It doesn’t look like it, but if 90% of silicon valley would get VERY upset if it didn’t and move their AI business abroad, you can be pretty sure that some kind of solution will get bipartisan support. Money money

It’s going to 30km/h (20mph) in many more countries now as a result of the Stockholm Declaration on Road Safety in 2020 (later endorsed by the UN) which puts a lot of emphasis on specifically 20lm/h speed limits. In the UK there is a big push for 20mph; in Wales most roads have been made 20mph.

There are still 3,558 pedestrian deaths per year in the EU, while there are 7,080 per year in the US.

The Stockholm Declaration aims for 50% fewer road deaths in 2030 compared to 2020.

A pedestrian hit at 30 km/h has about a 90% chance of surviving, but at 50 km/h, survival drops to about 20%. So while I get the appeal of driving fast, I think it’s a very reasonable measure. 1000s of deaths per year to shave minutes off arrival times is not acceptable.

Source: am cycling campaigner in the UK

I really doubt that. It depends a bit on which country you’re talking about, even if a court rules that way, there is way too much money involved for the Supreme Court to uphold it. And even in the very unlikely event the supreme court would do that, I’d imagine this would be one of these rare moments of bipartisanship where some kind of way is found to allow for AI generated code. The US isn’t willing to lose the ‘AI race’ due to principles, ethics or law.

Hey don’t make this about PS2. I still get a bit emotional thinking about:

• [Swarm Assault ](https://dzierzan.itch.io/opensa
• Red Ace Squadron
• GTA Vice City (not exactly niche, but it was the first violent game I played)

Thanks for this post, because otherwise I would never have found out that someone recreated Red Ace Squadron in Unreal Engine

Those are all really good ideas. And on top of that I’d also suggest taxing the wealthy a bit more.

I totally get the point. But to be fair, the US has such a high GDP that it could afford all of this. But, it would require taxing the wealthy a bit more.

Why? I really enjoyed Mankato while slowly breaking it (Arch is just not for people like me)

Excellent comment!

Design towns and cities that can only be easily traversed by car.

Just to reiterate, there is something you can do about this. Lobby your local decision makers. They’re not waiting around to be guilted into anything, but they are generally happy to talk to residents and are open for reasonable arguments.

(That doesn’t mean local politicians are reasonable people. 90% of the ones who run things where I live are a lost case. But there are always the odd exceptions who are willing to listen and will work hard to make a difference.)

I’m seeing numbers between 140 and 327 people having been killed at the Berlin wall and 153 people at the girls’ school. That that’s besides the point.

I’d say that suffering isn’t measured in fatalities, neither is mortality. Groups can be oppressed resulting in enormous suffering, but with relatively few fatalities as a result. See for example the Taliban and women. There is also the factor of intentionality. The US likely didn’t intentionally bomb a school, but the wall was carefully designed.

Nonetheless, the reason the Iran war started is of course exceptionally dumb than compared to the other wars that the US started. So your point probably still stands. Sacrificing lives for petty reasons is evil.

I’ve read the article already and I’m well aware. And like I said, it depends on what the law says on phone use. It’s not as simple as ‘oh she wasn’t holding her phone so she wasn’t using it’. It depends on case law, how phone use is defined and whether the law is using a kind of prophylactic rule.

You can get fined for texting and driving while you’re standing still. It’s not something that you’d be able to say makes sense based on an article like this, but looking at case law and how the law was written, it does make sense.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to have prophylactic rules in place for what constitutes phone use. There is generally no reason why a phone should be laying in one’s lap while driving except to be used illegally whilst driving, so such a rule could help enforcement and save lives.

It depends a lot on what the law says I’d say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it’s not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one’s lap is treated the same way as if it’s being used.

Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.

Sadly it’s more theoretical than an actual option in many places.

Where I live (UK, not London) short distances can be done by bike or public transport. Although public transport isn’t great. For medium distance, public transport is often non-existent. For long distance, public transport works well and you might be able to take your bike on the train too.

I’d rather cycle through the rain than pay an extortionate amount for a bus ticket.

They’re exceptionally disability friendly and many age specifically adapted for people with disabilities. E-tricycles are used a lot for this purpose. You see them a lot in some countries.

E-bikes address the sweatiness and hills issue. But even without electric assistance, people in Germany and Austria have managed.

It doesn’t always require new infrastructure to be built. Ideally infrastructure for cars is repurposed for walking and cycling. This is something that needs to be done anyway because lots of people don’t drive, causing transport poverty.

My bike was $270 second hand and is awesome.

The range issue is fair. Consequence of designing exclusively for cars. Then again, no need to cycle every journey. Just the short journeys already helps a lot. Where I live most car journeys are under 5 miles.

I think there is a little bit too much randomness going on in the video to be AI generated. Messy details from the real world that AI doesn’t add in, but too subtle to be the result of prompting.

If anything, this makes it more likely it wasn’t written by AI. These are typical mistakes people make when they’re overthinking their writing, while writing.

Curb Your Enthusiasm. Pretty pretty good

That sounds like a quote for a ground source heat pump. Air source heat pumps are far more popular and much cheaper to install.

Labour is the main cost. Ours was about €11k. Future replacements would cost as much as a boiler upgrade since the pipework and radiators are already there.

Don’t mind @NotASharkInAManSuit. Your take is mature and the internet needs more of this :)

Regarding the image in the OP, complimenting things that you like in another person’s house is just good manners. You want others to feel comfortable with hosting you. This woman might also just have been able to do some lovely things with simple artwork and rugs.

Or… maybe the guy felt sorry for her, seeing how she clearly lacks decorating skills, so he politely lied. Even though normally, he’d never compliment anyone on a <$70 knife set :-) anyway, it’s a shit post

I think you’re reading things into this thread that aren’t there. Nobody is saying women should be forced to mother grown men. You’re entirely right that women shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of someone else’s unresolved childhood trauma.

But there’s a massive difference between expecting a partner to fix you and simply seeking a support network from other people. And your partner is a natural part of that.

Expecting people to just “grow the fuck up” by sheer willpower ignores everything we know about psychology and trauma recovery. It’s counter productive. If someone is struggling with an abusive past, telling them to wipe their own ass doesn’t help. Instead, point them toward resources like therapy, support groups, or journaling. These actually do help.

Dude, you’re using the most aggressive language towards others in this whole thread. You’re not exactly making a convincing argument that things are as simple as ‘growing the fuck up’ given how you’re refusing to engage in sensitive meaningful conversation.