Cyclists should not "lane split" because they should not be in the lane, and when the lane is required they should be in the far outside lane. In these conditions lane splitting will never occur. Furthermore, there is no evidence that lane splitting is safer because a bicycle keeps moving. Intuitively the opposite is true. Bicycles are not threatened with being "squashed between cars".
Generally speaking, laws make clear what a cyclist should do and no "figuring out" is necessary. Allowing "filtering past traffic" doesn't seem directed to the common good as it generally only accomplishes enabling a cyclist to interfere with traffic repeatedly. Cyclists should not filter except where it doesn't interfere, such as if they are turning at an intersection and can do so without holding up drivers. Otherwise they need to exhibit the same courtesy they expect from others.
It's also not just the relative unlikeliness of collision with a bicycle, which may be "miles traveled" related, but is also the simple fact that the combination of a cyclist's weight and speed means that collisions are far less likely to be lethal. That's why bicycles are generally unlicensed in the first place. Bicycles don't kill pedestrians due to cyclist negligence.
You know less than zero about what you speak. Commuting does not require lycra and is never done at maximum speeds, packing takes an insignificant amount of time, and showering at work, if required at all, can be mitigated by not showering prior to the ride. Furthermore, an e-bike can be ridden faster while eliminating the need to shower afterward, even in hot climates.
The world would be a better place when utter ignoramuses like you would simply not participate. Try learning instead.
Written by someone who clearly rides responsibly and regularly. Can verify everything above is correct. Also, while a cyclist will almost always roll a residential stop when he can, so will a car, and the cyclist will be in a position to stop when required. Nothing more annoying than the driver who deliberately ruins your timing by being "extra safe" rather than taking his turn properly. Cyclists want to conserve effort AND not get hit.
What's are "pedestrian walkways"? You mean sidewalks? Bicycles are allowed on and even expected to use sidewalks in some areas while in other areas it's the opposite. It is pedestrians that think public resources are dedicated to them and judging by your language you are one of those. Pedestrians show utterly no concern for sharing walkways with others.
While I would expect no other explanation other than full blame on the cyclist, I noticed you didn't comment on who was at fault, you only played the victim. I've never personally witnessed careless behavior of cyclists around pedestrians. Every time I've had issue it was the pedestrian's fault and, fortunately, I avoided collisions in every case. Sadly, it's the cyclist's job to cover for the carelessness of those on foot.
If you want to avoid futures problems with bicycles, you could watch where you are going.
"The difference in times between motorcycles and bicycles likely comes down to endpoint timing more than route timing. If I lean a bicycle against the side of the building it will take less time than parking in a space and walking to the door."
This was my immediate thought as well. Bicycles don't require parking. I see them even taking their bikes into apartment lobbies. They aren't faster than motorcycles on the road but can possibly go places the others can't, but are definitely faster from the road to the door. Also cheaper to operate and likely uninsured.
First off, I see this frequently. Second, cyclists should not be "changing lanes" since they are required to not ride in a lane except when necessary. Third, hand signals are unsafe as they require taking a hand off the bar, typically the left one which controls the most important brake. Hand signals for cyclists are antiquated, unsafe and stupid aside from the fact that they are rarely of any value.
"...most drivers willingly speed whenever they can..."
This is completely untrue. Most drivers ignore speed limits when they are unreasonable and most drivers have a very good sense for what reasonable speeds are. It has been well known for decades that speeding is the result of too low posted speed limits and that those limits are set for that very reason, at least in the US. Most drivers obey speed limits when they are reasonable.
"...they willingly break the law whenever they can get away with it."
This sounds more like a statement about you, not about the behavior of most drivers. I break traffic laws when they are unreasonable or produce a bad result but observe them otherwise even when no one is around. It has nothing to do with whether I can "get away with it", it has to do with always doing the right thing so I get it right when it matters.
Many cyclists show utter disregard for traffic laws. It is common within the cycling community to explicitly claim that traffic laws cannot be enforced on cyclists because they have an inherent "right to the road" that somehow doesn't apply to everyone else. Bicycles are unlicensed and cyclists think that means traffic laws don't apply.
As an e-bike commuter, I witness deliberate bad behavior among other cyclists most every day. With drivers it's always laziness and inattention, not contempt for the law.
"Can any legacy car maker boast such faithful customer base?"
Yes, without a doubt, and legacy car makers accomplish that by shipping and supporting more product than Tesla ever has. What history of repeat buyers does Tesla have?
Tesla is too new to have a "faithful customer base", what they have is mindshare among early adopters in only a small part of the market. That means nothing once the market moves past early adoption.
If you're going to talk about a "faithful customer base" you need to talk about real customer bases and real brand loyalty, not measurables that suit your point of view and that have nothing to do with actual cars.
I don't see how another company having a successful model means Tesla won since Tesla hasn't done anything to enable it for anyone else. Furthermore, VW selling "millions of them" may very well mean Tesla's demise. Hardly a win.
Also, you assume no competition. It's possible to meet those targets and fail anyway if someone else does it better. Only Tesla takes for granted no competition, the real car companies understand that they need to get it right before they risk their future. Meanwhile, Tesla indulges itself with other people's capital, it's not risking anything and it's not winning.
Lastly, those targets aren't very meaningful. Sure, 4 adults and affordable are important but that performance number is not, and the cited range number is based on what people are accustomed to with current cars. Charging infrastructure doesn't even exist yet. However that evolves will change people's expectations of range. Electric cars in the future are not necessarily defined by how ICE cars work today and different areas of the world need very different things. Europeans don't need 300 mile range.
Since when is a "nicely-specced Model 3" affordable? What percentage of Teslas are leased rather than purchased? There's a reason no one wants to buy a Tesla, they don't want to get stuck owning a used one. Buyers currently lack confidence in the long term value of electric vehicles and Teslas are expensive.
Tesla has far more problems that just volume, starting with their general incompetence as a car company. Literally any other car company on earth could put them under. The fact that hasn't happened only shows that real car companies don't believe the market is ready. As mainstream brands enter in volume, Tesla will be seen as the joke that it is. Tesla will go under, the time frame is the "only problem"... "and they are addressing it."
"You have no clue what you're running your suck about."
That's because you, and the few other noisy morons who constantly complain about it, refuse to acknowledge that there is useful stuff moved out of the non-notched area and into the notched area. The screen hasn't lost area to the notch, it's gained notification space that used to be dead. The notch takes up screen space that is dead otherwise.
...and, according to your arbitrary choice of efficiency, 5W of charge means 5W of heat. No evidence that this is "right next to the battery" or that it would matter in the slightest to the battery's temps, so your point that the incremental addition of 5W of heat somewhere must result in the overheating of the battery which is both extraordinarily unlikely and should already be protected against inside the phone. Furthermore, it's the job of the charger to make sure that it doesn't overheat the phone, a job that would be trivial to deliver.
If you are not surprised then it's because you don't understand.
IBM abandoned that market before Apple did. IBM, in fact, never entered it, only making a single product at Apple's begging long after Moto/Freescale had totally failed to support the general purpose CPU market.
I don't know what's worse, the complete ignorance of people on topics like this or their belief that they are qualified to comment on it. IBM's interest in PowerPC was entirely embedded and didn't care at all about that PC space. That's why they donated their work to Moto who proved entirely incompetent.
Maybe you can start with not using ignorant labels like "stupid stupid left", "lefties" and "brainwashed left". "Left" is a meaningless term and your use of it as a basis of your criticism shows that you are perfectly willing to make the same stupid mistakes that you are criticizing.
The solution to these problems is reason and objective thinking and the "right" has no greater monopoly on this than the "left" having apparently abandoned it completely.
One thing is certain, society has no room for individual "revenge" as the solution to any problem and your alternative "lash out at a whole group" is nothing more than an absurd false choice. You are literally proposing anarchy and mob-rule...you know, the thing that the "brainwashed left" recently invented, or so says the right as they march with their tiki torches proclaiming that "jews will not replace us". Great answer.
It would appear that you suffer the problem you are projecting onto others. "A rational person with an IQ higher than the thermostat" might deduce what you are advocating here and conclude that you are a "left wing activist" that "cannot reconcile two principles they've advocated".
You might first consider the concept of accountability and rethink your false equivalency between someone who loses a job for bad behavior and the bombing of innocents. Maybe then you will feel less "entitled to be disruptive, toxic, etc."
Doesn't require a life changing event, all it takes is insight that frequently comes with maturity. This happens literally every day and happens to everybody. It's how children become adults.
We all know many programmers exist in a state of arrested development. Not all are doomed to remain that way.
"Look, the world is changing whether you like it or not. Linus Torvalds chose to roll with it."
And maybe he just realized he was wrong. This happens every day, even with people who feel entitled to exhibit sociopathic behaviors.
Perhaps he realized that reducing the frequency of the root cause assumed in all 3 of your examples, "terrible code", is what is needed. Abuse and contempt don't accomplish that, better developers and a better environment do. Better judgement also does, and perhaps he realizes he has some room for improvement there. Software development occurs all the time without this nonsense because many developers are adults.
But perhaps he doesn't. One thing's certain, sociopaths feel their actions are always justified. Maybe he's an irredeemable a-hole, like the OP, and maybe he's just finally growing up. A hostile work environment is nothing to be proud of and it's not clear that there's anything here to be proud of at all.
It's not constraining if it does only the thing you want it to do...which is the thing Apple intends it to do...which is a common theme in your shill posts, SuperKendall.
It is, however, constraining for people who don't desire an integral monitor. Deal breaking, in fact....and need "more power" than what? More power than an Apple product with less power? The computing world isn't defined by the narrow range of products Apple sells, even if your world is defined by it. Why do you care anyway? You "create content" on an iPad and that's good enough for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Cyclists should not "lane split" because they should not be in the lane, and when the lane is required they should be in the far outside lane. In these conditions lane splitting will never occur. Furthermore, there is no evidence that lane splitting is safer because a bicycle keeps moving. Intuitively the opposite is true. Bicycles are not threatened with being "squashed between cars".
Generally speaking, laws make clear what a cyclist should do and no "figuring out" is necessary. Allowing "filtering past traffic" doesn't seem directed to the common good as it generally only accomplishes enabling a cyclist to interfere with traffic repeatedly. Cyclists should not filter except where it doesn't interfere, such as if they are turning at an intersection and can do so without holding up drivers. Otherwise they need to exhibit the same courtesy they expect from others.
It's also not just the relative unlikeliness of collision with a bicycle, which may be "miles traveled" related, but is also the simple fact that the combination of a cyclist's weight and speed means that collisions are far less likely to be lethal. That's why bicycles are generally unlicensed in the first place. Bicycles don't kill pedestrians due to cyclist negligence.
You know less than zero about what you speak. Commuting does not require lycra and is never done at maximum speeds, packing takes an insignificant amount of time, and showering at work, if required at all, can be mitigated by not showering prior to the ride. Furthermore, an e-bike can be ridden faster while eliminating the need to shower afterward, even in hot climates.
The world would be a better place when utter ignoramuses like you would simply not participate. Try learning instead.
Written by someone who clearly rides responsibly and regularly. Can verify everything above is correct. Also, while a cyclist will almost always roll a residential stop when he can, so will a car, and the cyclist will be in a position to stop when required. Nothing more annoying than the driver who deliberately ruins your timing by being "extra safe" rather than taking his turn properly. Cyclists want to conserve effort AND not get hit.
What's are "pedestrian walkways"? You mean sidewalks? Bicycles are allowed on and even expected to use sidewalks in some areas while in other areas it's the opposite. It is pedestrians that think public resources are dedicated to them and judging by your language you are one of those. Pedestrians show utterly no concern for sharing walkways with others.
While I would expect no other explanation other than full blame on the cyclist, I noticed you didn't comment on who was at fault, you only played the victim. I've never personally witnessed careless behavior of cyclists around pedestrians. Every time I've had issue it was the pedestrian's fault and, fortunately, I avoided collisions in every case. Sadly, it's the cyclist's job to cover for the carelessness of those on foot.
If you want to avoid futures problems with bicycles, you could watch where you are going.
I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that you see any such thing. Maybe you saw one once with it's lights off and took liberties with your story.
