comte7092

Sub out “who hates hiking trails?” and sub in “who hates having popular government programs?”

Answer: people who don’t want constituents to believe that the government can be effective and deliver good services. That’s the ideological component.

“Government bad” is amazing platform to run on because it’s pretty easy to deliver.

>Treasuries are considered safe during such crisis.

This isn’t a law of nature. The behavior the admin is displaying is exactly the type of thing that leads to your statement not being true anymore.

I think it’s more that the people who are boosting LLMs are claiming that perfect super intelligence is right around the corner.

Personally, I look back at how many years ago it was that we were seeing claims that truck drivers were all going to lose there jobs and society would tear itself apart over it within the next few years… and yet here we still are.

> So how did she find herself in U.S. custody with a revoked visa?

The original officer likely lacked the authority to actually revoke her visa:

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040311.html

9 FAM 403.11-3(B) (U) When You May Not Revoke A Visa (CT:VISA-1463; 02-01-2022)

a. (U) You do not have the authority to revoke a visa based on a suspected ineligibility or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). A consular revocation must be based on an actual finding that the individual is ineligible for the visa.

b. (U) Under no circumstances should you revoke a visa when the individual is in the United States, or after the individual has commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). Outside of the DUI exception, revocations of individuals in, or en route to, the United States may only be done by the Department's Visa Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination (CA/VO/SAC).

The conversation I engaged with was about people who are following the law. You are arguing against a point I never made here.

I’d ask you what the point of having laws is if we are going to detain and deport people outside of the established legal process.

This thread is in response to an individual who came here on a valid work visa.

The only option is to pursue draconian “enforcement” on people who enter through ports of entry following the established legal process?

Let’s not kid ourselves here, it’s not nor has it ever been about “illegal” immigration, it’s immigration in general.

> Somehow the prices are still high enough that it's cheaper to buy a cheap used car and drive it instead.

I find this claim to be incredibly dubious.

More convenient? A practical necessity? Sure.

Cheaper? Gonna need to see some receipts.

Edit: since at least one person appears to be grumpy about my comment, here is an example of a large system with light rail:

https://www.dart.org/fare/general-fares-and-overview/fares

For less than $200/month you can ride however much you want, with reduced price options for local fares and other groups of riders like low income, etc.

If you have a problem with my comment, please explain how you can but and operate a used car for less than that price when you factor in gas, tires, maintenance, insurance, etc. it’s just BS.

When you don’t have a driver anymore you quickly run into an issue with keeping the vehicle clean.

One time having a drunken stranger puke in your car while you’re not using it will be enough for a lot of people to determine it isn’t worth the hassle.

It’s pretty easy to imagine a number of scenarios that disabuse the nothing of ever renting your car out “no hassle”. Low hassle maybe, but your framing implies you’ve never worked in a job that required engaging the general public.

US manufacturers absolutely make electric busses, but when you’re talking about global trends/capabilities in the market, you have to keep in mind that the core competency of most suppliers on the US market is still diesel drivetrains, their EV products are new/secondary.

Why do transit agencies keep falling for hydrogen busses? From the perspective of the US, it’s pretty simple:

1. Transit agencies have no way to reasonably validate what the future holds. From the standpoint of today, a hydrogen bus can be expected to replace a diesel bus 1 to 1, while battery electric is a 2 to 1 replacement. This might not be a huge issue except:

2. FTA regulations have strict requirements on how many spare busses may be kept at any time (defined by the ratio of peak vehicle usage vs the size of the overall fleet), doubling the size of the fleet blows this ratio out of the water.

3. It doesn’t matter what BYD offers or what’s possible in China, US transit agencies are required (FTA regs again!) to buy busses made in the US. American manufacturers do have somewhat decent battery electric products, but they are clearly not at the leading edge. With the proterra banktrupcy, there are limited competent suppliers in the market. To a large degree, gillig et al do get to decide what gets pushed into the market.

It’s a bit of a hot take, but not wildly outlandish either.

Pandas supports so many use cases and is still more feature rich than polars. But you always have the polars.DataFrame.to_pandas() function in your back pocket so realistically you can always at least start with polars.

Rhetoric, not science, convinces people, at least at the level of the general public.

It is nieve to think that an negative result will have any impact on the discourse here whatsoever.

A fool and his money are soon parted

> Public transport information and timetables

Public transport information is published and maintained by transit agencies themselves. It’s an open standard and trivially easy to access.

See: https://gtfs.org/

I’ve often seen an equivalence made on this forum between levying higher capital gains taxes and discouraging investment. While they are certainly related, rates of capital gains taxes aren’t the primary driver of productive investment.

