eckmLJE

In fact, "vegetable" is not a botanical term at all

I appreciate what you've posted here. Valve fanboyism is widespread (I'm guilty of it too) and while they are shoulders above the alternatives, it's a good reminder that no one's perfect and I'll be sure to take a closer look at the company in the future.

"The enemy's gate is down"!

Thank you! I scanned the text and scrolled through all the pics, and searched for `tenoch` and didn't get any hits. "The urban sprawl caused the lake system to dry up" glosses over a super interesting sequence of decisions that led to the disaster.

More reading for anyone interested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexico_City#Floodin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Texcoco#Artificial_draina... https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/09/mexico-citys-desage-of-160...

I kept hoping they'd provide a reference of Tenochtitlan. Possibly the most striking thing I learned when visiting Mexico City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan

To hedge against increasing electric utility prices, maybe. I installed solar recently and the cost of batteries to cover a decent power outage didn’t make sense to me. I just got a transfer switch and a portable propane generator instead. The battery tech / price is just not there yet IMO. And in case this isn’t well known, when there is a power outage and you don’t have battery backup, the solar generation shuts off — you’re not using solar AS the backup in most cases unless you have a very particular setup.

Silk road had a policy against selling items with intent to harm like guns. While occasionally some weapon listings would slip through, they would be taken down. The focus was drugs (and a lot of legal media). There were plenty of other black market sites on the dark web that sold everything, but that's not what the silk road in particular was about.

No, silk road did not sell weapons. There was legal content like pornography and other media on there, but Ulbricht was an idealist and excluded material with "intent to harm".

Web accessibility describes specific requirements for people with disabilities to be able to use your website. If you don't implement these features, blind people, colorblind people, people who can't use a mouse, etc., won't be able to use your website. You can make a strategic choice not to support these users for reasons like ROI. But obviously there are plenty of situations where either we make the affirmative choice not to exclude people with disabilities, or we're required by law to accommodate them. In my personal opinion, we should always build on the web with the modern features that support assistive technologies, and that building inaccessible web experiences is synonymous with building poor quality web experiences. Many of the (mostly native) features that enable an experience accessible to people with disabilities improve the experience for all users.

Sure, they could be lazy in a lot of ways in how they execute this survey leading to unreliable results -- indeed, fielding it through something like qualtrics could be said to be "lazier" than attempting to solicit and engage readers of your own individual site. It would be pretty hard and expensive to get enough responses yourself for even a lazy, low-quality result, vs. the at-scale offerings of a vendor.

> we need to assume that the survey was done of reviews.org visitors.

That's pretty unlikely. Reviews.org likely engages one of many vendors (like Qualtrics[1]) that will solicit responses online for a survey you design and provide to them through their survey building tool.

[1] https://www.qualtrics.com/research-services/online-sample/

Vacancy is for rentals. If you own a condo and leave it empty / don’t live in it, that doesn’t show up in a vacancy rate.

I disagree. There are plenty of folks who would rather see the natural world preserved for its own sake, even at the expense of human growth and survival. And plenty of folks dismissing environmentalists as treehuggers who love nature more than humanity, who don't get that preserving the natural world is a prerequisite to human survival. I think the distinction is important.

Tailwind classes are a syntax (especially since you can set arbitrary values e.g. `top-[-113px]`) and they still represent CSS. So really you're using a DSL with its own syntax, functions and directives on top of the CSS you should still understand. The main benefit is speed: you have a library of utility classes that are shorthand for common CSS patterns. If you are pretending that you're not writing CSS, you are forgetting how the browser is actually working -- eventually you may have to leave Tailwind and you'll find you've forgotten how to write good CSS.

What if you need to render your button component as an anchor element? Or as a div with role="button"? You will want to abstract your button styles somehow so that they can be shared between these three (or more) use cases. Sure you could experiment with using a polymorphic `as` prop to render your button component as any element, but if you're using TypeScript that can get complicated quickly, especially if you're then trying to use that component in conjunction with something like next/link or react-router/link. It's simpler to strip default styles from all your components, and then have a button class to add to any element you want to appear as a button.

BUT, then what if you want to add some kind of special behavior to your button that involves subcomponents, e.g. a loading state that conditionally renders a spinner inside the button? Or you want to provide convenience props like rendering an icon before or after the button text? Then a class is not enough.

If you're building a design system/component library, none of these options are simple and there are always tradeoffs.

I think you may be misreading this. This isn't about some person becoming a new Christian. It's about a member of high society wearing a cross during a turbulent period of competing peoples within Britain shifting from paganism to Christianity, at a time when religious symbolism was central to (synonymous with?) political symbolism.

I respect that you feel safe in taking the lane and following the law. I agree with what you say about riding on the sidewalk.

One of my greatest fears when riding a lot in the city was being run over from behind. This is more common on country roads, where I believe it's the leading cause of cyclist fatalities in collisions, but I still saw it as a constant threat in the city. Especially when vehicles would intentionally tailgate me in the lane, rev their engine to speed toward me, slow down and repeat, etc.

