thatswrong0

Ground speed and airspeed are not the same thing. You need to measure airspeed directly. And I think there are generally 3 pitot tubes on planes.

> Air speed could be extrapolated from previous air speed and inferred from ground speed, engine thrust, and known weather.

I think this is probably the main sticking point. I don't think you can do this accurately without some direct measurement. If the plane thinks its air speed is fine but it's actually approaching its stall speed because it guessed its airspeed incorrectly, that'd be really bad.

Yeah. And dams can be removed (and as far as I can tell, nature is relatively adaptable and can recover).

My assumption is that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere pose a much greater existential threat to humanity than localized ecosystem damage resulting from river blockages. But maybe I'm wrong.

Speaking of hydro, I do think pumped hydro-storage ought to be looked at a lot more for energy storage (esp. versus giant lithium-ion battery banks), especially as we transition to inconsistent renewable sources like solar and wind. I'd assume that creating new, isolated bodies of water wouldn't incur as much ecological damage as blocking off existing rivers or greatly increasing our mining of rare earth minerals)

And I also lived two blocks away from Moscone for two years so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I understand that anecdata runs both ways, but the tolerance for bullshit here is too damn high, especially how high rent is.

I used to work near Moscone. I know far too many people who share OPs experience. It's a shit show.

It's an _almost_ drop in replacement - when I tried migrating our tests recently (because of memory leak issues / slowness resulting from Jest + a Node upgrade) I found I had to manually finagle a lot of our mocks to get them working.

This is a bit reductionist, as we're talking about vastly different scales of infrastructure here governed by very different institutions with very different expectations imposed upon them by the population.

From some admittedly quick research, there are apparently 600,000 road bridges in the US, and the continued maintenance of these bridges is dispersed between 50 different state governments. The US 140,000 miles of railroad track that transports 61 tons of goods per American per year. The scale of the size and use of road and rail systems in the United States are off the charts massive. This is not to excuse the issues you're referring to (they are real and they should definitely be fixed), but the context in which these issues are occurring is important when comparing to something like nuclear.

And it's not like it's all bad when it comes to massive infrastructure in the US: 1.7 million people fly in the US every day, and the last fatal crash on a commercial airlines occurred in 2009. It's actually kind of mindblowing that flying in the US right now is probably the safest mode of transport.. ever? Clearly the US is capable of regulating _some_ things well from a safety perspective.

So.. there are only 92 active nuclear reactors in the United States, all of which are regulated under a single independent agency of the US federal government (the NRC). It's a much smaller, more tractable problem than general transportation infrastructure.

The worst accident occurred in 1979 and the total amount of deaths in the US caused by the industry are vanishingly small compared to so many other industries (even if you use the worst estimates from the TMI accident). The regulations and associated costs surrounding nuclear are such that we have fewer reactors now than we had in 1990. And the designs and technology of nuclear reactors continues to be improvements upon (what happened at Chernobyl specifically is basically not possible anywhere in the world besides the Russia).

I just don't think it really makes sense to cast into doubt the entirety of the US government's ability to keep people safe at all (including from scary things like nuclear) just because we are seeing _some_ things go wrong at times (and I say this as someone who does in fact have very little faith in the efficacy for the US government generally speaking). Context and historical performance matter.

Not OP but: I’ve been using Colemak for 10+ years at this point.. I switched in the middle of a semester while getting my CS degree to A) learn to actually touch type and B) maybe help prevent RSI issues cause I knew I was gonna be programming for a while (and I have trash typing posture).

It’s a struggle for maybe a month or two completely upending your muscle memory.. but retaining the locations of AZXCV from QWERTY did help a lot with transitioning. The hardest part for me was how S is moved one character over to where D is (took a while before I stopped making S related mistake..).

