fidlefodl

Of course i am. Not sure what made anyone think i'm not in favor of it.

Guess opinions are bad-form around this place :P

> As a driver, it is your responsibility to manage a two-thousand-pound weapon responsibly. As you have the most power to cause harm, you also have the most responsibility to prevent it. The biggest problem with vehicles in the US is that you're "entitled" to drive without learning how dangerous you are to everyone around you, and how to navigate that danger safely.

You seem to think my post was entitled, it's not. It's my opinion that i don't like them. I also do not like pedestrians jaywalking, but that doesn't mean i'm entitled. I would prefer to reduce risk by means that this article lays out.

I don't like things that increase risk. Bikers in my lane, infront of my "two-thousand-pound weapon" simply increase risk. It's like gun safety. I don't put my finger on the trigger until i'm ready to fire.

You (and i assume the downvoters?) seem to think that just because i express my opinion, that i would attempt to ban bikers from the roads completely. Far from it.

I wasn't speaking anything about taxes, just personal opinion on the danger of car-v-biker/pedestrian accidents.

I don't think he (or many) would claim otherwise. The issue isn't the people who ride bikes, but rather the mode they choose to travel with and the impact it has on your drive. Bikers cause all sorts of added danger to both themselves, and you as a driver.

If you have a moment of human error in car-v-car, you're very likely to have both parties walk away from the incident. You call your insurance(s), your rates go up a bit, and your life moves on. Accidents are very, very common.

Repeat this same scenario in car-v-biker, and the odds quickly swing towards it being a life endangering accident. It's just a step away from hitting a pedestrian.

I don't dislike bikers because they slow me down or anything like that. I dislike them because of the likely increase in severity for almost all car-v-biker accidents.

edit: Interesting, seems i am getting downvotes for my opinion. Care to explain your thoughts? I can't imagine you (downvoters) feel that car-v-biker is an equal risk compared to car-v-car, do you?

Polymer is sort of React Components "To the extreme" (to me). They represent everything i love about React Components, with encapsulated JS, CSS, and HTML. Meaning that i can pull in someone elses Polymer component, or use one from another project, and it "just works".

Granted, the HTTP spam scares the hell out of me. Vulcanize may help with that, but i have yet to really figure out the whole process for my workflows.

Having to load an html wrapper, do clientside routing, load the data into the clientside templates and render templates all for the first page load just scares me with Polymer. React solves this by letting me do it all serverside, and it is wonderful at that.

I really do love React. I'll likely stick with React for another project or two, unless i conceptually have an "ah hah" moment with Polymer.. but until i can render Polymer serverside, i'll always be longing for React.

edit: Come to think of it.. If someone could bake html imports and shadow dom into React, i may be in heaven.

It's something i've been struggling with quite a bit. Conceptually i love Polymer, and really want to switch, but React's serverside rendering is just hard to beat. I'm scared of showing users page load spinners while my 20 Polymer components all load their data heh

Technically i use Node, but only to implement a small interface layer for things like http requests. So i don't really consider it a Node app. The real code is all React and Golang.

Though, i think i'd prefer this style app if it just picked portrait or landscape, and adjusted between just those two states dynamically. That would be nice if you accidentally shoot in one, and decided you wanted the other. Which happens quite frequently for me.

I was getting quite antsy with the lack of music related features. Google Music was feeling so.. lacking. I was close to switching back to Spotify, or trying something new.

Glad to see something is still being worked on heh

Sometimes i think people assume we're going to force Soylent on them o_O

I'll be curious at how much Ambronite ends up costing

With that said, i'm super excited for it, and i've been drinking DIY "Soylent" for a few days now, since i'm getting impatient waiting for official soylent, and i couldn't be happier. It's everything i wanted. Once the official stuff gets here, i'll spend even less time preparing, and in theory it will taste better too (mainly less grit).

People can argue the health implications all they want, but to argue that this isn't anything new.. well, maybe i'm missing something, but it's quite new to me.

Considering that i've been wanting this product for the last 15 years - I'd say at the very least the others (whatever they may be) were a marketing failure.

