People can't really tell. I would say you can be safest by assuming all visible flooding is too high, especially if you can't clearly see road markings.
A lot of people do monkey-see-monkey-do: observing other people driving through water and then trying to follow. Some people just go slowly until it feels too sketchy and then try to back up.
People inevitably get stuck.
The really big issue is when the road is lower in some spot and you don't expect it.
For example, in my city there is a road that will be perfectly clear until you hit a small section that's a low spot at an underpass. Cars driving too fast hit that section during a heavy rain and quickly get flooded/stranded.
> We’re already at the point where marginal buyers in the poor world are getting priced out of the smartphone market. We’re rapidly approaching the point where buyers in the rich world feel the same thing.
As the article states, you can see in the package.json that the optionalDependencies references "@antv/setup": "github:antvis/G2#7cb42f57561c321ecb09b4552802ae0ac55b3a7a"
I'm pretty sure those commits have been removed from github:
The website's domain was created 3 months ago (site doesn't even have any entries in the wayback machine) and supposedly pulls from USDA AMS data but when I looked at reports[1][2] I didn't see double prices compared to last year.
Some prices even looked lower? But it was hard to make comparisons because of report structure and data disparity.
You may be right, but I think we'd need to wait for another report or two to be sure because the reddit post is arguing that this happened in the last few days and their statement
> Last week I posted about how hay buyers and sellers were frozen, waiting for each other to move first. Here's an update....
looks generally correct. On the 2025 CO hay report you can see that last year in this period, there were 22k tons sold. This year, there were 9750 tons sold. Last year[1], the week before (4/28/2025) there were only 400 tons reported sold.
Seems like there is an annual inflection point that causes prices to settle, and it wouldn't be in the report linked just yet. Meanwhile, if you do a news search for hay prices, you can see plenty of articles from different sources discussing how the drought is driving prices higher, so it appears to be at least a common discussion point.
Set text size as preferred, underline links (or not), turn off display name styles (or not), ui density compact or default, chat message display to compact, space between message groups 0px, turn off all the animated emojis and gif animation stuff if you want.
In client use, there's a button to hide member list (or not).
You can definitely make discord look like a slightly less dense IRC client (mainly because of the channel picker) if you want. And if you want to go really crazy use it in a browser and userscript customize it or use betterdiscord.
I think a lot of the features like embeds and emoji reactions add a lot of value compared to IRC (which I think is also why the IRC world is trying to add those features).
The graphic in the article seems to be the only significant content.
Based on that I think it's more about requests from bots/scrapers having the greatest chance possible of hitting a cache before hitting the blog's origin/real host. Bots will hit some layer of Cloudflare first then they'll hit Fastly and then if not in Fastly they'll hit the Ghost blog's server.
To me, this makes a lot of sense if it's self-hosted but I also thought it was already the standard to shove your self-hosted blog behind a reverse-proxy and cache as much as possible.
And I'm not a professional web developer but all the extra caching layers for a static personal blog seem a bit overkill.
Aside from the graphic, the article is a lot of words about engaging with an LLM to get a full understanding of how caching works for their blog hosting and how it enabled them to change their setup for the better.
It's kind of hard to understand because there are no words about what they actually did or how what they actually did was better.
If the scam success rate is 0.1%, and it takes days to comb a phone book and put together a list of potential relationships and takes a human 10 minutes per phone call, the economics of scamming works out a lot less profitable than importing a data leak and emailing or robocalling everyone in the list.
tldr; Impairment detection methods are currently too inaccurate to use (both false positive and false negative).
And then if anything is ever accurate enough they'll have to create testable standards that car manufacturers can easily implement.
And NHTSA is concerned with security and privacy issues as well. They'll keep updating congress on progress once a year.
My take is it's very possible the rule may never get made.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t...
reply