Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more NicuCalcea's commentslogin

Why not encourage people who can reasonably cycle to do so? It's not a magic bullet either, but it's no less magic than EVs.


Why not both? Encourage cycling when possible, and when not, an EV.

Looking at American commute distances however, cycling, even with an e-bike, is likely not a reasonable option.


Of course, both are better.

A lot of Americans probably won't be able to commute on a bicycle, but could easily use one for shorter trips like visiting friends, doing groceries, getting a burger, etc.

Even with commutes, there are lots that could be done on a bicycle. I briefly lived in the US and had a 6-mile (~10 km) commute. It was an unpleasant experience because there was exactly zero cycling infrastructure along the way, but otherwise it was a brief 25-minute trip, shorter than any of the commutes I've had in Europe. Not a single one of my American colleagues, all of whom lived locally, cycled or took a bus.


The issue is not just commute distances, it is cultural. Just in my personal "click" there are 5 people of which:

- 2 live less than 5 minutes from a metro that literally takes them to the office, they never take the metro

- 2 live easily within a biking distance to work, 1 has a bike, another has e-bike, they never bike to work

- 1 lives literally walking distance to work, she never walks to work

Public transportation where I live is vast, you can easily commute with the public transportation to just about everywhere but only low(er) income people will take public transportation.

Two most-frequently cited reasons I hear why not bike/walk/...

1. Dangerous - every female friend I have lists this as #1 reason they always drive. Regardless of the fact that I live in the area where I often forget to close my garage overnight and leave the front door open (very very low crime rates) the women feel unsafe. A lot of sensationalism in the news regarding every minor thing happening might be to blame but I have a wife and a daughter and am godfather to several girls so I understand

2. Inconvenient - what if after work I want to go to ____ and ____ and ____. Now I got to track back home and then perhaps change clothes, clean the house... and then get into the car to go to _____.


You act like looking random facts up is the only thing we do on phones. My phone is a personal computer, I use it to navigate through the world, work, access my bank accounts and other personal information, and communicate with others. And yes, sometimes these can't wait the 10–15 hours I might not be at home.


> Do gun manufacturers get sued for mass shootings at US schools?

Odd examples since we know that countries that don't hand out guns like they're candy have virtually no school shootings.

I wouldn't put it solely on gun manufacturers, but the manufacturers, sellers, lobbyists, regulators and politicians are definitely collectively responsible for gun deaths. If they're not currently being sued, they should be.


I saw the ads on the tube and was very confused. I knew about Mullvad, but it never crossed my mind they were trying to get me to search for "and then".


I'm a journalist. As a general rule, if someone approaches me with a pitch for a feature or investigation (not news piece) that was already published elsewhere, I'll turn it down. To be fair, I turn down all PR pitches, but there are journalists who don't but still want an exclusive.

It sometimes happens that you spend weeks or months working on a story, only to be scooped by another publication. It sucks, especially if you think your story is the better one, but unless you can pivot or add a substantial amount of new insight, it won't come out.


There is a way to sus them out: https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-wea...

Not perfect, but better than nothing I guess. I don't think I've noticed the glasses IRL anywhere, but if I start seeing them, I'm definitely installing the app and avoiding any interactions with those people.


they look like big bulky ray-bans that no one would wear unless they were starring in a 50s remake or something . easy to spot


The Wayfarer style was always bulky, they have been a fashion staple for decades at this point. The Meta gen2 ones aren't really that noticeably larger than "normal" Wayfarers - probably why they latched on this style as it gives the most room to stuff electronics while remaining similar sized to the original Wayfarer design.

I still see folks wearing Wayfarers almost every single day, and have owned various (non-Meta) pairs of them for most of my adult life. It's literally one of the most popular sunglasses designs of all time.


As an aside, it’s crazy that Ray Ban would hitch their most valuable brand cachet to such a controversial wagon


Meta have a minority stake in Ray Ban and Oakley's parent company, EssilorLuxottica. The investment was largely to support development of future AI glasses. It does make me a little sad to see Wayfarers end up this way too.

> https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-sta...


What do you mean by "better [...] at handling sensitive info"? As in, they are more technically competent, or they will treat your data more ethically?

I don't think these projects claim they've got better infrastructure for handling private data, just that they won't sell it to advertisers. I trust Google are experts at handling my data, I just don't want them to.


> generally forbidden in Socialist EU

This is one of those cases where you wish your critics were right. One in 40 people in Brussels is a lobbyist, but apparently it's forbidden.


Very kind of you to only pick one error in the parent post to critique.


I've been working with UK/EU lobbying data in recent months, so that's the one I felt competent to pick on. I thought I'd leave the nature of capitalism to someone else.


When's the last time you read the ToS of a service you signed up for?


This would be a great job for an AI agent. Even better if a few million such agents collectively refused to agree to unconscionable terms.


> we are supplying weapons

To be more specific, since 2025, selling weapons.

"And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trump

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-trumps-full-2026-...

https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...


And at that point the US had already provided about $66 billion directly.


Sure, that was the old US. The US that's currently invading Iran is not providing free weapons to Ukraine.


> "And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trump

Which the US actively funds…so after a $66 billion advance now the costs are being shared by other vested countries.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: