NotJustBikes doesn't have a particularly great reputation among transit enthusiasts. A lot of his videos have become repetitive and focused on complaints rather than specific ways of making things better. Understandably, few people are willing to spend an hour listening to someone complain on the Internet.
> "Autonomous cars will clog up existing cities..."
Congestion charges. Limited licensing for TNCs. Dedicated public or private holding areas rather than "milling about". All of these have solutions.
> Meaning fewer "difficult" intersections, straighter roads, no bike lanes or pedestrian sidewalks.
It is already best practice in urban design to separate cars that need to quickly transit an area without interacting with it into completely independent routes where there are no bikes or pedestrians, and combine transit/bikes/walking into livable mixed mode streets where cars are not allowed. NotJustBikes has many examples of this, most commonly around Europe.
> To get anywhere one will need to hail one of those autonomous taxis and then zoom in it to a destination where it's again safe to walk in whatever pocket of human activity.
This is what already happens in places that don't have usable, safe, or car-competitive transit, modulo autonomous, including currently most of North America. The solution to needing fewer cars -- self driving or not -- is investment in transit and in ground-up overhaul of existing cities to optimize for transit and deprioritization of cars.
This is my complaint about many types of YouTube pundits.
I had tuned in to some channels for analysis and insightful commentary, for example, film and TV series.
But every one devolved into “Worst episode ever!” and “<studio> has RUINED <franchise>!”
So to sum up, the YouTube recommendations algorithm has ruined independent criticism and there is nothing on anymore. Join my Patreon, “UnJustLikes” for the deep dive!
That is true for all algorithmic iterative learning. I'm sure early models from Tesla, Waymo, Zoox, etc. were also driving a few hundred feet before the operators had to take over at first as well.
Some projects, where the constraints are hard (immovable deadlines, inflexible scope, etc.) can still benefit from detailed estimation as far as possible. This way any problems or misalignments have a chance to come out early.
Most stuff I do that is long term isn't that critical and gets broken into reasonable size phases; the closest one is planned in detail, the next one has no major open questions, and the rest have a brief summary of what will be accomplished / what is the goal of that phase only.
That gets rid of a lot of the lack of flexibility of waterfall, and it does happen that priorities change a lot and many projects don't get to the latter phases (often, by definition/priority, the less "immediate fire" ones).
Even the most cursory research into mail-in voting shows a number of safeguards designed into the process; one summary can be found at https://responsivegov.org/research/why-mail-ballots-are-secu.... Instances of mail based voting fraud are extremely rare despite the extremely high motivation of some actors (such as the current US federal leadership) to find any evidence to the contrary.
Because you can’t make me sign my ballot? Because without my signature the ballot is void. I can also show up in person to cure my vote if you force me to sign it at home btw.
It’s not impossible - I won’t deny it. But we haven’t had any substantial evidence despite the current administration trying to claim otherwise.
If we are to roll back mail in ballot, let’s also make voter ID free and easy, and also make Election Day the weekend or a public holiday, rather than the various frictions including long lines at the poll.
> But we haven’t had any substantial evidence despite the current administration trying to claim otherwise.
Take politics out of it. My comments are not at all based on politics or ideology. It's purely a matter of process issues. It's like saying that short passwords are insecure.
With regards to your lack of evidence observation, this is actually one of the problems with mail-in voting. There is now way at all to know who filled out the ballot. None. It happens privately. If, on the other hand, voting is in person and with proper identification, there is no doubt.
So, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of manipulation at all.
I'll give you a personal example: As my father succumbed to dementia a couple of years before passing, my mother, who was also pretty old but still mentally functional, would fill out his ballot and have him sign it. I told her many times that she should never do that and that he, due to his dementia, had no business voting. She didn't want to hear it. Before someone says "you should have reported it!". First, you are an asshole. Second, I'd like to see you report your 94 year old mother with pancreatic cancer and your 96 year old father with dementia at the edge of death.
Now, if in-person paper voting was required he would not have been able to vote and the same may have been true of her towards the end.
