a foolproof method of punishment that's hateful to the murderer is an exercise in futility, since we can't know their mind.
There are multiple meanings of "support." There's an endorsement meaning, which can be explicit or tacit, and there's an aiding meaning. The Democrats may not explicitly endorse it, but the Biden administration certainly did tacitly endorse it by directly aiding it. And most of the party has been tacitly endorsing and aiding it for decades.
Huh, that's really odd conclusion to draw from Democrats literally supporting genocide. Harris couldn't even be bothered to come out against it during the campaign even when they knew their support was a losing issue.
It's a simple moral calculus, don't you see? You must always vote for Hitler and help him kill 5,000,000 people, if the alternative is somebody who's going to kill 5,000,001 people.
Mixed messages here: "I’ve simply followed instructions and referred to the help communities, whenever I’ve had trouble." Fellow human, those are the actions of a programming genius and hacker. The bar is remarkably low. A lot of people can't even read what it says on the screen.
More research is always good, as it can deepen our understanding, but the basic outline of what's going on is already known. A lot of people just don't want to believe it, because we're all stuck on the metaphor that we're all captains of the ship inside our own heads. You see it in this thread; people want to blame non-voters, as if millions of people all had perfect information and all made decisions based upon it through conscious reasoning. Because they're just—I dunno—bad people? (Which is a completely bonkers belief when you start to dig into it.)
Actually, neuroscience tells us that consciousness doesn't really exist, except as an emergent phenomenon of sensory experience. Brain scans show that thoughts, feelings, and decisions occur before we're consciously aware of them; the conscious mind is basically a rationalization machine, inventing narratives about why we did a thing or felt a certain way, only after the fact. And, it's notoriously bad at it. (The Misattribution of Arousal is one of the classic examples.) So, if you can affect the way that somebody's brain works, you can in many ways control what the they think and feel.
Simple: Visibility and speed. You look at a parking spot, and if it's empty, it's definitely empty. It's virtually guaranteed to stay that way as you back in, so you don't need to monitor what's in it. No cars, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, et cetera, are going to enter the parking stall as you back in. That's not true of a street or lane when you back out into it. It's often difficult to even see traffic coming, as backup cameras don't have the wide-angle coverage, and there's always the possibility that you didn't see somebody.
As a result of both of those factors, with practice, backing in can be done in seconds, and pulling out is a breeze. Pulling in forward is a breeze, but for most people, backing out is a slower, more nerve-wracking maneuver. (At least that's my assumption from watching how long it takes.) On the other hand, the people who just YOLO it back out into traffic are psychopaths.