The person you replied to said many of them were armed, then said more than one did that, and you took that to mean that's the only reason any of them do that? I think you misread.
The original source in the top comment of this thread is much better than the hit piece linked in the thread itself. Read that and see if your comment is still accurate, because as much as Zuck is a terrible human, this article is presented really dishonestly.
Can you think of anything you can do that is exclusively a positive behavior? Drinking water in excess kills you, excess breathing kills you, excess exercise kills you, I think the logic here can be used to sow the seeds of uncertainty in nearly anything, honestly.
The problem with his work is that a lot of the conclusions he comes to are a step too far, but the problems he identifies with how money is moving or how much datacenters cost or how no one has ever built a 1GW datacenter and we're expected to believe they can build a bunch of them, or even a 10GW data center - those are real.
I am not so sure that those are actual problems? I mean, "they're problems" - but everyone is still acting like it's 1996! The world is changing fast...
And if he can consistently be so wrong on those things, and has no real education in the field, then why the hell should I listen to him when he's screaming FUD at the top of his lungs?
It reminds me of the gold guys who constantly talk about how the dollar crash is mere months away. One day that is likely true, but when those guys predict it month after month and get it wrong all of those times, I don't really take their theses seriously.
There's certain figures he gives that paint the picture well enough without him having to really even make the argument. For example, in his piece "The More You Buy, The More You Lose"[1], a few paragraphs in, he says:
"Hyperscalers will have sunk over $1.3 trillion dollars into generative AI by the end of 2026, and have plans to spend a trillion dollars more next year. On a very rational level, nothing that large language models (LLMs) have done, do or will do in the future can or will ever bring in the more than $2 trillion (or more) in brand new revenue that will be required to make any of this worth it."
He explains some more numbers in the following paragraphs (that aren't needed to make my point), but the problem isn't even that AI can't make any money, it's that the scale of the money spent is so colossal, what they would need to do to actually make it back is insane! They'd need to actually replace most of the workers in the world because that is such a ridiculous, unimaginable amount of money! It outclasses all of their combined revenue significantly, and remember, these companies don't tell us how much money they make from AI (anymore), they bundle it in with other things, and if it was good, you know they'd be shouting it from the rooftops how much they were making.
I also don't take seriously any of his predictions that have dates attached to them - after all, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. I don't trust his timing, but the numbers don't lie.
You don't see cyclists because they don't have to wait in traffic as much, and because there's essentially no safe road for them to travel on. Bike theft is not why people don't cycle, from my experience, it's because they're right next to cars going 35+ miles per hour that would maim them if they got hit, even plastic bollards are enough to get drivers to stop riding so close to the bike lane, which makes cyclists feel safer.
Glad we agree on this, the reasons you imagined could be true or false, the main point is that drivers are going to be affected by the bike lanes significantly more than by cyclists.
> Bike theft is not why people don't cycle
It is in my experience. E.g. I don't bike to work because the office building requires bikes to be stored in the shared storage room and I don't want it to be stolen. There is a bike trail between my home and office so no 35 mph cars you are so afraid of.
Could you please read my message in good faith and not intentionally quote me out of context, then ignore everything I had to say? It's rather impolite, and if you did that to someone in person, they'd probably be rather upset with you.
I think drivers are catered to in almost every single scenario in the United States to the point that giving cyclists any space, any infrastructure, or anything that is not also usable by cars is almost unthinkable. With that in mind, yes, drivers will be inconvenienced. Oh well. They're convenienced at almost every turn in almost every decision about transportation, let's give bikes a chance too.
You have a bike trail? Lucky! I live in central NJ, while bike trails do exist in the western part of the state, where people live here, they basically don't exist and you have to just ride in the street. Almost no offices even have a storage room, so you'd be chaining your bike to a sign, most likely, or storing it behind the building somewhere. You have it better than we do here...clearly, there's a lot more work to be done.
I am sorry, what you wrote looked like you agree that there are few cyclists and you just added your idea why is it so. Did you actually want to say that there are many cyclists on the streets but they are, apparently, invisible? Well, you are entitled to believe this, I took the most charitable interpretation of what you said because attributing the belief in masses of invisible cyclists to someone would paint them completely nuts in my view.
