> Car horns get through, but bike bells get blocked.
Leading to a rise in cyclist / pedestrian collisions.
Either you’re talking about using the bell to avoid an imminent collision, like you would use the horn in a car, which is both kind of hard to do (ring a bell while braking hard) and doesn’t fit the “5 seconds” timeframe.
Or you’re talking about just announcing your presence to the headphone user, which doesn’t give you the right to endanger them in any way, so if they don’t hear you and you crash into them, it’s almost entirely your fault for not slowing down and/or making a wider circle around them. If ANC headphones are leading to more collisions, it’s mostly an infrastructure problem and a people problem, not a headphones problem.
It is absolutely a people problem just as much as it's an infrastructure problem.
We call them multi-use path (MUP) here. It has a yellow line painted straight down the middle, and people, whether they're walking, running, riding a bike, rollerblading, are expected to stick to their side of the path.
I've lost count on the amount of people on the MUPs wearing something that removes their situational awareness, be it ANC earbuds, or over the ear headphones, etc...
So why did I bring up the lane division? Because on top of people choosing to completely occlude themselves from their surroundings, a subset of them also like to walk/run/etc... abreast, completely taking up the path on both sides. So if you come up behind them, and they're taking up the whole path, you can't get around them without ringing a bell, or asking them. And if they're very engrossed in their conversation, or they're wearing headphones, it's even harder...
The point of a MUP is to share the path. It doesn't give a right for any kind of users to practically occupy the path, and then act very offended when you finally got their attention to get around them.
It has got to the point that I rather bike down the MUPs in the rain, because these users with no etiquette aren't dedicated enough to be out there in the rain.
There's a third use: alerting pedestrians who are in dedicated cycle lanes and letting them know they need to get out of the way. Not because you'd mow them down otherwise but because someone else might.
Separation of traffic into cars, bikes and legs is great, whenever possible. Just as a car shouldn't mow down a pedestrian in the road, the bike shouldn't mow down the pedestrian in a cycle lane. Doesn't mean the pedestrian shouldn't get out of the way when they're in the wrong lane.
The idea is that Claude Code is surprisingly buggy and unrefined for something created by the very tool and processes that are supposed to be replacing us as we speak.
That’s also my impression (experienced and competent driver). The other day I saw a video of someone testing Tesla FSD in Prague (where I live), the person was praising it for dealing with various situations quickly and with confidence, while I, a local, was basically cowering non-stop in front of the screen. There was certainly a lot of YOLO energy.
> All but a couple were 350V, WY was the worst state (NY->WA), battery conditioning had charges ~200V for the first phase until charge levels became the dominant factor.
Sorry but what? I can maybe understand “V” instead of “kW” (why?), but what does the second part mean?
EV batteries charge much faster from 10% or 20% to 60%, maybe somewhat higher than that.
Going from 20% to 80% typically takes as long as going from 80% to 100% and so standard advice is never to charge to 100% unless you absolutely have to.
Every model has a charging curve, which I've never seen a manufacturer provide but some reviews do their own.
You're right that the poster used V when they meant KW but the Level 3 DC Charging Curve graph shows what I think they're describing: their EV charged at over 200 KW until the battery reached about 46%, then it slowed significantly again at 62 or 63%. Maybe TMI, sorry if so.
That's the fun part: most of the stuff currently on the market is quite good. The quads, the gear — if a few people recommend it on Reddit, it's likely totally fine for a beginner and it will fly well.
A few pointers:
The guy we all watch on YouTube is called Joshua Bardwell.
Regarding radio, the protocol you're looking for is ELRS. Everything has converged on ELRS, it's open source and crazy good. ELRS at 250mW will survive more than your video feed, and many ELRS transmitters go to 1W.
Transmitter (the controller): There are options, but you can't go wrong with anything from RadioMaster. FPV quads don't need many inputs, so honestly a RadioMaster Pocket is completely fine. I have both the Pocket and the TX16S (their flagship transmitter, I also fly fixed wings), and it makes zero difference for quads. This is completely up to your budget, just get something with ELRS.
The video situation is a bit more interesting, but generally: analog is alive and kicking with brutal power and range, but shitty video. In digital, DJI is king, although a bit expensive. They sell entire drones, even some (very meh) FPV, but they also sell cameras, video transmitters and goggles for "proper" FPV builds, and these kick ass. If you don't like DJI, there are alternatives (WalkSnail, HDZero), but nothing as open and as compatible as analog.
First you spend some time on a sim. They're all good nowadays, I personally fly Uncrashed the most, but I also have Liftoff and Tryp FPV, it's all good fun. The flight models feel slightly different, but so do real-life quads, so unless you're trying to match your real-life quad down to the last atom, you won't notice any issues.
You either build a quad from scratch (not hard at all, but it takes time and there's some soldering) or you buy a finished one (we call these BNF — bind and fly), or you get something in between and add your own parts (e.g. a camera + VTX (video transmitter) to match your goggles).
You choose the size and type of the quad according to where and how you want to fly. A "tiny whoop" for your apartment, a "cinewhoop" for high-quality video indoors and outdoors, a 3inch freestyle quad for a big garden or a park, a 5inch (the golden standard) for racing and seriously whipping it around, a 7inch for huge environments and longer cruising, and anything bigger for serious long-range missions.
I wouldn't go larger than 5 inches for a first quad, you'll likely crash it a few [dozens of] times and larger quads are both more fragile and more expensive to fix if you do break something.
Crashing a quad is a completely normal thing and they're built to withstand it. Usually you'll just ding or bend a prop, you bend it back and replace it (<1€/$) when it's really bad.
Statistically, knowing multiple people at Google is, IMO, a pretty good sign you're in a bubble. Unless you know a few thousand other software developers.
I'm literally looking at Claude in the other window telling me that the bug we're working on is a "Clear-cut case", telling me to remove a "raise if this is called on this object" guard from a method, because "the data is frozen at that point" and is effectively proposing a solution that both completely misses the point (we should be calling a different method that's safe) AND potentially mutates the frozen data.
We're 41k tokens in, we have an .md file that describes the situation and Claude has just edited the .md file with a couple of lines describing the purpose of the guards.
I don't understand, are other people working with a different Opus 4.6 than I am?
No, that matches my experience pretty well. Yesterday Claude implemented some functionality I asked for in entirely the wrong component, and then did it again after I clarified. If I'd been coding on my own, the clock time to a complete solution would probably have been lower - but then I would have had to be coding, instead of reviewing other people's PRs.
A careful observer would note from when I'm posting this, of course, that this is perhaps not the only thing I get up to while Claude is busy. But I really do review PRs in a much more timely manner now. (There's people who insist that there's no need to review Claude-generated code, and to be frank I think they're the same people who used to insist that their 2000 line PRs should be reviewed and merged within a day.)
reply