californical (u/californical)

californical commented on Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash risk research.google/blog/hard... · Posted by u/aleyan

ip26 · 6 hours ago

Some degree of road safety depends on predictable behavior. I haven’t seen those videos, but suddenly executing a panic stop on the freeway for no good reason at all increases everyone’s risk, even if the car behind you is following at a safe distance. Obviously the following driver bears the most responsibility, but erratic drivers shouldn’t be held to be morally blameless.

californical · 5 hours ago

> erratic drivers

People don’t usually act erratically for no reason. Maybe they suddenly stop because they see a deer sprinting towards the road off in the distance, and the person behind them didn’t see it. There are tons of reasons that look like they “erratically stop”, which are actually genuine safe behavior that the other may not know about.

californical commented on The tech monoculture is finally breaking jasonwillems.com/technolo... · Posted by u/at1as

Aurornis · 17 days ago

> You cannot buy a dedicated MP3 player today with the software polish and quality of life that an iPod had in the early 2000s

I could see how many people would assume this, but it’s actually false.

There’s actually a big selection of dedicated audio players that do the job very well now. The battery life and audio quality are extremely good because there’s a niche market for them with a lot of competition.

If you think the iPod software experience in the early 2000s was good then you and I had very different experiences with iTunes during that time.

The resurgence of retro gear has a simpler explanation: Retro is cool. Vintage is cool. Has been for a long time. The reason we’re noticing it now is because the tech things we remember are finally passing that threshold where they go from being outdated to being retro. Just like clothes and styles that went out of fashion but are now retro-cool.

californical · 17 days ago

I looked pretty hard - I specifically don’t want an android OS called an mp3 player. I want a dedicated media player that has physical button controls (not touch screen), is very snappy, has a good UI, and has a purpose-built OS specific to only playing songs and podcasts, and maybe movies, which I can sync with my computer (maybe with rsync or whatever else). No apps.

The only option that I could find was an iPod classic, modded with an SD card and better battery.

If something else exists, especially brand new, I’d love to know! But I couldn’t find hardly anything that wasn’t just an Android phone with no cell service.

californical commented on First impressions of Claude Cowork simonw.substack.com/p/fir... · Posted by u/stosssik

mrdependable · 25 days ago

A lot of these have to do with other peoples data. Are we feeding these machines social security numbers and other PII?

californical · 25 days ago

I hope not, but… Yes, probably is happening regularly everywhere it’s not explicitly regulated

californical commented on First impressions of Claude Cowork simonw.substack.com/p/fir... · Posted by u/stosssik

nonethewiser · 25 days ago

>Someone who works a basic desk job that requires basic competency of microsoft word.

I dont actually think there many of those people out there. And those that are, are on their way out. There are basically none of those people entering the work force. There are tons of people with that sort of computer literacy but they aren't working on computers.

californical · 25 days ago

Eh, I can think of some examples for sure, I think there are still a lot of people like this.

* Bookkeeper & planning approval within city government

* Doctor/dentist/optometry receptionist & scheduler (both at independent offices and at major hospitals)

* Front desk staff at almost every company with a physical front desk

* University administrative staff (there can be a lot more of these people than you'd think)

* DMV workers

* Probably lots of teachers

Those jobs all will use other software as well, but a lot of their job is making and filling forms on a computer, where they are likely needing to use MS Word fairly often to write things up.

californical commented on Ask HN: How can we solve the loneliness epidemic? · Posted by u/publicdebates

SoftTalker · 25 days ago

Suburban sprawl is not going to be "fixed" in anyones lifetime. But it doesn't have to be limiting. I grew up in a very typical suburban style neighborhood in the 1970s. Tract homes, lots of cul-de-sac streets. But neighbors talked to one another, kids played together, there were summer gatherings in those cul-de-sacs on the 4th of July or Labor Day.

Don't think you have to live in some idealized fantasy land to go talk to your neighbors.

californical · 25 days ago

> idealized fantasy land

For what it's worth, many (most?) countries have most of their people living in places that are not sprawling suburbs. It's worst in the "Anglosphere" countries (US/Canada/Australia) within the last 50-70 years, but it's absolutely not a fantasy land. It's the way things were everywhere before 1940, and most places still are today.

I say that because it is fixable, if we let ourselves fix it...

Your point stands though, even in a fairly antisocial layout of a suburb, you can still usually make friends with a decent number of people nearby.

californical commented on Vanity activities quarter--mile.com/vanity-... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

ErroneousBosh · 2 months ago

> going vegetarian reduce one's environmental impact

Mmm, yes and no.

It depends where your meat comes from. If you buy meat the way it's produced in the US where you have great big sheds full of cattle in the desert with everything trucked in, then yes.

If you want permaculture, you absolutely must have livestock.

If you want arable farming of any sort, you absolutely must have livestock.

The whole thing breaks down very quickly if you don't have grass and clovers growing in fields, and ruminants eating them, breaking down the tough cellulose, and then shitting it out and trampling it in.

californical · 2 months ago

The amount of livestock that we actually would need in that case is probably around 5% of what we actually have (in the US). So it’s still valid if half of all people became vegetarian, and the remaining amount cut their meat consumption to “special occasions only”.

Keep in mind that a lot of our current agriculture is growing feed for livestock as well, so we could cut back on plant farming by a huge amount as well, if we greatly reduced livestock.

californical commented on The great software quality collapse or, how we normalized catastrophe techtrenches.substack.com... · Posted by u/redbell

swed420 · 4 months ago

> It’s becoming exhausting to avoid all of these commonly used phrases!

