27 karma · joined July 22, 2023
And LLM doesn't completely remove the "burden" of reading the dictionary to make sure the meaning is indeed fitting, but shortcuts the discovery by a lot. Also helps to learn new words, lol. I see it as a supercharged thesaurus.
IMHO this applies to all general research, one needs to be an utter monkey to copy LLM generated references without checking them first, so if anything, it trains critical thinking for free.
One of my favourite uses of LLM is the reverse-dictionary, for example:
Give me one Saxon and one Romance word meaning "to write".
Saxon (Germanic origin): scratch — Old English scrætan, linked to marking or incising.
Romance (Latin origin): inscribe — from Latin inscribere, "to write on/in."
Genius!
Carlton Reid - "Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How cyclists were the first to push for good roads & became the pioneers of motoring", a book "whose very title is fightin' words" is basically a Mein Kampf of cycling. He also writes for DailyMail, which is famous for hit piece journalism and lack of credability.
Angie Schmitt - Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, from which one reviewer quotes "The bigger challenge, Schmitt argues, is addressing the systemic racism built into cities". It is obvious to anyone who reads into this sentence that this is a woke bias.
Peter Walker - The Miracle Pill pushes the active lifestyle narrative, of which cycling is one.
While I think your argument only adds to the fact that cyclists are delusional, I have to agree that it is not a "cyclist" itself that is the problem, but halfwits both in cars and on bikes, with cyclists having a higher proportion of those.
Cycling accidents definitely happen, and they’ve become a lucrative industry. Just look up "bicycle injury attorney" and you will see tons of ads claiming that they "have recovered over 50 million for bicycle injury clients". The market here speaks for itself. Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t set out expecting to mow down a cyclist, but accidents happen despite the traffic laws designed to ensure everyone’s safety, and, to follow your example, a 3 y/o toddler doesn’t need a license to ride her trike down the street, but there’s nothing in the law, aside from common sense, stopping the child from continuing down the street and joining a major highway. At least "a multi-ton piece of steel" is visible and moves at the speed of traffic.
What I don't understand, why is it accepted, that both pedestrians and motorists should "watch out for cyclists", yet there is absolutely no campaigns for cyclists to watch out for cars and pedestrians and to follow the law. The easiest solution, imho, is to make the requirements equal for all - if someone wants to use a public road, they should be licensed and insured.
Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties.
Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?
- Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de facto)
- Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists
- Cyclists can choose to bike at a slow pace on a busy highway, taking up the whole lane (motorists will be cited for impeding traffic)
- They are allowed to bike on the road at night with barely any visibility aids
- They aren't required to have liability insurance or pass any traffic exams
- The police is very lax about enforcing traffic laws for them
I am all for a good bike ride in the mountains, where there is no traffic, but surely the way we treat cyclists is unreasonable?
I wonder if a complete AI disruption where background music can be generated will increase the demand for live bands, even if at a local pub.
> after five kids, their wife couldn’t feel them anymore
Seems like today this can only be remedied by a woman with kegel exercises, and if she is not up for it, there is nothing you can do as a man to shrink the size gap.