If just still running was the goal, any company that raised money would just take it and keep a mailbox open in perpetuity, and do nothing else, thus achieving the bar for success.
However, in reality, growth is the bar for success in nearly every business.
> If just still running was the goal, any company that raised money would just take it and keep a mailbox open in perpetuity, and do nothing else, thus achieving the bar for success.
Firstly, that's not what "a running business" is generally understood to mean. I apologise if english is not your first language and the phrase was misunderstood by yourself.
Secondly, twitter is operating, they are not simply keeping the address alive. They have far surpassed that "bar" of merely keeping an address alive.
Thirdly, growth is not the bar for success in any business, nevermind "nearly every business". For shareholders, sure, they'd love to see growth (which you have left undefined), but any business that can meet it's monthly expenses is considered a successful business.
But, until that happens, isn't it at least a bit odd for parents to put their children in such a dangerous situation? I live in the Netherlands and we have good, safe cycling infrastructure. I would never ride in the US given current infrastructure there (much less with my kids). Hopefully some day it is properly invested in.
The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!"
Yes, its dangerous, because other people make it dangerous. The unfortunate reality of living in America is that a lot of people do a lot of things that are not terribly hazardous to themselves but are quite hazardous to other people. As a parent, I have chosen to do what I can to mitigate the risks as best as I can, short of just staying home, or driving everywhere.
Honestly, this bicyclist was killed at a location where I would feel comfortable riding with my kids. Its fairly low traffic, has decent bike lanes, and the speed limit is low. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you build serious infrastructure, no bike thoroughfare is safe from sufficiently motivated/reckless/drunk drivers. Based on the accident details (especially the driver having minor injuries), this sounds like somebody driving waaaay too fast for the road. All of this to say, this isn't an argument for stopping biking, or biking without kids, but it is an argument for more aggressively enforcing traffic laws on these roads that are tempting to joy riders, and improving biking infrastructure so its harder for these accidents to occur.
It's odd but entirely understandable--many parents and immigrants and non-ultra rich people cannot afford cars or parking in an ultra-high cost of living city like San Francisco.
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that in the US unless people put themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, nobody will ever vote to improve the safety of the infrastructure? If so, what is the connection? If not can you clarify what you mean?
Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US.
Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.
Sorry for the late reply. Yeah it's a chicken and egg problem here in the US.
If there aren't enough riders, then the planners won't have the data to support painting some bike lanes to attract more riders and get people out of cars.
And then the car people will complain that the bike lane is taking up "their" road and planners will be forced to remove the bike lane or let it rot.
You need to move the first "between" into the first bullet point, lest the second and third points have "between" twice.
Unrelated to the visual breakdown, there's also confusion (for me, at least) as to whether the first and second points have equal prominence, or if the second point should be of intermediate prominence; the word "usually" shouldn't be introduced except to slightly diminish, but I consider it to be a synonym of "typically"... are we to think the first is 90% and the second is 90%^2?
Oops, maybe I wasn't clear, sorry! This is what I was going for...
###
Typically, there is an avoidance relationship
- between a man and his mother-in-law
- usually between a woman and her father-in-law
- sometimes between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law
###
So the first point is simply typical, the second point is usually typical, and the third point is sometimes typical. The issue I have is not knowing whether the usually+typical construction is redundant or compounding.
There was a step in the middle there you missed where it was coopted by software vendors to not be about how you collaborate with others, but which tools you use, and has now become essentially meaningless.
The same happened with the concepts of Agile and UX. But of course the true concepts still live on. It's just that everyone wants to sound like they're using best practice techniques even when they're not.
Listen you're not going to convince me that removing the children from anyone who disagrees with the party line is good policy, no matter where it happens, although I appreciate your apparent enthusiasm for it.