That's not the only price society pays. It makes sense for us to develop the heuristics to detect AI, but the implication of doing so has its own cost.

It started out as people avoiding the use of em-dash in order to avoid being mistaken for being AI, for example.

Now in the case of OP's observation, it will pressure real humans to not use the format that's normally used to fight against a previous form of coercion. A tactic of capital interests has been to get people arguing about the wrong question concerning ImportantIssueX in order to distract from the underlying issue. The way to call this out used to be to point out that, "it's not X1 we should be arguing about, but X2." Combined with OP's revelation, it is now harder to call out BS. That sure is convenient for capital interests.

I wonder what's next.

californical · 4 months ago

As long as we can swear more, we’ll be ok.

X1 is bullshit to argue about, it’s about X2.

Since the models are so censored and “proper” in their grammar, you can pretty easily stand out

californical commented on Jane Goodall has died latimes.com/obituaries/st... · Posted by u/jaredwiener

NoMoreNicksLeft · 4 months ago

There is a very simple metric, called "fertility rate". It is the average number of children born per woman over her entire lifetime. Since the male/female ratio in humans is nearly 1:1, she has to have 2 children (one to replace herself, one for the corresponding man) plus a tiny bit of extra... usually said to be about 2.1 children.

If she has fewer than that, population is shrinking, each generation is smaller than the last. In China and other parts of East Asia (not just China, this isn't the One Child Policy and its effects), it's already at or below 1.0. Heading that way everywhere else. This isn't a prediction, it's already happening. And in Europe, in North America, everywhere but a few countries in Africa (and they're trending towards this too).

This is real, I would say it can't be denied or ignored except most people are ignorant and in denial. Low fertility rates can become social norms, they do become social norms, and after that they never raise back to safe/healthy ones. Little children grow up thinking that having one child or no children at all is normal and they do not buck the trend when they become adults themselves. It's how humans become extinct.

californical · 4 months ago

> It's how humans become extinct.

Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum? Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion, and there are times when people have more kids, and times of fewer. Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.

californical commented on EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections earthjustice.org/press/20... · Posted by u/enraged_camel

avazhi · 5 months ago

If I run a business that produces pollution through a pair of smokestacks, and I know that the pollution is harmful and will give a few of the surrounding residents lung cancer, is that the same thing as intending that they will get the cancer? Or would it be reasonable for me to see the harm as an unfortunate externality that I wish could be avoided but can't be given whatever technological limitations there are currently.

So no, it's not 'exactly that'. You guys hate corporations so much that you are going a step beyond mere negligence and pretending that they are actually out to harm people as the very raison d'etre for their products, as opposed to the harm being a byproduct of their business. I'm not saying PFAS should be legal (they definitely shouldn't be); I'm saying it's lazy thinking that lacks evidence to suggest the harm itself is somehow the motivation, which is what the original commenter suggested.

Do you guys also think all the old asbestos manufacturers hoped/intended that their miners and others working with their sheeting would get mesothelioma?

californical · 5 months ago

> You guys hate corporations so much

Sorry I don’t know who you’re grouping me with, but I don’t hate corporations. I hate people intentionally harming others for their own profit.

> Do you guys also think all the old asbestos manufacturers hoped/intended that their miners and others working with their sheeting would get mesothelioma?

Again, not speaking for a group here since I’m just some guy. But I think when evidence started to appear that “holy crap this is killing people like crazy”, then choosing to allow it to continue - yes is equivalent to killing people intentionally.

I don’t consider “disguising your killing through statistics” to be a reasonable defense. If I have 100 miners that I’ve hired in a room, and I know that 10 of them will die as a direct result of my actions, such as not taking precautionary safety measures… It doesn’t matter which 10 it is, I’ve still chosen to kill 10 of those people.

californical commented on EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections earthjustice.org/press/20... · Posted by u/enraged_camel

avazhi · 5 months ago

> or they want people to get sick and die.

This is the part I've been referring to from the original comment.

Also, once again, you should be careful how you use intention here. Even in the case where they knew about the harms or the risk, you can't impute intention without more evidence. Without that evidence, you should stick to negligence, since that's what it would be and indeed that is what separates a simple negligence claim from criminal negligence (intention).

If you say they intended to harm people or the environment, that's very different from saying their negligence or coverup resulted in harm to people/the environment. Intention is a subjective state of mind of the executives/board/'The company', and while it can be imputed in certain circumstances, it's a high bar. Dumping toxic waste somewhere because you think nobody will ever notice (which they did, in remote bodies of water), and then having some campers come along and jump into the water for a swim (which also happened), doesn't mean they intended to harm those campers or indeed that they intended to harm anyone. It was negligent but not obviously intentional. This really isn't hard to understand. It's also why there were never any criminal charges, not because the execs were long gone. In the US, corporations can be held criminally liable regardless of whether the original execs are still there or not.

californical · 5 months ago

> you can't impute intention without more evidence

If I’m aware that eating too much chocolate will kill my dog.

But it’s annoying for me to get up and walk to the trash can.

So I just throw the chocolate scraps to my dog to avoid inconveniencing myself.

Is this the same as wanting my dog to die? Being completely unbothered by the fact that I’m killing my dog sounds about equivalent to wanting it to die. I’m choosing to harm it to avoid a small inconvenience.

Maybe I would prefer it not to die, but I’m actively making a choice to do something that kills it, so really there’s not such a difference.