jakelazaroff

No, it's not. Why should disabled users be forced to indirectly interact with a webpage via a non-deterministic agent, rather than directly interact with one that's specifically designed to accommodate them?

The point of these cameras is not to "catch" people speeding or running red lights, but to prevent them from doing it in the first place; the idea is that normal law abiding drivers are more likely to drive carefully if they are likely to be fined for their mistakes. Optimizing for the 90% case would mean supporting their rollout.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

I want to see Flock banned as much as the next person, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

[1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2025/nyc-dot-speed-camer...

With the previous implementation, all users would get the progressive enhancement… except non-JS users :) https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html

The lack of Firefox support isn't a big deal because this is a progressive enhancement. Firefox users will still be able to switch icon sizes; they just won't see the fancy transition.

I mean… yes, obviously, if you look on a computer you're gonna find software.

Maybe if you're Tom Hanks in Castaway. In real life, people contract lung damage from secondhand smoke; homes are mortgaged to fund gambling habits; families are destroyed by drunk drivers.

That's not to say that people can't partake in their vices responsibly. But the idea that any harms are limited to the person with the problem is just not true.

This is your project, is it not? Can you not simply tell the agent to cover 100% of the code?

Notably, types in TypeScript are also optional, but LLMs don't seem to have any problem generating fully type-safe code without `any` (though you do need to gently nudge them on occasion, or run a linter that forbids it). I don't see why they'd choke so hard on Mypy.

I mean, OpenCode is the one changing their app here. So it kinda seems like it's actually everyone else's problem.

Why shouldn't it? The thoughts and opinions of high schoolers matter just as much as those of adults.

But we are using government to hurt people — we are incentivizing (or worse, requiring) land owners to harm the surrounding community by not developing their property. A land value tax would simply shift some of the cost that is already burdening the rest of the community onto the unproductive property owners.

The article explains this well:

> The office, filled with workers and transactions, generates far more in economic activity and value creation than its land value and, therefore, rises the highest. The apartment, where dozens of residents live, stands nearly as high. The rowhomes add steady, smaller value. But the parking lot does something different. It dips below the surface, shown as a red bar sinking into the ground.

> Why below ground? Because in economic terms, a parking lot doesn’t simply fail to add value; it actively subtracts value. Every year it sits idle, it consumes some of the most valuable land in the city.

> When valuable downtown land lies idle, it blocks the housing, jobs, and amenities that could exist there. The costs ripple outward: higher rents, longer commutes, fewer opportunities nearby. What could have been a productive part of the community instead becomes a hole in its fabric.

Ultimately this is a geometry problem. Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people; eventually your roads just can't accommodate any more traffic. If there's enough demand to visit a given area then anything that doesn't minimize cars will just make things worse.

Another way of looking at it: parking minimums require developers to encroach upon a commons, that commons being land that could otherwise be used for more productive things than free parking.