"The difference in times between motorcycles and bicycles likely comes down to endpoint timing more than route timing. If I lean a bicycle against the side of the building it will take less time than parking in a space and walking to the door."
This was my immediate thought as well. Bicycles don't require parking. I see them even taking their bikes into apartment lobbies. They aren't faster than motorcycles on the road but can possibly go places the others can't, but are definitely faster from the road to the door. Also cheaper to operate and likely uninsured.
First off, I see this frequently. Second, cyclists should not be "changing lanes" since they are required to not ride in a lane except when necessary. Third, hand signals are unsafe as they require taking a hand off the bar, typically the left one which controls the most important brake. Hand signals for cyclists are antiquated, unsafe and stupid aside from the fact that they are rarely of any value.
"...most drivers willingly speed whenever they can..."
This is completely untrue. Most drivers ignore speed limits when they are unreasonable and most drivers have a very good sense for what reasonable speeds are. It has been well known for decades that speeding is the result of too low posted speed limits and that those limits are set for that very reason, at least in the US. Most drivers obey speed limits when they are reasonable.
"...they willingly break the law whenever they can get away with it."
This sounds more like a statement about you, not about the behavior of most drivers. I break traffic laws when they are unreasonable or produce a bad result but observe them otherwise even when no one is around. It has nothing to do with whether I can "get away with it", it has to do with always doing the right thing so I get it right when it matters.
Many cyclists show utter disregard for traffic laws. It is common within the cycling community to explicitly claim that traffic laws cannot be enforced on cyclists because they have an inherent "right to the road" that somehow doesn't apply to everyone else. Bicycles are unlicensed and cyclists think that means traffic laws don't apply.
As an e-bike commuter, I witness deliberate bad behavior among other cyclists most every day. With drivers it's always laziness and inattention, not contempt for the law.
"Can any legacy car maker boast such faithful customer base?"
Yes, without a doubt, and legacy car makers accomplish that by shipping and supporting more product than Tesla ever has. What history of repeat buyers does Tesla have?
Tesla is too new to have a "faithful customer base", what they have is mindshare among early adopters in only a small part of the market. That means nothing once the market moves past early adoption.
If you're going to talk about a "faithful customer base" you need to talk about real customer bases and real brand loyalty, not measurables that suit your point of view and that have nothing to do with actual cars.
I don't see how another company having a successful model means Tesla won since Tesla hasn't done anything to enable it for anyone else. Furthermore, VW selling "millions of them" may very well mean Tesla's demise. Hardly a win.
Also, you assume no competition. It's possible to meet those targets and fail anyway if someone else does it better. Only Tesla takes for granted no competition, the real car companies understand that they need to get it right before they risk their future. Meanwhile, Tesla indulges itself with other people's capital, it's not risking anything and it's not winning.
Lastly, those targets aren't very meaningful. Sure, 4 adults and affordable are important but that performance number is not, and the cited range number is based on what people are accustomed to with current cars. Charging infrastructure doesn't even exist yet. However that evolves will change people's expectations of range. Electric cars in the future are not necessarily defined by how ICE cars work today and different areas of the world need very different things. Europeans don't need 300 mile range.
Since when is a "nicely-specced Model 3" affordable? What percentage of Teslas are leased rather than purchased? There's a reason no one wants to buy a Tesla, they don't want to get stuck owning a used one. Buyers currently lack confidence in the long term value of electric vehicles and Teslas are expensive.
Tesla has far more problems that just volume, starting with their general incompetence as a car company. Literally any other car company on earth could put them under. The fact that hasn't happened only shows that real car companies don't believe the market is ready. As mainstream brands enter in volume, Tesla will be seen as the joke that it is. Tesla will go under, the time frame is the "only problem" ... "and they are addressing it."
"You have no clue what you're running your suck about."
That's because you, and the few other noisy morons who constantly complain about it, refuse to acknowledge that there is useful stuff moved out of the non-notched area and into the notched area. The screen hasn't lost area to the notch, it's gained notification space that used to be dead. The notch takes up screen space that is dead otherwise.
"My old Samsung Note 2 still runs like on its first day..."