I think I practiced typing every day deliberately for a few months until I didn’t feel like I had to consciously think about it anymore and was up to ~80WPM again. No regrets here.. and it’s always amusing watch people use my computer at first

Agree entirely with your assessment. I find Copilot / ChatGPT to have varying degrees of utility, but neither tool ever makes me less productive. To your point, they do generally make me more productive, as they can help me debug / explain errors and code I'm unfamiliar with way better than Google can, assist in a new problem space and do some basic introductory scaffolding, and they help me write boring ass code more quickly (e.g. lots of unit tests with different conditions). Copilot especially does a great job at understanding the context of what I'm working on.. suggesting imports or autocompleting entire test cases based on my test description string.

It isn't quite "read-my-mind" level _yet_.. but it did feel magical for a while until I got used to it as part of my workflow.

Statistically yes. But I can imagine the risk/benefit calculation becomes a bit murkier if you live somewhere rural where you’re effectively “on your own” when it comes to police response time.

For sure. Whenever I drive in the sunset, I'm blown away with how unnecessarily wide all of the streets are, how it encourages drivers to go 30+ when they should be going 20, and how few protected bike lanes exist taking advantage of all the extra asphalt.

They could take even just a couple streets, convert them to be narrower, calm traffic, and create safer spaces for pedestrians and bikers all in one go.

I swear I don't mean this in a snarky way: I don't quite understand how, functionally, interpreting the law is all that different from creating it. Deciding to interpret a law one way or the other (because of the ambiguity of language and intent behind laws) has impacts on people's lives, the freedoms they have, what rules they are subject to, etc.

Yep. It's dangerous and it's just not appealing. Even in SF, despite parking being a pain, I've grown to prefer driving places to walking (beyond ~10-15 minutes radius) because:

A) Sidewalks are just too damn cramped. Pedestrians feel like 2nd class citizens to cars

B) Public transit, to get longer distances, is unreliable and often chaotic

C) It's faster

D) Besides some parks, there aren't very many places I want to hang out outside at en route to most destinations. There aren't enough nice, safe public spaces

E) I keep my head on a swivel and I still have to dodge clueless drivers who run stop signs or don't use turn signals _far_ too often for how little I walk now. Although I will say that this seems to have gotten worse since COVID for whatever reason.

I don't really see a solution to the problem.. there's opposition to pretty much every baby step towards progress. They tried "slow streets" (with minimal investment into said infrastructure) and... local residents seemed to hate them, drivers didn't care, and police didn't enforce anything.

If you can't beat 'em..

Getting it off the ground was the goal apparently

> the American left systematically attacks anyone who tries to point out the actual data here

And you're systematically ignoring literally everything else I've said, including an article pointing out the multitude of errors included in the study, references to other unexplained disparities, and I might also just add:

> Cesario and Johnson write that their "decision had nothing to do with political considerations, ‘mob’ pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly."

Even if police shootings aren't evidence of racial disparities in policing, there are a _lot_ of other disparities.. which are certainly worth considering if you actually care about the data.

But if your evidence consists entirely of vacuously parroting Oped pieces by a right wing political commentator who "claimed that 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles were for undocumented immigrants and that 75% of L.A.'s most wanted list comprised undocumented immigrants", then.. I don't know what to tell you.

> you should be aware that this claim isn't actually true

That's an extremely bold statement to make.

The study the WSJ article was based on was retracted: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117

Directly from the authors themselves:

> Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research.

And there are articles that go into how exactly they got it wrong: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/15/police-sho....

On top of this, police shootings are just one aspect of policing. You can find various research that supports, for example, that you're way more likely to be pulled over while driving if you are black than if you are white. And that relative proportion drops at night because it's harder for them to see. They're then more likely to be searched after the stop, and more likely to be handcuffed.

And police brutality is much more than just shooting - I don't think we keep track of how often police officers use _any_ kind of force, but that's another thing that would also need to be evaluated.

There are just... so, so many things you'd need to consider and refute in order to make that statement.

I just started using Copilot and so far, it really does seem to save me time with rote stuff like imports, function definitions, and where I would otherwise be copying / pasting code I just wrote (say, while writing a bunch of tests). Even when it gets those slightly wrong, it still saves me time or at least makes it feel that way.

So overall I'm honestly pleasantly surprised with it. It feels similar to when I got a car with adaptive cruise control - suddenly I'm not thinking about maintaining the correct speed and following distance on the highway, which makes driving for a while require far less mental effort.