We have observed close to two decades of rapid asset price inflation that can very reasonably be argued outstripped actual productive activity. Rent seeking isn’t something that should be incentivized either and is ultimately a very corrosive behavior in our economy, politics and society.

I work in public transportation, at the end of the day there is a finite supply of resources and you have to decide where and how to deploy them.

The biggest determinants of quality of service are geographic coverage and frequency. Good luck getting political will to increase frequency or extend geographic coverage on routes that no one is riding.

Im not talking about taking away parking per se, im talking about taking away free parking.

So you make the street parking paid.

It’s insane that so much land is dedicated to giving people free space to store their personal vehicles.

“But that’s unfair!” People can take the bus.

“But the bus service isn’t good!” That’s because no one uses the bus, if there’s demand, supply will be added. The biggest determinant of transit use is the availability of parking.

How would chatgpt be able to spot overruns, fraud, or make a value assessment off of a budget? Unless you provided significantly more information than implied in your post, eg actual spend, the entire exercise was pretty absurd.

This is the biggest danger of LLMs: people assuming that they have some sort of magical super intelligence.

Having a STEM degree isn’t a substitute for real world experience in a production facility.

Clustering is a feedback loop where production creates people with experience in production, something needs to kickstart that process.

While your statement is fundamentally correct, the issue here is that people typically use these charts as an excuse to point the finger.

The tension globally is between the west who has high per capita emissions, a long period of high emissions, and high living standards as compared to the global south who have a larger population and lower living standards and yet still high absolute levels of emissions.

Telling China/india/et al that they’re the real problem is taken as “yeah we polluted for centuries to get rich but that’s all in the past, you need to stay poor in order to save the planet”.

An alternative solution might be to have the west pay to help these countries develop more sustainably, but that’s met with anger by the rising nationalist elements. I mean even importing green tech from the global leader (China) is being resisted.

Energy generation methods aren’t fungible.

Methane is favored in many cases because they can be quickly ramped up and down to handle momentary peaks in demand or spotty supply generated from renewables.

Without knowing more details about those projects it is difficult to make the claim that these plants have anything to do with increased demand due to LLMs, though if anything, they’d just add to base load demands and lead to slower decommissioning of old coal plants like we’ve seen with bitcoin mines.

Your reasoning it entirely fair. My point is that this is an article about the perspective of the US government, calling it an obvious honeypot of, say, Russia, is just farcical.

*50% of your fare goes to the driver, as well as paying for fuel, vehicle maintenance and depreciation, insurance, etc.

Without a driver those other costs don’t go away.

> Waymo also has the option to drop prices lower than Uber/Lyft when vehicles are unutilized

I think that’s an unproven assumption.

There’s certainly reason to believe it to be true of course, but uber and Lyft are already capturing upwards of 50% of the fares for each ride, and that’s without the capital costs on their books. Removing the driver from the equation can’t lead to much more than that 50% (realistically much less) margin.

Going from charging $10 to $5 isn’t going to make rides suddenly materialize. Especially in rural areas there are just times that people aren’t going to be looking to go anywhere, and wait time becomes far more of a factor that raw costs.

Taxis today are already far far larger than they need to be for two people.

Logistically you need the flexibility of having more seats available. If you’re in a rural area and need to transport a family are you going to send 4 vehicles separately?

Ironically it’s probably urban areas where single occupancy vehicles make the most sense, given that there’s always going to be sufficient demand to allow for more specialization in vehicles for different use cases.

> You could ostensibly leave a few taxis around to service otherwise underserved areas and have them run without having to secure a driver each time.

I think you’re dramatically overestimating how much of a barrier obtaining a driver is here. The primary cost is opportunity cost of the capital that isn’t being utilized. Not having to have a driver doesn’t somehow make it so you can infinitely provision a fleet.

Very difficult to take this article seriously when it characterizes WhatsApp and signal as “obvious honeypots” of “foreign nation states” (obviously in reference here to non western aligned countries).

Absolutely a ridiculous statement.

At the end of the day that isn’t a technical problem but a unit economics one.

Removing the driver from a taxi doesn’t bring down costs that much. Self driving cars aren’t going to change the uber/taxi model at a fundamental level.

They have a finite fleet that they need to deploy. Urban centers mean that fleet utilization is high, and relatively less time and miles are spent driving with no one on board. In rural areas with little demand they will sit empty or have to drive empty for many more miles to their pickups. It just isn’t profitable to use your fleet that way no matter what you do.

The grudges are valid.

The default in America is to make everything out to be individualistic, but the rest of us have to bear the very real costs of the externality of pickups, not just limited to pollution but also safety, land use, etc.