>I think drivers are catered to in almost every single scenario in the United States to the point that giving cyclists any space, any infrastructure, or anything that is not also usable by cars is almost unthinkable.
Yet it's reality in many cities in the US - tons of bike lanes, unusable by cars. You can bring up bike lanes on google maps, show me a city without those.
>Almost no offices even have a storage room, so you'd be chaining your bike to a sign, most likely, or storing it behind the building somewhere.
And yet, the bikes don't get stolen? Not even parts like wheels, saddles, lights etc? Lucky!
You don't see the cyclists because they pass right by - they're only in a particular bike lane that you happen to be next to for a very short time, they don't usually need to stop, and yes, obviously there are fewer cyclists than drivers because cycling in the US is unsafe.
People don't bike here because they can't. I don't live in a city, I live in one of the many dense suburbs (which are denser than many cities in the US) of NJ, where there's lots of roads, and almost no bike lanes. Where biking does happen, they bike in the street, with no shoulder, and hope not to get hit by cars.
The bikes aren't stolen because there are no bikes, because you'd have to have a deathwish to try biking in the road with cars in the same lane as them.
It's the densest state in the union, and the only places you can bike are Newark, Hudson County, New Brunswick, Trenton, Atlantic City, Camden, the barrier islands, and the boardwalks. The other 99% of the state, you're putting your life on the line.
It's about safety. Would you feel safe biking in those lanes? Would you feel more or less safe biking where there are none?
Your ignorance of the road rules might be the reason you can't bike in the streets. Bikes, even in NJ, have to stop at the "STOP" signs and red lights, just like cars - if you don't then you are indeed in danger of collision with cars. You should seek the "driver's handbook" for your state and study it (you can download it or even get a free hard copy at the local DMV), follow the rules of the road described there and you won't be putting your life on the line.
PS. Your response got killed for some reason (very bizarre in an old thread and so quickly) but to answer your question - it depends on the road. There are roads I don't feel safe driving (I live in Austin, where the city decided that the traffic enforcement is racist or something so there is none, as the result there is mayhem on the roads) but I do bike on some streets with 35 mph and no bike lanes without feeling I put my life on the line.
Oh, I see the mixup here. When I said "They don't need to stop", I was referring to straightaways where the cars are waiting in traffic (I.E: They're not stuck in traffic), not at the intersections. Obviously, they need to stop there, except when making a right turn.
I don't feel safe when I ride like that, I've been almost hit multiple times from people going into a turn lane or making a right on red because they didn't even bother looking (or just didn't care and got within like a foot of me to get into the turn lane). Most of the time, it's fine, but what would be a minor accident in a car is going to leave you pretty injured on a bike.
But if there are no bike lanes then how do the cyclist become invisible in your world? Even with bike lanes, I just don't seem to understand the geometry of the issue. If cyclists are passing cars in the bike lane for whatever reason then drivers should see more cyclists than if they were moving with traffic. Or if cyclists are moving slower than cars, then drivers will also see more cyclists. How come you are saying they are unseen in the bike lanes?
You see them for the brief period between them being next to you to them passing you, as compared to cars, where they're in front of you for most of the time you're driving. There just aren't many cyclists in most of them, too, because most bike lanes are like islands, they connect nothing and exist for usually political purposes rather than to actually be a usable network of transport. In cities, this is not the case, mind you, there, bike lanes are usually interconnected enough that one could use them for many trips most of the way, but in the area I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are. What might clear it up is that bike lanes where I live are mostly on straightaways and they give up when a major intersection comes up, the lane just ends, and it might start back up after, maybe.
To paint the picture, imagine it's rush hour, and there's cars backed up everywhere because that's just how it always is at rush hour. You're, let's say, 7 cars from the intersection, and a cyclist passes. You see them for a grand total of maybe 5 seconds before they're too far ahead of you to see, then they turn right at the intersection, and they're gone.
Well, we come to the original statement that you had apparently a problem with - drivers don't see many cyclists but have to deal with the bike lane all the time. Even not connected bike lanes still impede traffic. Also, I don't know if you drive, but you should pay more attention to the road even on a bike, I do notice all vehicles around me, if I had not, I'd been colliding with them all the time.