Note that i've bought a full month of it already, so it's not stopping me.. i'd just like actual conversation on the subject heh

I'd like to disagree with you, but in the end we're all selfish, and clearly anonymous communication is often a channel for negativity.

I feel like your explanation is wrong, but the end result is the same heh.

Why is that crazy?

I'm honestly surprised so many people are shocked by this concept. I've rarely known people to eat great food, and overly healthy food, for 90% of meals which a healthy appreciation of the whole process.

Most people i know eat "real meals" on random dinners through the week, and everything else is just things getting in there way of doing what they want.

Plus, if Soylent ends up being what they are promising (100% perfect meal in each drink), then you're talking about a meal with zero negative aspects. If you're greedy, this lets you sort of eat of in reverse.. Rather than spending all week struggling to eat things you can tolerate so that you can eat something you like in a bit of excess (splurging), you can sort of go nuts with every "real food" meal (assuming most meals are Soylent).

There will be very little guilt in having a burger with bacon.. you've had 100% health food for the last 3 days. Go nuts with your burger!

Individually, i'm sure you can understand the downsides to making food. Time/cost/effort add up, but this is not the sole reason for me.

In the end, it's the fact that the above cost isn't wanted X percent of the time. X percent (most of the time?) i just eat to make the hunger go away. I'm not interested in eating Sushi, a nice big Bacon Burger, a full omelet, etc. I'm not interested in finding a middle ground between what i want to eat, and what i should eat. In the end, it's all just a lot of effort that i would love to avoid.

Using something like Soylent doesn't mean i'll stop eating normal food. If anything i'll feel liberated. I can eat when i want, which if i had to guess would be 1 big breakfast a week, and ~5 dinners a week for the social eating interaction with my girlfriend.

But beyond that, many of the meals in my life are just something i want to go away. I want the feeling of control, of choice, to choose where i eat.. and the joy of having everything else be quick, easy, and above all healthy.

I've been wanting something like this for years (honestly). I'm very excited for Soylent

Can anyone expand upon this point?

If his goal is to make meal replacements, optimized for health, why are the meals lacking on this point?

I'm dying to give this a try.. but i also don't want to hurt my body. To be frank, i've got no clue what the health risks are, i just hate eating 90% of the time, and as a result i eat very poorly. I don't go fast food or anything, but i often skip meals or substitute some random protein (cheeses/etc) just to make the hunger go away.

I'm ready to order 2 weeks of this stuff tomorrow, would better minds than mine care to elaborate more on the health risks/points that coolsunglasses brought up?

Thanks

I would agree with that if everyone (companies) actually did that, but they don't. Often they pick the popular platforms, or choose frameworks that allow for a single codebase and output a often subpar UX App, or just don't make the app to begin with.

Making it harder for a company to give the end user the product, even if an arguably better product, is not always a win for the user.

Things i would like to see:

1. Require battles to catch new Mobbles, and maybe catch requirements. All very Pokemon(y)

2. Random battles/encounters. Walking to the store and bam, suddenly you have to fight :D.. should probably disable while driving hah.

3. Proximity Battles. Taking the bus/train/etc with people and you could challenge them, all without knowing who they were. You'd simply see a .. Trainer(?) nearby, and challenge them for additional xp/etc.

Very cool game nonetheless :)

edit: Turns out #1 is sort of done, but the battling in this game is very simplistic. Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing haha

edit2: Yea, i'd kill for 4-6 move battling. This rock paper scissors thing will get old fast :/

- I've been using Voice for ages, with little to no improvement. This will bring lots of improvement, instead of me worrying about Voice like it's the next Reader. - I've also been using Plus for ages, so i don't have a fear it either.

I understand this Plus requirement is annoying to some, but i honestly don't get the resentment.

To me, Plus is google doing what they should have done with Wave. Made a product, and invested in it. As a company, integrating your products is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, imo. I'm sure many will scream "But not when your users hate your other product!" and.. well.. tough shit heh.

If it ends up being a terrible move then they'll pay for it and die out. But i don't think it's a wrong move for them to try.

As it is, Voice is a wasteland, and it actually getting some love and attention will be awesome. I'm looking forward to it.