Is it more, less or equally probably to win the lottery? If it is the same or less there is no need to buy lottery tickets, we are all playing all the time :-)
Maybe so, maybe other people just don't know, for those who don't know it may be good to read how this all got started, so here's my two cents: https://www.gnu.org/
My home computers have been GNU/Linux exclusively since 2003. Recently I had to install Windows 10 on a computer at work, and was horrified that the thing has advertisements!! Not only that, the level of manipulation to avoid you from just using a local user account (and get an online one instead) is terrible. You get two choices:
1. Get an online Microsoft Account,
2. Miss on all the great user experience!
Who wants to be a loser and miss all the great stuff?
Hence if I ever needed more reasons to prefer Linux over Windows now I have "to prevent the creators of the software from manipulating me".
I think that that software industry philosophy now applies to many other things. I guess because most things now run software, from cars to farmers milk tanks. But it's probably not the only reason.
Make the most that the owner of the proprietary OS allows you to. I am very thankful of all the people that have been writing free (as in freedom) software which allows us to have alternatives. I do not know about any small-collective agri-mercantile worker paradise, but I am so happy that I can still run Replicant and use things like Mutt+vim+gpg for email. Free software is now more important than ever.
That was my point, we are no better than in medieval times. One can however run things like Replicant (I do) and I am aware of some better alternatives like linux phone, pinephone and librem5. I want to learn more about them before my old Replicant phone dies.
Sorry but it is not really your phone if it runs proprietary software. It is like in medieval times, you didn't own the means of production. Welcome your new digital overlords!!
It is funny, in those places I never got any harassment before. Car drivers never had a problem with me, It seems that I never disturbed the apparently so important car traffic, they just passed and went their way. So what exactly was the purpose of the bike lane? Clearly, to kick me and other cyclists out of the way because they didn't like us. That is just plain discrimination. And I am not saying that I don't facilitate passing when safe for me to do so. I think we cyclists have to do that. But the bike lane is just obnoxious.
Yet, the people who want bike specific infrastructure are perfectly happy with bike lanes that require that car drivers see you and react in 20ms when you suddenly cross their path. Instead of being in front of them with plenty of time, like you would if you were using the same road. For example, in Madrid there is such a white painted bike next to an intersection between the regular road and a bike path. The cyclist riding the bike path was killed when he crossed the road. Such a road design is just criminal: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/08/28/madrid/1503932795_982370....
I think that most people can learn. Why do you think you are so special?
I think that bicycle specific infrastructure actually sends the wrong message and prevents people from learning. It is a crutch, it creates a vicious circle from which people never get out, never become confident. They do not know what to do when the bike lane ends.
If they are built to make cycling safer and more comfortable then why do they care if you use it or not? shouldn't it be your choice? No, what happens is, of course, that you get a lot of harassment if you don't use it. Imagine that you drive a car on a road that you like, then they build another road and people get mad at you because you don't use the new one. That makes no sense right? That's what happens with bike infrastructure, of course it happens because they don't want you to use the regular roads, the motorists want to keep them all for themselves. And obviously, when this happens, security, comfort and convenience are less than an afterthought, in fact they are not thought at all. So, no I do not want special infrastructure when I ride my bike, because then you immediately become a second class citizen. I actively avoid it when I ride.
That's not a necessary skill. You know, there is a principle of traffic engineering that says: First to come first to be served. That means, if you are using the road, and you find a slower vehicle in front of you you are not allowed to run over him or kick him out of the way in any way. You are allowed to pass if safe to do so or just wait behind if not safe.
So do you mean to say that bicycles do not collide with each other and therefore there is no need for them to have rules to share the road/bike lane or whatever? So, for example If I am being passed by another cyclist, can I just turn left without looking behind? I think you may wish that there was no need for skills, but that's just not reality. You need to know how to keep riding on a straight line for example, because other drivers of bicycles, cars, or whatever, expect that you won't suddenly cross their trajectory without warning. Since you also need to change your lateral position, regardless if you are riding on a bike lane or a normal road you need to be able to ride a straight line while looking behind, for yielding or lane negotiation. Also you need to do the same things when on a curve trajectory. Of course you need to be able to calculate the speed of other vehicles. For example, when entering a roadway, bike path, or whatever, you need again to be able to yield properly. I mean, we are talking about vehicles, I am not talking about fooling around in the park. In fact, it turns out that bike paths require additional skills. It requires additional skills because you need to figure out when its design contradicts the rules of the road. For example, when you have a right turning lane, that is exterior to a bike lane that just goes straight. That's a very dangerous situation where cyclists and motorists have to outsmart the engineer to avoid the right hook type of accident. Again, the bike lane discourse that bike lanes are easier to use is just false.
So are you saying that when a driver of car encounters slower traffic they collide with it? I don't think that's the case. In fact I've been driving my bike daily to work for 13 years, and never been hit from behind by a car. I've had a few close calls and they've always been on intersections with cars coming from the front turning left or from the sides. So velocity and acceleration are not important when sharing the road. Vehicles of different kinds have always shared the road without any problem. If you encounter a vehicle slower than you, you just need to slow down, adapt your speed and pass if safely to do so. It's that easy. By the way, those countries already had cyclists before they kicked them off the roads. Do they have more now or less? Also how do cyclists interact with other cyclists? don't they have to follow any rules either? don't they need any skills?
Also I find that drivers behave more aggressive towards me precisely after they build a bike lane. Because of course they expect you to use it, that's why the built it, so that you get out of their way.
Cycle lanes are a trap for those who do not know. What exactly are the skills that you need to ride your bike in the normal road that are not needed when you ride on a bike lane?
It is terrible that people equate bike lanes to cycling. Bike lanes are built to kick cyclists off the roads that motorist believe belong to them. It is very ironic that because of the pandemic so many defenders of bike lanes are coming out like mushrooms. I find it ironic, because to me, the pandemic has shown precisely that there is no need at all for bike specific infrastructure. In Madrid, the city where I live, during the worst months of the pandemic, I would go out with my bike and there would be a ratio of like 20 bikes to 1 car. The cyclists that I saw used the traffic lanes as they needed. It was quite something. You would think that proponents of bike lanes would have to shut up. But no, now they say that bike lanes are the solution to the pandemic!
Well maybe it has something to do with the Windows monopoly and that they only want you to use their proprietary tools. If you learn too much then you will want to be free!!
Yeah, the whole point is that I was trying to avoid installing non-free software, at least in my home/personal computer. I run Chrome in my work machine to which I log in remotely. But yes, at least it works on Linux!
The web version doesn't even work with Debian GNU/Linux + Firefox or Chromium. So If I want to access audio conferences using a machine that only runs free software I can't. I need to install Google proprietary Browser. Can't they even make a standards based web site/platform/whatever? Thank Lennart Poettering for pulseaudio! I run the Chrome browser in my computer at work (which I don't trust), then access it thru openvpn+vnc then redirect the audio both mic and speakers to my free-software-only computer at home.
You said that people don't want to invest and get nothing in return. But you do get two things: 1. freedom, since you are developing free software, freedom for you and for others. 2. Maybe recognition. I figured that you didn't value those things, perhaps I am wrong. Of course there is nothing wrong with making a profit, the problem I have is doing so by artificially restricting what people can do with their computers.