As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course.
Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.
Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway.
This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers.
Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle.
Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands.
Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists.
Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.
I think you need to cycle in a country with good infrastructure and laws that protect cyclists. Most countries’ “cycling infrastructure” is a pathetic joke.
>Critics say the FBI is running a sting operation across America, targeting – to a large extent – the Muslim community by luring people into fake terror plots.
>Every day was the same for Khalil Abu Rayyan, 21, a depressed pizza delivery man from Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Working for a pizzeria in Detroit, he’d drive late nights on desolate inner city streets...
>“We are tremendously pleased that our clients are on their way home -- even if it’s fourteen years too late,” said Amith R. Gupta, part of a group of lawyers representing Payen and the Willamses, who are not related. Gupta in his statement described the three as destitute men “entrapped for their race, religion, and working-class backgrounds by a government looking to spread fear of Muslims and justify bloated budgets.”
This is my point. This exact thing happens for these non-white terrorists, but the excuse of FBI coercion does not come up in public opinion (e.g. comments here, around the web) as a valid excuse for the perp's actions. The discussion is had but it's never considered as a _valid_ excuse unless they are white.
I agree in that there's hypocrisy on either side. You'll also find commenters on this site who cite the FBI claiming, "White supremacists are the number one terror threat". Meanwhile, mass media pundits sought to paint all of their political opponents as racists. Comments echoing that talking point were also prevalent on HN. Thankfully, that narrative has mostly moved out of popular imagination.
From my perspective the pendulum swings between targeted groups. Each respective group has their turn to run the gauntlets of media demonization and security service targeting. Many of the same people who were cheering the expanses of the security state during the heights of the War on Terror clutch peals when the pendulum swings back upon their demographic. Each tribe has their chance to shout down the 'others'. We shouldn't be surprised if similar tactics are used to pursue the formerly favored BLM activists in the coming years. The only constant is the expansion of the security state. Classic divide and conquer.
The FBI has been running this playbook since at least the 50s. Other commenters on HN have rightly compared it to Soviet internal security policies. There's nothing truly new under the sun. Human nature is tribal and there will always be those who seek to exploit it to gain power. The judgement of whether this is deliberate or the result of natural incentives such as career advancement and political necessity is an exercise for the reader.
A 5k drone can destroy a 5M tank, but the US defense establishment would never settle for a 5k drone. Instead there will be a decade+ long procurement process, resulting in a much more expensive drone.
But I don't think that's a necessarily terrible thing. When you talk about military procurement a bunch of pork-cutters love to piss and moan about $5,000 toilet seats and $500 machined spurred nuts made out of an alloy nobody uses. There's this general impression that government appropriation of these industries would bring the cost down, but looking at communist and socialist analogs this doesn't seem to be the case. Worse yet, every Boeing that America buys has to be bailed-out directly by it's owner instead of being allowed to die naturally in a free and competitive market. Forcing DARPA to design all this stuff instead redirects manpower from important tasks to instead optimize a price tag that might not even be realistic in the first place.
The most important part of deploying a novel technology in war is integrating it properly. Artillery doesn't work without targeting personnel and radio officers communicating what and where to strike. Submarines aren't scary unless command & control can coordinate targets and update the crew in the vessel. Drones and glide bombs rely on robust targeting information that must be maintained and updated to hit a mobile target like a tank. The US takes the time to figure this stuff out because they have the enviable position of accepting "No" for an answer from their advisors. If something is too dangerous, expensive or undeveloped to field in warfare, a rational army should not operationalize it.
Reading this thread is the first I'm learning of this. Even with the enthusiasm expressed here, I'm still suspicious that there will be incompatibilities. Microsoft has a history of doing things a certain way.
That's your bias and not the language fault, everything works pretty much the same across every OS, I haven't developed non-UI C# apps on Windows since 2018 (because of course you need Windows to build WinUI and WPF apps, but you have options on macOS and Linux too)
When I removed the "client" parameter to post the link here, the original post ranked higher. However, that's really neither here nor there. Reddit is consistently cited as outranking original content.
Personally, I've learned not to cry about sites that don't rank. My time is better spent building new sites. Sometimes de-ranked sites come back in subsequent updates. Not everything sticks on the first try. You have to be persistent if you want to profit from organic traffic.
My impression is that these creators have one-trick ponies they have deeply invested themselves into. They may not be good at creating new ideas. Expectations of fairness are misplaced. You have to roll with the punches. Dwelling on what they think Google "should be" is a waste of time. Highly recommend focusing on areas within your immediate control. Individual agency is empowering. Victimhood, not so much.
As an expat I cannot even purchase games due to Steam's region locks. The same Paypal account I use to settle invoices worldwide, cannot be used by Steam. Apparently this is due to users attempting to buy games at cheaper regional rates. However, they will not allow me to switch to a more expensive region to buy a video game. They propose that I should travel back to my home country to purchase a game.
>We can only build infrastructure such as railways and highways because we collectively decided...
Therefore a landowner cannot build without collective approval? I disagree. Obviously a single individual can improve land and create value independently of a collective.
Another popular claim is that property only exists because of state enforcement. Again, a single individual can enter a frontier and improve land. This is often accompanied by the claim that the state exists to enforce property ownership. Clearly one must preclude the other. If property ownership does not exist, there is no motive for creation of the state.
If we go back to basics we find that academics have already covered this territory. Improvement of unutilized land is often cited as the origin of ownership. While many will make arguments about the virtues of collectivism, that is beyond the scope of the specific origins of land ownership. These are generally arguments premised on, "The ends justify the means".
There have also been exploits of Chrome's JS sandbox. For me the greatest difference is that WASM is supported by the browser itself. There isn't the same conflict of interest between OS vendors and 3rd party runtime providers.
Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.
Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway.
This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers.
Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle.
Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands.
Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists.
Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.
reply