Maybe it's just me, but it seems kind of weird to say you earned $8,200 in "profit" when there was no salary. Profit is typically the excess a business earns above its costs. For a solo founder, it can be a little tricky because the more you pay yourself in salary, the less you have in profit (and vice versa). But here, there was no salary. Maybe "earnings" or "income" would be a better term to use? Otherwise someone might (particularly for other years) think that the business earned $PROFIT dollars beyond all other costs, including presumably some sort of salary for all employees/contractors.
Readit Newsapparent commented on My eighth year as a bootstrapped founder mtlynch.io/bootstrapped-f... · Posted by u/mtlynch
apparent commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan
> puts you (and the cars behind you) in a less-safe situation than if you followed more closely.
Really? All you have to do is lift your right foot very gently until you have the expected spacing again, no need to sudden changes of speed and if you have traffic aware cruise control it will be done for you. My old Tesla S does it pretty well. I keep it set to three second spacing and when someone cuts in front my car just gently slows down until the spacing is correct again; it doesn't brake unless the car that cuts in is very close.
Yeah totally works like that, until you get cut off 10 seconds later by another car.
If this doesn't happen to you, then you're probably driving like I do, and not leaving 3 seconds of follow distance like they teach in driver's ed.
apparent commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan
You might be a bad driver and not even know it.
My decades-long impeccable driving record tends to indicate otherwise. I just don't drive as if I lived in the fantasy land where leaving a long follow distance means I have a lot of room in front of me. It doesn't. It means I get cut off, and the follow distance ends up being shorter than it would have been had I just been following at the same distance as all the other cars on the road.
apparent commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan
That seems like a surprising enough statement to be backed up by data. What is your source?
Everything I've read points toward larger margins of safety (longer distances, slower speeds) being safer.
See e.g. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/252480...
Obviously it is safer to have longer follow distances, all things equal. But you don't accomplish that if you leave a long follow distance that is cut off a few seconds later by another car trying to get ahead. You end up with a constant stream of cars cutting your follow distance to less than what it would have been if you had just stayed slightly closer to the car in front of you.
We don't live in an ideal world, and having a bunch of cars merging in front of you definitely makes you less safe than having a static situation. I try to make sure I can see through/around the car in front of me, so that I have advance notice of what's happening down the road.
apparent commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan
I understand perfectly, 20 years driving, I think people just don't like that the safe answer is to be slow. You will not fix others behaviour, so your options are be slow and generous, get out of the chaotic lanes (unless that's all of them), or join them and be aggressive, claim space, be stressed and annoyed your whole trip.
There is no solution to traffic here sorry, this is more about managing your own frustration and expectations when faced with people at their worst, in the worst form of transport.
The total, confirmed, 100% effective solution is to never commute by highway during peak hours, but few get that option.
It is more dangerous to be slow and have people constantly merging in front of you, rather than be slightly faster and not have all the merging. Accidents happen when vehicles are going different speeds, all things equal.
apparent commented on NIMBYs aren't just shutting down housing inpractice.yimbyaction.or... · Posted by u/toomuchtodo
Is it wrong? If I try to build an apartment building on land I legally own in violation of a zoning law voted in before I was born, by people who never paid a cent for my land, the sheriffs department pays me a visit.
And that would be totally unfair if the law was kept secret, and then sprung on unsuspecting property owners.
But we all know that's not the case. Prospective purchasers are well aware of zoning laws. Same reason you can't build a fuel refinery on your tidy plot of R1 land. It would put existing owners, who have a reliance interest in existing zoning laws being respected, in an awfully unfair position.
apparent commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan
Maintaining a safe following distance is incredibly challenging on busy freeways where hard braking is often 'required'. Most people have likely found themselves in this situation: vehicle changes lanes in front of you; you slow down to maintain a safe following distance, another car sees a gap and changes lanes in front of you. Repeat for your entire commute.
Incredibly frustrating, and I've driven all over North America - there's practically no major city where this doesn't happen. If you're not maintaining a safe following distance on city/residential streets, that's a different matter.
Totally. People will just cut you off repeatedly, which puts you (and the cars behind you) in a less-safe situation than if you followed more closely.
apparent commented on NIMBYs aren't just shutting down housing inpractice.yimbyaction.or... · Posted by u/toomuchtodo
A Reddit-style reply feels apropos here: "That's just like...your opinion man."
And in this case "local laws passed by voters themselves" are one of the causes of the state's housing crisis. I think the state has a legitimate interest in overriding local laws here.
Like if you don't want high density in your neighborhood, buy all the houses. Form a neighborhood association and buy every house that's put up for sale. When selling properties, include covenants restricting resale to a developer, or giving the association first right of refusal. Spend your own money. Don't use state violence to achieve private ends.
"state violence", what an awesome way to hyperbolize! I'll have to remember this next time there's a law I don't like.
apparent commented on NIMBYs aren't just shutting down housing inpractice.yimbyaction.or... · Posted by u/toomuchtodo
State law supersedes local law. These new purchasers would like cities to follow the law.
If you're talking about CA's state laws, you're right that they supersede local laws. You'll notice that I used the word "should" in my comment, indicating a normative view. I think CA's state legislators have passed many laws that were unwise, including several that voters have had to undo via constitutional amendments.
While I would place state laws passed by popular vote above local laws passed by popular vote, I would say that laws passed by representatives, without much awareness of voters that this was their intention, should not necessarily be put above local laws passed by voters themselves.