> it was uncertain whether New Yorkers who aren’t used to cycling on the city’s inconsistent network of bike lanes —which are frequently clogged by parked or idling cars and trucks — would take the mayor’s advice
The notion that New Yorkers use bike lanes is funny. I live on a major Manhattan avenue with a bike lane and there is at least three times as much bicycle traffic on the sidewalk right next to it. Even motorized scooters are more commonly seen on sidewalks than the road. When I lived in Brooklyn I learned to peek my head around the corners of pedestrian bridges because motorists and cyclists will speed around them recklessly. The food delivery gig industry has put this behavior into high gear. It’s illegal, but New York laws are more like guidelines.
From my fire escape I can see a vacant lot that is used to store stolen bicycles while they are advertised on craigslist. I guess I wouldn’t have to go far if I decided to buy a bike.
Major Manhattan avenues are thronged with people. Bicycling on the sidewalk is going to be way slower than using the bike lane. Plus sidewalks are bumpier with more obstacles... what cyclist is going to choose the sidewalk?!
I use Citibike all the time in Manhattan. The only bicycles/scooters I see on the sidewalk are the ones pulling up to a building on that block. Everyone else is on the road because it's just faster and easier and safer.
The only blocks where you see cyclists possibly more often on the sidewalk are the handful of cobblestone streets left in the city, which are honestly just murder to bike over. Or a certain small number of roads that function more like highways where cycling in the road is unsafe period.
Most of Manhattan is north of 59th street and most of the day is not rush hour. It is so bizarre to me that I would be accused of lying about something like this. I hear complaints about cyclists from all kinds of New Yorkers, especially those who are cyclists and bother to follow the rules to the best of their ability.
Edit: I am abandoning this account. I was downvoted below for refusing to specify where I live. This community is not worth being a part of.
I removed that level of specificity out of an abundance of caution. I still use the internet by the rules of the 90s, except that I no longer ask my parents for permission to visit AOL keyword “kids”.
There needs to be consistent and safe bike lanes first, including sharp enforcement against drivers who don't honour them.
I made the same decision years ago at University. I'd much rather risk a ticket or minor pedestrian accident by riding on the sidewalk than risk my life comingling with cars who don't give a shit.
> Übermenschen – machine-men, aerialists and space-bound conquistadors – tantalised philosophers and beguiled fascists
Articles like this seem to take advantage of the misunderstanding of Nietzsche without directly endorsing it. The actual concept of "ubermensch" would have no place in this article.
The term was coined by Nietzsche and referred to a futuristic human who was raised without the influence of religion or superstition and without having interacted with anyone who has such influences. In his view these people would be liberated from what he saw as the oppression of Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions), which he felt encouraged people to accept meekness, suffering and poverty in exchange for a pleasant afterlife. He called Christians "preachers of death" and encouraged people to abandon complacency for a "will to power". It is an appeal to a superior type of person but it is intended to encourage rational cultural development. The term itself has nothing to do with technology or ethnicity.
By now everyone knows that his work was bastardized by the Nazis but many seem to prefer the controversy of the Nazis' version over what he actually wrote. He spoke out in defense of the Jewish people and even stopped doing business with and publicly rebuked a publisher who was an anti-Semite. We have gotten really good at remembering the hateful and forgetting the rational.
Couldn't have described it better. I felt myself vomit a little bit at how deeply the author misunderstands the philosopher he bases his entire pieces title on.
The piece is nothing more than a banal juxtaposition of modern issues (fascism! technology!) to an uncontroversial call to some "spirituality" of an arbitrary sort known only to the author. Oh yeah, and superheros.
I don't think Nietzsche quite fits this context. "Will to power" without meekness, suffering, or poverty seems to fit a supervillain more than a superhero.
But how do we know no one showed up? Someone could have showed up, stuck him in a time machine and took him to the real party then zapped him back to his time not a second later. :conspiracy:
I like classes. But you must understand your code, even before you write it. If the syntax that you use (the author is using TS, and JS/TS classes are syntactic sugar) matches your mental model of the program then I would say that you are choosing the correct syntax.
If it’s your library and your responsibility then I will try to read it your way. Comprehensive testing and consistency in style are more important than any specific syntax or abstraction.
This is the exact attitude described as being destructive in the article. It is also plainly illogical. It is so obviously illogical that it is boring. By doing normal things one spreads the virus, killing people and grinding businesses to a halt. This argument boils down to stopping deaths by increasing infection rates.
Keychain Access is good if you can accept an Apple solution. Apple software of course requires their hardware, which is a deal-breaker for many.
RememBear is made by the company that runs TunnelBear, which is a performant, permissive and reasonably transparent VPN platform. I have not tried RememBear but I would start there due to my positive experience with TunnelBear.
I like it, but idiomatic symbols are tough. When I look at some functional languages they seem so dense with operators that I have to use some inference (which I probably get at least partially wrong) to glean the meaning. This is a good operator that, in my opinion, should be in a dynamically-typed object-oriented language. But it is not as universally understood as most of JavaScript.
There is a place for languages that use more keywords and fewer operators as a design choice. Of course there also need to be languages that don’t have the undefined/null value and don’t need this.
Freedom of speech is not the freedom from consequences. One has the right to be rude and the inextricable burden of being judged.
Intentional rudeness is an expression of emotion. Fundamental truths and well-reasoned arguments, despite the article’s claim, do not require emotional expression. Open source contributors are neither punching bags nor therapists.
Cold analysis and reason are rarely motivational or persuasive on their own. None of us like to admit it but our lives are emotionally driven pretty much all of the time, even when we're trying to be reasonable. To lead, persuade, and negotiate effectively with other human beings you need to be able to press emotional buttons.
While someone who is rude all the time, or unnecessarily, is probably not someone you want to work with. Well timed rudeness does have its place in a constructive conversation. Just like analogy does, or hyperbole, or reason - each have their place. To snap people back on track, to be understood, to escape being bogged down in irrelevant detail, convincing others of behavior or actions that are truly unacceptable to you, etc.
I really like this about Rust, implementing equality is just another trait. The same is true of comparison operators. If you don’t want a type to be able to be compared by == you can make it always evaluate to false or even panic and give a message that the type cannot be used in that way. That might aggravate coders who do not test comprehensively but it is an option.
Edit: This is a response to the concerns of the article. For general info on this it’s a great introduction to Rust’s awesome documentation.
It is determined at compile time; I'm not sure why GP is suggesting returning false if you don't want types to be compared. By default structs are not comparable. If you opt-in to the standard PartialEq implementation using the `derive` annotation[1], it will only allow a struct to be compared for equality with other structs of the same type. You can choose to add implementations to compare against other types[2].
“Option” is the operative word. A type that does not implement the correct trait cannot be used in a way that requires the trait. If you are writing anything non-trivial that would probably be preferable. It requires nothing, that is the default behavior, so I did not bother to mention it.
I don't know why they would make it always return false. In Rust you can just not implement Eq for the type, and it becomes a compile error to try and compare it.
The notion that New Yorkers use bike lanes is funny. I live on a major Manhattan avenue with a bike lane and there is at least three times as much bicycle traffic on the sidewalk right next to it. Even motorized scooters are more commonly seen on sidewalks than the road. When I lived in Brooklyn I learned to peek my head around the corners of pedestrian bridges because motorists and cyclists will speed around them recklessly. The food delivery gig industry has put this behavior into high gear. It’s illegal, but New York laws are more like guidelines.
From my fire escape I can see a vacant lot that is used to store stolen bicycles while they are advertised on craigslist. I guess I wouldn’t have to go far if I decided to buy a bike.