skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
they are not tying to save you, they are trying to save themselves from hitting you because the cars behind don't see the bike and assume you are going slowly just because and road rage is the most dangerous thing while driving.

please understand than bikers don't make a good judge, because they are biased to think everyone is trying to kill them because everyone hates how free and both environmentally and physically better they are than everyone else.

this thread started with someone claiming that bikes are "healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians"

which are only claims, not facts.

the fact that I sometimes drive for 30kms with a car and walk the rest of the times, doesn't make me less healthy or more polluting,it's just propaganda fueled by self righteousness which doesn't help the matter at hands: why bikers love to take on cars, while, like it or not, cars are still the main users of roads because the astonishing amount of taxes road users have to pay, pay for those roads and their maintenance.

I hate cars in walkable cities, but I understand that walking is better for me, I don't blame people driving, I just avoid them.

I would like to avoid bikes too, but they use the pavement I'm walking on 'because roads aren't safe', like their right to defend their safety overrides my right to not be bothered where only pedestrian should walk.

I don't feel safe walking in the middle of the street, even though no law here prohibits it, I simply don't do it.

If a road is too dangerous to walk, I change directions.

There'll be a day when all of this won't b necessary, in the meantime, while some scientist invents the "no danger machine" everyone risk their life by simply living.

House accidents cause more death than accidents between bikes and cars in my Country, heck, they cause 4x more deaths than car accidents!, so bikes are still much safer than staying home anyway, enjoy the biking and stop complaining.
You're right, but I was specifically talking about a decentralized social network.
Events are 10X worse than timeline. Has anyone else noticed this? All the event pages are constantly being bombarded by scammers saying they have "tickets" to the event to sell because they can no longer go for X reason. On some popular events there's scam messages every couple minutes. Thousands of fake profiles posting with no details on the profile. Some are even more sophisticated and have rather full profile details. Most of the time they sell "online" tickets, but where I am from almost all the tickets are paper so its easy to spot the scammers.
Given it's a fundamentally broken medium, that's a given even if they restore it back to normal.
I don't understand why people / Meta believes all social networking needs to compete or does compete?

TikTok and Facebook in my mind have very different use cases. It may be true that if people spend more time on TikTok they'll spend less on Facebook, but that doesn't mean these are comparable services. TikTok seems to be more of an video entertainment app and less a social app - more like YouTube with social features imo. Facebook is primarily a service to network with friends, family and businesses - TikTok doesn't really work well for this.

Admittedly I haven't used Facebook for 10+ years now so I have no idea how the Reels integration works, but it seems shoving short-form videos down users necks is probably a bad idea. Surely this isn't what the average Facebook user goes to Facebook for?

It would be like Netflix deciding YouTube was a competitor because "videos" and then adding a load of user uploaded videos to their video library.
I agree pretty strongly with the premise of this article. Unexpected or unnoticed bottlenecks and localized issues can lead to cascading failures.

A book I read more than a decade ago helped me learn about this stuff: Release It! by Michael T. Nygard. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/release-it/978168050026... I am wondering if the information contained within is really dated now, but I am not really sure.

I believe that load-testing components in concert, identifying such spots, and then reproducing the problems in isolation and alleviating them may be a solution to preemptively find such issues. That does come with the cost of such work and assumes that one can use a workload that is representative of actual issue-causing workloads in production. I believe that this is a skill that people and teams can learn, but mistakes are easy to make. I also think one should be careful with using production data for privacy reasons and to avoid accidentally performing real-world actions with consequences during testing - another area of software development I feel is worth considering (conscious and well-designed separation of environments into development and testing and production segments, e.g.).
> Cars are second class citizens most of the time and people driving them know this.

As someone who's never been able to afford living in a Dutch city, but has worked there, this is very true. Driving through Amsterdam is like driving through a mine field. Cyclists seemingly pop up out of nowhere and always take the right of way. This has become such a custom in the Netherlands that (at least in Amsterdam) cyclists even have the right of way even when running a red light. Courts have decided in favor of cyclists who were hit by cars while running red lights, because when driving in Amsterdam, you need to expect this to happen as a driver.