That's too bad. You'd think that replacing the OS would be done to improve it.
"...let me get this straight .. users are going to put it in a case which blocks part of the screen..."
Perhaps you should try harder to "get this straight", no company produces cases that block part of the screen. Who's the idiot here?
The rest of your post is what one would expect from a boy a few years short of puberty.
Utterly unrelated with only the slightest of superficial similarity.
Furthermore, plenty of people "listened" and tools exist today not unlike those Knuth advocated.
At least you spelled Knuth right.
...and, according to your arbitrary choice of efficiency, 5W of charge means 5W of heat. No evidence that this is "right next to the battery" or that it would matter in the slightest to the battery's temps, so your point that the incremental addition of 5W of heat somewhere must result in the overheating of the battery which is both extraordinarily unlikely and should already be protected against inside the phone. Furthermore, it's the job of the charger to make sure that it doesn't overheat the phone, a job that would be trivial to deliver.
If you are not surprised then it's because you don't understand.
IBM abandoned that market before Apple did. IBM, in fact, never entered it, only making a single product at Apple's begging long after Moto/Freescale had totally failed to support the general purpose CPU market.
I don't know what's worse, the complete ignorance of people on topics like this or their belief that they are qualified to comment on it. IBM's interest in PowerPC was entirely embedded and didn't care at all about that PC space. That's why they donated their work to Moto who proved entirely incompetent.
Is bizarre hair color really different from bizarre skin color? I wonder what the skin color of a poster by the name of "KiviPall" is?
I wonder how many "professional complainers and trouble makers" is the right amount? Enough to ensure KiviPall gets his way?
Maybe you can start with not using ignorant labels like "stupid stupid left", "lefties" and "brainwashed left". "Left" is a meaningless term and your use of it as a basis of your criticism shows that you are perfectly willing to make the same stupid mistakes that you are criticizing.
The solution to these problems is reason and objective thinking and the "right" has no greater monopoly on this than the "left" having apparently abandoned it completely.
One thing is certain, society has no room for individual "revenge" as the solution to any problem and your alternative "lash out at a whole group" is nothing more than an absurd false choice. You are literally proposing anarchy and mob-rule...you know, the thing that the "brainwashed left" recently invented, or so says the right as they march with their tiki torches proclaiming that "jews will not replace us". Great answer.
It would appear that you suffer the problem you are projecting onto others. "A rational person with an IQ higher than the thermostat" might deduce what you are advocating here and conclude that you are a "left wing activist" that "cannot reconcile two principles they've advocated".
You might first consider the concept of accountability and rethink your false equivalency between someone who loses a job for bad behavior and the bombing of innocents. Maybe then you will feel less "entitled to be disruptive, toxic, etc."
Doesn't require a life changing event, all it takes is insight that frequently comes with maturity. This happens literally every day and happens to everybody. It's how children become adults.
We all know many programmers exist in a state of arrested development. Not all are doomed to remain that way.
and you struggle with reading comprehension, don't you?
"Look, the world is changing whether you like it or not. Linus Torvalds chose to roll with it."
And maybe he just realized he was wrong. This happens every day, even with people who feel entitled to exhibit sociopathic behaviors.
Perhaps he realized that reducing the frequency of the root cause assumed in all 3 of your examples, "terrible code", is what is needed. Abuse and contempt don't accomplish that, better developers and a better environment do. Better judgement also does, and perhaps he realizes he has some room for improvement there. Software development occurs all the time without this nonsense because many developers are adults.
But perhaps he doesn't. One thing's certain, sociopaths feel their actions are always justified. Maybe he's an irredeemable a-hole, like the OP, and maybe he's just finally growing up. A hostile work environment is nothing to be proud of and it's not clear that there's anything here to be proud of at all.
It's not constraining if it does only the thing you want it to do...which is the thing Apple intends it to do...which is a common theme in your shill posts, SuperKendall.
It is, however, constraining for people who don't desire an integral monitor. Deal breaking, in fact. ...and need "more power" than what? More power than an Apple product with less power? The computing world isn't defined by the narrow range of products Apple sells, even if your world is defined by it. Why do you care anyway? You "create content" on an iPad and that's good enough for you.