I'd be willing to bet this kind of thing happens with some frequency in households. Another one is children who just turn 18 and the parents telling them how to vote. That's just as fraudulent and manipulated. Another friend of ours who isn't interested in being informed and hates politics tells his wife to just fill out the ballots any way she wants.
> Take politics out of it. My comments are not at all based on politics or ideology. It's purely a matter of process issues. It's like saying that short passwords are insecure.
When there're people with unlimited resources who are actively looking for evidence to back up the claim, it makes sense to bring that up because they haven't found anything.
You don't think those 8 people you stole votes from might ask some questions? This is a self-correcting problem, as evidenced by the fact that the few voting fraud cases that do happen (generally nutbag conservatives convinced they are 'balancing out' fraud by commiting it) are usually quickly found and prosecuted l.
I signed my ballot poorly last year because I had nothing hard to put behind it when signing. It was compared to previous years and rejected. At a minimum you need to know what someones signature looks like, which reduces the possible scale of this attack from 'small' to 'vanishingly small'. You can also get rich stealing peanuts from squirrels, if you can find enough squirrels. Good luck with that.
In a way, yes, but there are some differences. The US market was never as heavily restricted as the Chinese market, with foreign competitors allowed to open up factories in the US to avoid tariffs. You can do that now in China, but until pretty recently you had to split ownership with a Chinese company to enter that market. Also US car brands have always had a significant export market (vs China only in the last few years), so our tariffs have always been more about jobs than industry development (though that makes no difference to the economic effect of the tariffs on consumers). Which is why foreign competitors were always free to avoid them so long as they employed Americans at the factory.
iPhones and MacBooks can be serviced to replace the battery.
My iPhones typically get a fresh battery around the 3-year mark, or whenever the battery health dips below 80%, and do a second tour of duty with someone in the family. In all cases so far, the OS goes out of support and apps stop working before the second battery degrades.
I'm old enough to remember having an individual office (and, a bit later, two-person offices). Great for collaboration, because it had a whiteboard and enough space/furniture for a few people to huddle, and for focused individual work, and for meetings with remote people without disrupting anyone and without taking up a meeting room. Nowadays we have unforced poor conditions and outcomes, mostly for pretend savings on facilities.
And, of course, serendipitous collaboration rarely happens when everyone is sitting with noise cancelling headphones, focusing on hitting their ambitious individual goals for the quarter/half/year.
On your desktop/laptop, most tasks probably don't run inside VMs or containers. Perhaps some applications use Flatpak or snaps or similar, but the default state for many currently popular Linux distributions is "no sandboxing of any kind".
Linux holds on to a negligible share of the overall desktop market OS, but it is marginally more popular among tech savvy people, which have plenty of disposable income, meaning the platform has steadily growing interest for malware authors and distributors despite its relatively low usage.
I had a fairly fun time using Auth0 a few years back. The ability to run arbitrary code hooks at various points allowed us to do pretty interesting stuff in a managed way without resorting to writing or self-hosting something that was entirely flexible.
> "Autonomous cars will clog up existing cities..."
Congestion charges. Limited licensing for TNCs. Dedicated public or private holding areas rather than "milling about". All of these have solutions.
> Meaning fewer "difficult" intersections, straighter roads, no bike lanes or pedestrian sidewalks.
It is already best practice in urban design to separate cars that need to quickly transit an area without interacting with it into completely independent routes where there are no bikes or pedestrians, and combine transit/bikes/walking into livable mixed mode streets where cars are not allowed. NotJustBikes has many examples of this, most commonly around Europe.
> To get anywhere one will need to hail one of those autonomous taxis and then zoom in it to a destination where it's again safe to walk in whatever pocket of human activity.
This is what already happens in places that don't have usable, safe, or car-competitive transit, modulo autonomous, including currently most of North America. The solution to needing fewer cars -- self driving or not -- is investment in transit and in ground-up overhaul of existing cities to optimize for transit and deprioritization of cars.
reply