I looked into that the first time I heard about PIX, but from my understanding after reading up on it, PIX is very similar to the existing Canadian Interac/eTransfer system. Both only work in their respective countries and give the easy ability to share money with businesses or each other. But they are based on instant transfer from one bank account to another, and aren’t credit-based like Visa/Mastercard.
I’m all for having better transit, but I think that if you didn’t have to design around a peak period where everyone had to get from the suburbs to the downtown core and back, you’d be able to move the bussing around so that it provided better routes and more even coverage, and you wouldn’t necessarily have to spend more to get that result. I would advocate for that and keeping people home to see how it works in a given city before building. But I’m sure that even with reduced demand, there are cities that have less rail then they should.
The news of being able to use or disable all of the AI features was in the original announcement as well, but it was pretty clear that most of Lemmy just read the headline and leaned into it.
Dug it out of the ground myself!
I hate that this is the default thinking here. We just need to get people out of the office and we can stop wasting money on office buildings, roads and transit. We have plenty built already if we didn’t insist on forcing everyone to go somewhere every day to do something they just as easily could have done at home. Not building out more than we need also helps with that whole boiling ourselves in our own atmosphere thing too.
But do you mean literally everyone or literally everyone?
It was very neat and definitely felt more like a pilot with how much it left unresolved. So much potential.
Can I do three? Reaper, Dark Matter (2015) and The Lost Room.
Fools the reporter or the AI tool they didn’t bother to check up on?
Pour one out for Leslie Horwinkle.
For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don’t think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.
The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn’t take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.
And you’ll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That’s because it’s immaterial. I’m merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn’t big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can’t stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.
No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don’t understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.
Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn’t relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.
Simply not true though. Someone who doesn’t want PTSD from turning a human being into a big red crayon is going to make panic maneuvers, which could very well cause a different fatal crash. There are lots of “good” arguments as to why we should be able to ignore traffic signs under certain circumstances, but they all require that humans consistently get it right. Take the extra seconds to stop and make the roads safer for everyone, or if that is so much of an imposition, please just take the bus.
Yep, can confirm. And in about six hours it will become an ableist slur against the hard of hearing.
Blue dress with a stain on it, I expect.
I think all trans people should have the right to choose bone or no bone.