transportguy

I guess this highlights the ability in a variety of viewsets to step back and apply a more 'meta' approach to a criticism.

The trial was more to do with precedence and academics though. Galileo was only punished in the 2nd trial because he had broken an order given to him in the first trial.

The corrections and withdrawals of work were the right of the Roman Inquisition which had oversight over the Vatican's academic publishing process. They were a publisher in their own right, and if they granted an Imprimatur for a book, it would be treated as if they had supported it as truth.

Hence, Copernicus had to be corrected to be "hypothetical" in 1615, so that it would accurately represent the truth known at the time.

Galileo had managed to get his Imprimatur on his Dialogue without the proper oversight it should have had. He arranged it so it was checked page by page by his Nuncio who didn't have the right competencies. When the Inquisition asked the Sacred Master of the Palace if they had indeed granted their Imprimatur, they hadn't, and it was an embarrassment for them.

Both motorists and cyclists benefit from cycle lanes... but it's also a huge job to bring them to the road network.

You're missing the point. The 20mph rules in London have been applied to all arterial and collector roads, not just residential roads.

Most drivers ignore them, but it only takes 1 driver going at the 20mph limit in a bottleneck to slow down a whole column of traffic. So both are true.

All of the things you mentioned are the points!

Awesome! I'd love to see them - send me some screenshots :)

https://twitter.com/MichalYouDoing

I wrote this up quickly after one of the HN readers here asked for a visualisation after my first article:

https://www.michalpaszkiewicz.co.uk/blog/busdistributions/in...

London has Dial-a-ride for people with impairments which provides a door-to-door journey https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/dial-a-ride/

But of course, a lot of people don't qualify, and others don't want to use a different service to others.

It could definitely be checked... the MTA has an API https://new.mta.info/developers

In London, both roads and buses are subsidised from the income of the tube lines.

Ensembles aren't used much outside of competition or serious industry... windy/predictwind/CMAP have usually more than enough weather for the average boater

yes, but it takes at least a degree to even understand the basics

There are already games that use live wind data (see e.g. virtual regatta). They source data directly from NOAA/GFS rather than from an aggregator like windy

GFS takes a simple average of the ensembles for their avg model, I believe. The biggest problem is that you can't use statistics like you normally would in meteorology. Predictions are actually very good for knowing WHAT happens to a weather system, but not WHERE it happens.

I work in the sailing space, so this is what happens there:

A racing offshore sailor would consider a variety of models and ensembles. Then they would consider the various possibilities for the weather systems and fronts (e.g. front crosses your path +/-5% East/West within a +/-3h gap). A sailor would then avoid any possible dangerous situations, and pick a path that on the most number of models gives them an optimal wind.

It is both an art and a science. If you compare the results of sailors who compete in offshore competitions (such as the Vendee globe), where the boats are all constructed in very similar ways, you'll see that the best sailors consistently get good results, and that is based on good meteorology and a good gain to risk ratio for route choice.

depends what you mean by 'rolling your own weather forecast'. If by that you mean you're going to do some statistical modelling on ensemble data, you're going to get a much better idea of what is likely to happen than you can from the average datasets you get on sites like windy

the drawing of orion is unimpressive, as it is easily visible and drawable to a similar quality with any telescope or even binoculars if you have clear skies. Spotting any sort of features on mars requires huge magnification incredible steadiness and an ability to track the object. Drawing the details for Mars required magnitudes more ability and far better technology.

no, it would only mean less deaths per million miles driven if those worse than self driving cars switch to it. If the best drivers switch to self driving cars, there will be more deaths per million miles. Duh

Exactly! There are still many ways you can driver safer, so you wouldn't actively pick a riskier option

also, we have ways of testing tiredness and effects of age, so augmentation can improve many of the issues with human driving.

So if there are no 'good drivers', everyone must be a 'bad driver', so if self driving cars are to be 'good', they need to be better than at least 100% of humans. High bar!

and it seems to me from a bit of lookings for statistics just now that if you've been driving for a few years and haven't crashed, you're better than average

1. You can only really go on metrics of crashes with your fault, currently.

2. You can't really be certain

3. It would be good to be able to collect data of driver faults without crashes. But how do we do it without giving insurance companies more reasons to hike prices?

'According to the AA Charitable Trust, 40% of UK drivers have crashed by the time they are 23 years old, and 26% of drivers have crashed within two years of obtaining their licence. (Source: https://m.toptests.co.uk/driving-statistics/)'

Although maybe not

It's plausible that 20% of drivers crash enough for 80% to be above average

It's also not good enough for them to be better than average human drivers. There are many bad drivers and if you are a good driver, you wouldn't want to switch to anything less safe than your driving