deschutes

Tires are the dominant factor in my experience. (In deep snow ground clearance is also a significant factor.) Many videos [1], [2] on youtube corrobrate this.

For the non-professional drivers on public roads, AWD is not a safety feature. It's arguably dangerous as it gives false confidence as you exceed the limits of your equipment.

It does provide a convenience at low speeds (e.g. parking lots and driveways) as it makes it more difficult to get stuck but even there tires and ground clearance are the dominant factors.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC1E2eDt1JY [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXjzYbpt9Ow

How do you create new pumped hydro capacity?

I think a credible threat of serious punishment would go a long way. Unfortunately the justice system and police have completely abdicated any responsibility they might have there.

Maybe instead of attempting to find fault we should roll the dice in accordance with the speed vs lethality tables whenever a driver hits something with another person in it.

Sorry Jim, we're going to have to kill you today. The simulation says you drove right into the maw of a redwood chipper.

That's basically what it feels like using a mode of transportation that carries a high risk of death in a collision.

In the twitter thread for the second incident the owner claims he commanded a stop (released the button) prior to the event but is uncertain as to whether the car stopped itself. So that makes at least three people who thought the summon feature was not going to yield to cross traffic.

I suppose that doesn't really fit the narrative you're trying to spin here.

The human part is a hyperbole. "This code is unreadable" implies "This code is unreadable for the intended audience."

Here's how I'd write that function: trim_string() { python3 -c 'import sys; sys.stdout.write(sys.argv[1].strip())' "$1" }

I think many programmers are skeptical of advanced type systems because the OPs straw man is what gets advertised at the water cooler. I've seen it myself in professional settings.

My impression is that advanced type systems interest people because they're cool moreso than because they're practical tools for reducing errors.

The kind of discussion I see on this post generally reinforces my impression.

I live in a city. I don't think it should matter but I do own property in the city. I support relaxation of zoning restrictions in the same city.

How is it not my backyard? I think YIMBY is totally appropriate.

The bulk of the video is a british chicken farmer explaining the economic realities. I don't think bad chicken is unique to the US; I suspect cheap meat is about the same everywhere.

I consider these photos fake. It has nothing to do with how the photo was taken or edited and everything to do with how closely the photo corresponds to my perception of reality. To me, great photos are always pushing this boundary but these clearly break it. That said, I can appreciate the photos for what they are.

I remember the first time my partner saw the milky way. She was disappointed because in her mind it was supposed to look like one of these photos.

There are no proofs of any kind about the natural world. However, it could be shown with a small population sample that fingerprint and dna signatures from the respective technologies are statistically unique.

I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area.

Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them.

In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit.

I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk.

On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway.

The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.

A straightforward usage of CAS doesn't provide transactions. In other words, there is no way to update multiple records atomically.* For instance, perhaps you wish to update two balances to reflect the result of the transaction. Using CAS, a reader may observe that only one balance has been updated -- the reader sees inconsistent data.

* no sane (or performant) way.