Obviously, I drive, how else would I get around in the suburbs? And yes, obviously I'm aware of the cars around me when I bike. Please, stop assuming I'm being negligent. When a car suddenly switches lanes because they're about to miss their turn and they almost hit you, it's not because you didn't see them, it's because they're being erratic due to almost missing a turn. When a car behind you almost clips you, again, to make a turn, it's not because you're being negligent. The person operating the two-ton vehicle easily capable of maiming you is. Cyclists have to be constantly vigilant, drivers should be. The consequences for them are more financial and legal, the consequences for cyclists are more physical.
Here's[1] a study from Rutgers about this, it seems to conclude that bike lanes do impede traffic, but the reason is that when a bike lane is present, drivers don't speed and actually come to a stop when making a right on red, and in general, the drivers in these areas don't speed when there's a cyclist there. Speeding does alleviate traffic, but I don't really think the safety benefits are worth it.
I am not assuming anything, this "I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are." indicates that you don't notice cyclists passing by (they are vehicles too).
I think I'm going to stop replying, since you continue to reply in bad faith, and assume negligence on my part, and proceeded to ignore everything else I said so you could do so again.
ROM is to android what distro is to Linux. The term is used correctly here. An android ROM could refer to the stock OS, GrapheneOS, LineageOS, Pixel Experience, etc.
GrapheneOS and other operating systems based on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) are Linux distributions. None of those is a ROM. They're AOSP-based OSes. They're not read-only memory firmware or stored in read-only memory. Using the term ROM that way is very confusing to people who aren't part of communities historically using it that way. It's very misleading and propagates misconceptions. It's not simply about it not being technically accurate.
With immutable distros (see bootc or systemd-sysupgrade) the operating system itself is also only just a read only file system. Does that count as ROM too?
In the context of GrapheneOS, ROM means read-only memory. GrapheneOS does security research on hardware and firmware where the term ROM is useful and very relevant to security. There are multiple ROMs used on devices including the boot ROM loading, verifying and running the SoC boot firmware from the SSD.
Most people aren't exposed to the Android modding communities where the term ROM is used to mean Android-based OS. It's confusing to the general public including technical people. It misleads people about what it is and directly leads to misconceptions which we keep needing to address. It's best to avoid using inaccurate terminology which creates unnecessary misconceptions. There isn't a good reason to insist on using it. We would appreciate if Roblox fixed their documentation to avoid using it.
Might as well just use the term "Android distr(o|ibution)" whenever talking about it. I think its also more self-explanatory vs "Android ROM" if you never heard of them before.
GrapheneOS and other operating systems based on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) are Linux distributions. None of those is a ROM. They're AOSP-based OSes. They're not read-only memory firmware or stored in read-only memory. Using the term ROM that way is very confusing to people who aren't part of communities historically using it that way. It's very misleading and propagates misconceptions. It's not simply about it not being technically accurate.
Don't forget the small detail you're neglecting to mention: That over 90% of their population had already been wiped out by disease over the last few hundred years prior to large-scale European expansion in the Americas. (And it was not intentional! The whole "small pox blankets" thing was in the 1700s, well after most of the deaths had occurred!)
Adding that detail, the situations are a bit more apples-to-oranges.
The circumstances are obviously different, and the sarcasm was my point too: the situation then isn’t the situation now, you can’t possibly hope to compare American history to contemporary Swedish reality. It’s like comparing, as you said: Apples to Oranges.
The article is about how being seen as negative on AI is getting people fired, even if their grievances are legitimate. It's not really about AI itself, it's about the decision making around it.
Not OP; but I would define it as a cluster of specific and strongly held opinions on several topics, such as race/ethnicity, sex, migration, climate change. These opinions cluster together, and produce certain recognizable behaviors including speech patterns, speech taboos, and aggressiveness towards people who do not share these opinions.
Could you not define MAGA in exactly the same way? The opinions are different, but since you haven't said what they are, the definition works for either.
Innovation and change are not worth as much as providing a living wage to those who work for you. If you value nebulous innovation over the quality of life of real people, I don't know what to tell you.
reply