I'm not opposed to this at all, since cyclists are much more vulnerable than drivers. However, I've noticed that this is becoming much more dangerous with electric bicycles taking over. You used to be able to estimate quite well whether you can cross in front of a cyclists by the type of bike and the person on it... But not anymore. A 72 year old who used to cycle maybe 15 km/h is now casually doing 25 km/h and not slowing down for crossings. This is also visible in the statistics, with the number of cyclists involved in fatal accidents rising.
I found it equally bewildering when I heard the claim, but perhaps because gun violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by young men, and in the neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence, young men are also the overwhelming majority of bicyclists. No idea what causal mechanism the claimant was inferring from this correlation. Indeed, it's a highly localized correlation anyways: in less economically depressed parts of the city, the demographics of bicyclists are much more varied along gender, age, and racial lines.

I think there was also an incident in the last couple years in which a young guy was shot and killed by police after they got a "guy with a gun" call because he was very obviously carrying a handgun while riding a bike around his neighborhood. That was on the other side of town from me, and I don't think a whole lot came of it afterwards, so I might be a little fuzzy on the details.
where did you hear that from?

The A-Segment is well alive and thriving:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-segment

What I see instead is very small electric vehicles entering the market from new manufacturers --- the market entry hurdle was not the vehicle safety, it was mastering the EURO-6,7,8 and California environmental norms with such a small engine.

I'd love to get one of those, or their van equivalents, rather, alas they're rarely exported outside Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
Neat! I'll look into it, thanks
> Again, there is no value in "solving the long term storage problem".

There is, because it is the main impedement to the universality of renewable energy.

> The "largest project in the world" is, by definition, not representative.

Yes. Extremely large, recent infrastructure projects by the CCP tend to have vastly lowe stated costs than anything smaller or in another place. If it's unusual\y expensive, show me one which is representitive. Show me a breakdown of a small project (or any project) which uses a typical hill and costs less than projected battery costs at time of completion.
> the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason

They really aren't endangering themselves, the city planners are endangering them.

In the Netherlands if there is a street or junction with too many accidents they consider it a design failure and redraw the whole thing, often to slow down cars, separate cyclists and to make cyclists more visible.

> people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do.

So why do bikes outnumber people in the Netherlands but not in London? Why don't the Dutch make up excuses for not wanting to exercise.

Maybe exercise is actually enjoyable and healthy and the little in London would actually like to do it safely?
Nothing official? It's a literal confirmation of their death by their employer. You're literally all over this thread spreading easily verifiable misinformation, it's frankly just sad. If you had any integrity you'd update your comments to reflect that you were wrong, but of course you won't because you are deliberately lying about the site.
forEach landed in Chrome in 2014 after this post, at the same time as for...of. True that forEach was available in some browsers earlier than that and could be polyfilled. Which do I mean? either.
Acting like what makes Rome's traffic dangerous are cyclists or moped drivers (even if those can often be quite reckless) is basically victim-blaming.

We should never take such posts too seriously.
In London it is worth trying to optimize where you live so you can get by bicycle where you need to go. Some parts are terribly connected for cyclists others much better. You can use citymapper to find and check for cycling routes (do not use Google to find cycling routes). I found that North (Islington) and East are better for cycling than South or West.
> I see cyclists cross red lights much too often. So it's not once it's way too many times.

Anecdatum: I can stand at the junction on the main road about 200m from here and, in peak time, see 5-10 cars (on each change) either deliberately jump the amber/red on one side or enter the junction in an unsafe manner on the other. Which means upwards of 100-200 cars per hour. For cyclists, it'll rarely be one per change; maybe 10 an hour.

That's one junction, albeit on a busy road.
Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. People abused the system to such an extent that now it is a matter of infringing on other people's right to personal safety not to mention the unnecessary pollution and traffic congestion.
I do not want to discuss the specifics but it would be great if for example cities only allowed KEI cars or a similar concept.
It is very difficult. In most cases people aren't affected. Those that might understand the need for privacy are those that lost their jobs because of posting on social media or being naked in the wrong place. Currently the data that is shared between ad networks is rarely public, but embarrassing information could be found everywhere and what is considered as such might change with time. Is isn't just the access log of your head of state to youporn or something like that, it is also the info about trivial consumption choices that can come back at you.

Legislators made it far worse because they demanded additional data to be saved for "security purposes". So not even here people are informed about the problem. On the contrary, we regularly have old farts making everything much worse.