I know I probably could have accomplished something similar by setting up snippets or whatever, but I installed it and it immediately started doing what I wanted without having to ask.

Nifty.

Did some digging - it was killed in 2002 but "Biden reincarnated the legislation (now called the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act) and inserted it into the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act -- the home of feel-good laws like the measure creating a national Amber Alert system. President George W. Bush signed the PROTECT Act into law on April 30."

Nothing more classic than government overreach sneaking into legislation marketed as protecting kids.

The RAVE act was passed in 2003 (introduced by Joe Biden funnily enough) and made venues / event organizers liable "for knowingly leasing, renting, using, or profiting from a space where illicit drugs are being stored, manufactured, distributed, or used." with up to a $250,000 fine or "2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person", whichever is greater.

So providing drug testing kits or providing a drug testing station in any official capacity would put the venue / festival officially on the hook for a potentially obscene amount of money because of that pesky darn "knowingly".

Given the current state of the opioid epidemic, I honestly can't understand how this draconian piece of legislation is still law. It is the exact opposite of harm reduction and literally kills people.

Yep. I keep it as accessible as possible and tell all my friends where it is ahead of time to prevent any slowdowns just in case.

The intention is more so for my friends and anyone else around me, but all of that I guess.

I see people OD pretty frequently at music festivals, and while there is medical around, minutes matter when it comes to fentanyl overdoses, and it can take a while for someone to get out, notify medical, and get medical back into the middle of a 10 thousand person crowd.

I wish the US would follow Canada's lead and allow for drug testing tents to legally exist :/

I always have Narcan on me when I go to parties or shows just in case. Feels like something that should be in every first aid kit at this point.

I understand that. But he's making a big deal out of using literally the two easiest tools out there to generate... a tiny awkward two second soundbite in a set. I just timed myself and it took me less than two minutes to do the same thing. Might take longer if you need to sign up first.

And this isn't to say that the time it takes to do something is important - the idea of course matters too. But the idea itself isn't original. And the result is just a TINY soundbite.

So it's just straight up not interesting from a production nor listening perspective, especially given the fact there are people out there doing much more creative, involved, and interesting things in the realm of AI assisted production. For example: https://twitter.com/thisiscyclops/status/1619085469198721038...

If David Guetta wasn't a big DJ, no one would care about this.

I don’t know what else I expected to hear since progress in these spaces is moving crazy quickly. What models?

I mean.. there’s a reason that others haven’t really done this as far as I know and that he only used a tiny sample for a couple seconds: the output from AI voice generation generally has a ton of artifacts and isn’t something you’d want to play on a festival sized sound system for more than a few seconds.

So he basically did the only acceptable thing I’d consider doing with this and.. it’s just not that interesting?

I mean, it's inevitable for a lot of Americans unless they're willing to devote a significant amount of resources and / or time to try and convince local politicians to spend a bunch of money and fix decades of misguided urban planning, while potentially trying to dodge pushback from local interests who think that changes to make biking safer and more convenient is a zero-sum situation that comes at the expense of others.

I would never bike commute where I live currently, and I don't think that will change any time soon despite it being a relatively left leaning urban area.

> you may be okay with a small segment of the population dying at the hands of definitely-not-fascists

I'll just uh.. reiterate my comment from above in hopes that there's some level of introspection possible here:

> The problem I'm seeing is that with some regularity, people are being designated as "intolerant" for simply asking questions, deviating slightly from the most up-to-date acceptable opinion, or just not keeping up with what is the correct opinion to have now. Applying nuance and assuming that others _might_ have good intentions isn't really in vogue

The problem I'm seeing is that with some regularity, people are being designated as "intolerant" for simply asking questions, deviating slightly from the most up-to-date acceptable opinion, or just not keeping up with what is the correct opinion to have now. Applying nuance and assuming that others _might_ have good intentions isn't really in vogue.

OpenAI has a moderation endpoint for detecting "bad" content that acts on text (https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation), curious why they aren't using it.