In _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson, the author describes two opposing frames of mind that a cyclist must maintain simultaneously in traffic: 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me, and 2) I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over. Only by riding in a way that is defensive to both cases can I approach a guarantee of safety.

I do not trust drivers to respect my presence on the road. This is a perspective I have learned repeatedly through experience.

With pedestrians, I ride such that no matter what they suddenly decide to do, to respond weirdly to my presence, it doesn't matter. They can start running, they can stop on a dime and turn around, they can fall over, and I will have positioned myself not to be in their way.

I'll also say I don't really have a proposal. I'm not saying everyone should follow the way I ride. Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.

Here is a grossly simplified illustration:

I'm approaching an intersection on my bicycle and the light ahead is red. The motor vehicle traffic is stopped at that red light. I pass by that stopped traffic and get closer to the intersection. My head is largely above the cars stopped at the crosswalk and I have good visibility. I scan the entire intersection (from an elevated view standing up on my pedals, without any pylons or mirrors obstructing my view as in a car) and note that there are no pedestrians in or entering the crosswalk, and no motor vehicles approaching cross-wise (the intersecting street that has a green light). I can clearly see that the way is clear and it is safe to proceed.

The law would say I should stop and wait for the light to turn green. However, when the light turns green, all the motor vehicle traffic anxiously accelerates and jockeys for position in the intersection. If I'm in a bike lane, some of the traffic may be attempting to turn across my lane (and right into me) to beat the pedestrians into the crosswalk. If I've taken the lane and I'm between a car ahead of me and one behind me, the car behind me may get upset that I'm not moving quickly enough and honk, swerve around me, tailgate me, etc. This is unsafe and frightening, and I seem to be slowing other people down.

Instead, if I arrive at that red light and I can clearly visualize that it is safe for me to proceed, I will then proceed through the light and get out of everyone's way while having an impact on basically no one. Still, the folks in cars will be very upset with me, and sometimes still honk, or write angrily on message boards about bike scofflaws, because I'm breaking the law (I suspect it's more that they're upset they're stuck in their car and experiencing classic road rage), even though if I had remained with them at the light, I'd likely just be getting in their way.

---

To move on from the grossly simplified example, there is a matter of degree to how clear the intersection is. Maybe there is a pedestrian just entering the crosswalk, but I'm in the center of my lane a good 15 feet away from them. That still seems safe to me. Or there is a car approaching the intersection that has the green, but they're still a good 50 feet away and I have plenty of time to make it through the intersection.

On the one hand, some more reckless/careless riders will make closer calls than I would think are acceptable or safe. And on the other hand, many pedestrians who don't have honed spatial awareness will insist they were "almost hit" by a cyclist when it really wasn't close and the person could have suddenly sprinted and not been in danger.

As I learned how to ride in the city, I had to start safer and gradually find my way to what I considered acceptable. I couldn't rely on the law to tell me, because if I followed the law, I'd be risking my life unnecessarily.

I'm not trying to say it's clear or obvious what the rules should be, but just that in the current situation, applying the existing laws evenly to cars and bikes doesn't make sense.

This person wasn't performing an "Idaho stop" if they failed to yield to a pedestrian. They were just riding recklessly.

Are you also against using cars for commuting, since they kill pedestrians all the time?

Completely agreed. There's plenty of existing cyclist behavior that is not scalable and should be discouraged in whatever bike-specific rules of the road are considered.

In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane), and how opposed those things often are to the law. As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe, while keeping my first priority never to endanger pedestrians or other cyclists. A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.

Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit. But people have become so inured to the constant threat and frequent (and often fatal) harm of motor vehicles, that they fixate on and exaggerate the threat of cyclists, and illogically insist that they need to follow the same rules of the road as cars.

Cyclists should follow rules of the road -- special rules created for a special vehicle.

I would play it!

It's not a good example -- he's implying that you're irrationally upset over not liking a book while other people do like it, not that the book itself was too difficult for you.

If this is what you're interpreting as people talking down to you / claiming that you're too dumb to understand a smart book, you may want to consider that it's a you being overly defensive thing. You're allowed to like what you like. If some people have been dicks to you about your taste, I don't see how that has anything to do with this book. Forget those people.

I believe Massachusetts is suffering critical drought: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/drought-status

"It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius; Nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." - Richard Dawkins

I think the theory's genius lies in its radical approach to what primitive consciousness might have been like to experience subjectively, however wildly off the mark the theory may be. That experience is likely to have been so different from the modern mind that imaginative hypotheses like Jaynes's should be welcome food for thought.

It would be nice to keep the technology/medicine that keeps mothers and babies alive through childbirth, though.

Great story, thanks. I wouldn't say that role-playing a pirate in a game where players willingly submit to the risks of low-sec space is not nice. You were providing an important service that made the game feel exciting and interesting!

The faster and heavier you are, the more capacity for harm you have, and the more you must pay attention to just the road in front of you instead of the world around you.

Some people feel in control of their life, have a support system, etc. and believe that such things could never happen to them.