Frankly, those that believe they can save some bucks when they share their data probably aren't the best to understand the larger picture. The data is valuable for different purposes but it is also difficult to put a price tag on it.
Nothing against dynamically typed languages, Python is one as well. Maybe "awful" was a bit of a strong word, but to quickly summarise my issues with JS:
- all the syntax and duck typing footguns (see all those "js is weird" memes)
- the complexity of the build chain, especially if you want typing support
- the unmanageable dependency mess that seems to be the norm in the ecosystem
My older relatives tend to disagree with you, Ubuntu runs better than Windows and is easier to use (especially on dated hardware). Admittedly if proprietary programs were a requirement it wouldn't be possible, but that isn't a fault of Linux.
All of this was fueled by zero cost credit, tidal waves of VC money and the very early stage of monetizing the web. Soon the world wide web will be a thing of the past and most economic value will have been captured by corporate walled gardens and this job marked will fall in line.
The sales pitch is that you get to "own" the customer, in the sense that you have more control over the user experience. Fewer ad blockers, notifications to keep the user "engaged" etc. With more control over the device there is also the potential of easier support. There are plenty metrics collected so there is data to show that all these are true.

But all this is now inherent to the market. The few agencies who didn't offer apps went mostly out of business. So nobody needs to know why they want it anymore, it's just what is being offered and the world moves on.

The open web may prove to be a historical curiosity. Just like personal universal turing machines. The jury is still out, hopefully there will be a movement back in our lifetimes.
Effectively someone would be paying 2400 bucks (+ domain cost) for a template and managed hosting for 2 years, right?
Also want to find out, because my CBT therapist is (softly) resistant to prescribe them. He said that it is a crutch to a real issue which must be found and eliminated. I partially agree because when my health goes up it leaves little to no motivation to investigate further. Also keep in mind that some ADs make you feel much worse for a first week or so, which may be dangerous. A lot of reviews out there like “I stopped taking it because it only got worse”.

(This is just my own experience and fragmented knowledge, don’t take it too seriously if you need help.)
Marcan is directly involved in the reverse engineering. He is not involved in Apple's decision making on what they want to allow on their precious platform, which they tend to really lock down in every possible way.

> Besides, even if Apple did come out and say it, you'd still trot this nonsense out.

No. Apple saying, unofficially, they welcome Microsoft, and Apple coming out and saying they love Linux and want it, would be different. That wouldn't be any guarantee that they won't change their mind or are just hypocrites, but it would still be more meaningful than "technically it's possible, there is no official anything (only an official welcome to MS Windows, but sure, Apple absolutely want Linux on Mac to be a thing".
These loopholes are purely theoretical until tested in court. At some point a generating AI will hurt the wrong company, and they will either make a public spectacle out of it in court, or if they see no chance of winning lobby congress to introduce laws that make the case winnable.
you are not up to date with the UK traffic rules:

> Cars must leave at least 1.5 metres room when passing bicycles - while revised guidance also says "it can be safer" for cyclists to ride two abreast.
> We create websites with a neutral carbon footprint

What are characteristics of such website? How can I make my site 'neutral carbon footprint' too?
To me, your point reads very differently from their comment. A skeptic outlook informed by events and criticisms in the field, justified by a reference to those events, is very different from dismissing a field out of hand.

A charitable read of their comment interprets it as you do, but starting a criticism like this is not a good way to engage readers. I personally stopped reading reflexively and skipped to the replies to see if other people found anything worth engaging with, much like I do with clickbait titles.
OP lives in Rome, where the average driver mentality is somewhere between "need for speed" and "carmageddon".

Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly.

Of course they're grossly incorrect.
The book "The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy" suggests that when what you are arguing for is obviously bad to most people, you end up falling back on 3 main arguments.

This will make the problem worse.

This will not fix the problem.

This will hurt something unrelated.

Basically the same as FUD deployed by incumbent tech giants. You don't need to even try to claim your product is better. People are familiar with your product and know that it's crap. You just have to introduce enough uncertainty into the conversation to slow progress towards other solutions.
Maths puzzle taught me to use my brain – helped me cope with losing my daughter
The Commodore 64 at 40: back to the future of video games
The Ghost Runner: John Tarrant's story of triumph and tragedy
It's the complete social and sensory isolation of a metal, sound-proof box. There is no spoken or body language (besides the occasional middle finger). There is no sensory input to the driver that conveys that they drive a 2000kg box of metal at 80km/h. The driver views the world through a windscreen that makes it all remote. Most drivers don't even realize other people on the road are living beings with feelings once they enter the sensory and social isolation of a car.
Yes, cyclists too. When approaching an intersection which is not at right angles, it can be especially dangerous for cyclists when the speed of the car and cyclist is just right for the cyclist to be obscured for a long period of time. [1]

I also noticed when driving a certain Kei car in Japan with no a-pillar airbags and a so-called “split” or “double” a-pillar with a window between 2 skinny pillars, that the visibility is so much better. It feels great when you realize you don’t need to move your head around at all to see past them, the parallax affect of having 2 eyes makes them basically disappear. [2]

[1]https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/12/02/study-diagonal-inters...

