The unfairness problem imo is a problem because many places don’t have exclusions for bikes. I’m not Canadian so idk if that’s true there.

Both cars and bikes have to obey the rules, even in situations where it is obvious that not obeying them would be better (for example running a red light in the middle of nowhere where you have clear visibility that there are no humans around).

And there are some rules that are obviously thought only for cars, so the bikes think that they can break them.

As a car this is seems as unfair because they can’t break the rules even if they think there’s no danger.

If the rule just says “this rule doesn’t apply to bikes” imho it would be seen as fair-er by cars.

The point is that it’s the same for literally every mode of transportation. Including walking. In fact it is more energy expensive for cars, since the accelerate faster, accelerate to a faster speed, and weigh a lot more.

Saying that the energy is spent by the person instead of the machine might not be the best argument, since on rich countries people actually want to spend more energy from themselves, and less energy from their car.

There are many other reason why bikes should be treated differently. But energy efficiency is BS.

For example another commenter said how it physically hurts stopping so much on a bike. Which is actually a good argument. I don’t mind wearing out my car as I do wearing out my joints.

Sometimes? I’m not tall at all, and if I pee standing up I later see droplets of pee basically everywhere. It wasn’t that much of a problem as a child, so I guess it’s height-based. But again, for an adult I’m not tall at all.

It’s a horn. No veins https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4_9TFeMfJE

Don’t read too much into it. Sound like he just doesn’t want trump to miss the rest of the speech.

The problem is not the AI integration. Along with AI integration they changed their stance on data selling.

It went from “We promise to never sell your data” to “Firefox is secure!” Just as they were adding AI.

Yes, I know about that one. That is code made specifically to reproduce a bug in the compiler. Unless you do it on purpose, there’s no way you’d get hit by it. If it were, they would have fixed it, it’s been known for several years.

I would love to see a study about people that follow C++ best practices. Put a bunch of C++ devs and tell them to write some programs. Then see how many of those programs would be valid according to rust’s borrow checker.

Whatever % of people that “fail” this test, is much higher than the 0% of people that would do so using rusts’ compiler.

Of course, programs that don’t pass the borrow checker can be totally memory safe, but that would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

I’ve only seen it once. And it was made specifically to trigger a compiler bug. It barely looked like rust code.

Now tell me how someone will introduce such a bug by accident. Winning the lottery 10000 times in a row with the same number isn’t impossible either. But we are engineers, not pure math pedantics. 0.000000000000001% probability for something that happens with less frequency than once per second is impossible.

Easy. Do some specific incantation that barely looks like it follows rust syntax that is specifically made to exploit a bug in the rust compiler.

Police, as a concept, involves violence. You cannot have police without violence.

Cool, you like the concept of upholding lawful order. How do you expect to implement that concept without violence?

Person A murders person B. It is illegal to murder. So you call the not-police to uphold that law. What is the not-police going to do? Ask A to voluntarily get into the cell and stay in there and learn their lesson?

Do you also oppose the police as a concept?

Installing dependencies via the OS’ package manager is one of the worst experiences there is. I understand it for C, because the language is ancient and doesn’t have its own dependency manager.

But when developing, there are many dependencies you need that aren’t in the package manager. And when they are, they are often years old versions.

And in the case of python, it installs dependencies in the global scope, which means that you sometimes import that version instead of the pip one.

And in the case of python there’s the extra:

python main.py

python command not found

Ah. It must be python3 then. Now all the bash scripts are broken. Since it’s python3, I’m going to install packages with pip3:

pip3 install matplotlib

pip3 command not found

What?? So for python you need to put the 3, but for pip they removed it?

Ngl, python development is much less stressful on windows.

I’ll remember this post when someone manages to make a human fly by tieing a cow to their feet.

No it is not. It is the same as saying you can’t have coal energy production without production of CO2. At most, you can capture that CO2 and do something with it instead of releasing to the atmosphere.

You can have energy production without CO2. Like solar or wind, but that is not coal energy production. It’s something else. In order to remove CO2 from coal energy production, we had to switch to different technologies.

In the same way, if you want to not have hallucinations, you should move away from LLMs.

The same argument for cartels. “We didn’t all increase our prices to the exact same amount, we just paid a consulting company to tell us which price we should use. Of course our competitors used the exact same company, but that’s just a coincidence”.

Tbf that leads to the problem of:

Company/Individual makes program that is in no way meant for making management decision.

Someone else comes and deploys that program to make management decisions.

The ones that made that program couldn’t stop the ones that deployed it from deploying it.

Even if the maker aimed to make a decision-making program, and marketed it as so. Whoever deployed it is ultimately the responsible for it. As long as the maker doesn’t fake tests or certifications of course, I’m sure that would violate many laws.

Heh. Ironic.

Maybe they changed the defaults. I stopped using GitHub after they trained their AI over private repos.

But I remember clearly that I was annoyed when looking at my own repos because my forks (for actually doing PRs) would show at the top instead of my own repos.

Maybe some people don’t delete the fork after their PR is done.

In my case, I found another explanation.

Sometimes, a random person comes and forks one of my repos. I check their profile, and it’s a techbro student with hundreds of forked repos without any commits. With their bio referencing AI or some shit.

I’m pretty sure these people fork a lot of repos just to pad their CV or something. Make it look like you have a lot of repos. Because when you go to someone’s profile, it is not clear that a repo is a fork instead of their own creation.