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daihatsu_Tanto#/media/File%3...
> if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver

if they do not kill you, they are not.

or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user.

just maybe

> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

welcome to the reality.

I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you wear noise canceling headphones and no rearview mirror and no stop signal when you brake.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm passing you, I don't trust your abilities, sorry.

let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

The good ones do not complain and they are those passing you left and right because are very confident and know what they are doing.

I'm also simply trying to not be responsible of your injuries if you injure yourself.

By the law I have to stop and check on you and stay there until.an ambulance or the police arrives. It usually takes hours.
How do you square the "three ton death machine" with the whole "recreationally gallivanting across Africa in a Jeep and blogging about it for internet points" thing? Your words say a car usage should be minimized. Your actions say another thing. It comes across a lot like taking your private jet to a climate summit. I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile this apparent conflict.
Just so people reading this are aware, it's a clear lie that that person "faked his own death or something". As has been posted in another comment, their employer confirmed the death: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/07/23/how-toxic-onli....

I only state it again because this user is spreading deliberate misinformation all over the thread.
Let visitors tag it and use it to train a ML model to distinguish between the two...
HP Reverb G2
All after being a loyal customer for ~14 years

14 years for Igor to realise that he was The Product. Loyalty counts for nothing if you're not paying, and even then, it's not guaranteed.
The Blair/Brown years left the country bankrupt. They literally left the coalition a note saying "there's no money left"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/20...

PFI was used because it was a way to get "free money" for the NHS by pushing the real costs into the future.

The core problem for the socialized model is that nobody can assemble a voter coalition that agrees to raise taxes. The poorer Labour voters say no, the rich should pay, or alternatively, the money already exists it's just the evil Tories refusing to fund the system. The more affluent conservative voters say no, because either, the NHS is wasting money and should fix that first e.g. the massive spend on diversity officers, or, the NHS is always overloaded due to uncontrolled immigration, so fix that first. The NHS doesn't have enough admin support as a result. Then the woke middle classes say no, reducing immigration is awful and we will fight it all the way and of course we won't pay higher taxes because if we allowed unlimited immigration the new taxes from all the highly skilled doctor/engineer immigrants would fix the problems.

In the UK there's also the issue that the social care workforce was one of the only professions forced to take vaccines. Lots quit and the rest learned that they have fewer human rights than other people. So having treated the social care workforce like shit, which was already overstretched, the system is now in total collapse for lack of workers.

State run systems always have problems like this. It's one size fits all, so the different groups with their different priorities can never agree and the result is deadlock and collapse. The people who run it are too far removed from the front line and the "too big to fail" problem rears its ugly head. The NHS could never survive as is, it's just a pity that it had to end like this.
I don't run red lights but I do cross on pedestrian signals from the road in such a way that probably makes drivers some angry.

The fact is it's much safer for me to clear the intersection ahead of drivers rather than have them try to pass me at the intersection. If there are two lanes of cars banked up behind me impatient people will try and pass without changing to the far lane; getting too close to me in the process.

Some signals in my city have bike boxes and secondary lights for bikes which change a few seconds before the car signals to give riders a head start - this accomplishes the same thing and feels much safer.

For example - https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9548303,115.8601648,3a,5...
It seems it is possible to generate images which are very similar to the existing stock photos if you feed getty images' description into DALL-E.

I tried it with a distinctive banana image:

https://imgur.com/a/0OrIr6e
100$ a month for web hosting?

And on top of that, if I don't stay for 24 months, I don't even get the ~70$ template.

Hard pass from me.
That is why modern spellmakers have the tlateochihualapaztli, or the Metaspell, in which other spells can be cast and isolated from the outside world, and their effects recorded and carefully combed through for problems; testing of more advanced spells may also need the iztlacatlamatini, or the Fakespell, which can emulate the weave of other spells without actually casting them, letting other spells talk to it without knowledge of its illegitimacy.
Is it common to pay for longer periods at a time? Never heard of it.
The irony: the law admits that people don't have full control over the deadly power of their car, yet, it still allows people to drive a car in the first place.