Readit NewsI took a real-time operating systems course in university as an elective. One of the hardest courses I took the whole four years, but also one of the most interesting. Had a great professor, who gave really demanding, but very instructive, project-based assignments.
I need to find a toy project to play around with this domain again.
Deleted Comment
Recycling raw materials is important, but ideally we shouldn't be constructing buildings that are single-tenant, requiring a complete demolition just to make the land have utility again.
- it never suggests bike+bus, only bike+train
- it will only ever try to put the biking on one end of the train ride, never both. I guess it assumes I'd be parking the bike at the station, not bringing it on board
- you can't actually "start" the navigation for some reason. It will just show the route overview
This seems to be a common problem with navigation systems in general. It's easy to get walking+transit directions, but nigh impossible to get bike+transit, even though all the buses and trains near me let me bring a bike onboard.
[1] https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/26/a4/cb/8f/...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ftdtd2WhghdcYV9R7
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/frank-lloyd-wright-spire
I agree with pretty much everything else you wrote, but this it needs to be noted that most road damage is done by weather and heavyweight vehicles like semis/trash/buses/delivery vehicles etc., not regular passenger vehicles.
Semis et al. definitely do not pay taxes proportionate with the damage they cause to the roads, but then again we all need them even if we don't drive.
Should the rate be higher? Perhaps. But it's already a bit slanted towards vehicle weight based on fuel type and consumption.
Electric vehicles, and especially electric shipping trucks, are going to require finding new taxation sources.
Then maybe it should be Ingredients that is highly regulated as the source of truth? "Contains" is effectively redundant and incomplete.
I've made mistakes on food that has _just_ "ingredients", missing entries while scanning at the grocery store.
Unfortunately, "contains" isn't required, and its location isn't always obvious. imo it should flatly be always required and always in a standardized layout/location (e.g. in a clear to read box).
A Smart car starts around 1500 lbs without driver. Something like a Smart fourtwo can be as much as 2300 lbs.
No person or bike is going to stand a chance against a vehicle weighing an order of magnitude more, even if they look visually smaller.
The idea that Smart car sized vehicles would remove the need for bollards is not realistic at all.
You also can’t judge vehicle safety by appearance. There are a lot of lightweight, small, low front end cars that actually have poor pedestrian crash ratings because the low front end takes people out at the knees. The Honda S2000 is a classic example.
A lot of the internet anti-car anger likes to idolize things like Smart Cars as solutions to everything, but the reality is that any time you have a vehicle weighing an order of magnitude more than a human capable of traveling at 40mph in a matter of seconds, humans don’t stand a chance against it in an impact. Smart cars are great for parking and fuel efficiency, but the idea that they would automatically solve pedestrian safety issues as well is just fantasy. Marginal improvement? Sure. Solution that removes the need for bollards? Definitely not.
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but vehicle size and weight still contribute an awful lot to the >40000 vehicle fatalities in the US each year.
It's a situation of "You know that thing you don't eat, don't like, and don't have cravings for anymore? We made something that tastes exactly like it. You're going to love it!"
I'm glad they existed when I first went vegetarian as they made the transition easier, but its a tough market when people will go off them in a couple years.
I'm not vegan nor vegetarian, but I definitely align with many of the reasons that one would choose to be so. There are environmental and animal welfare concerns with the meat industry that simply cannot be ignored.
With that in mind, I try _choose_ a non-meat-based option when it's feasible. I do my best to vote with my dollar. Beyond Meat and Impossible have made this option available significantly more often in the past couple years.
When I shop for meat at the grocery store to cook at home, I've effectively stopped buying "real" meat for my standard meals. Unless I'm cooking some special or something specific, I simply buy Beyond Meat/Impossible for my standard meals. The same applies when eating out -- if there's a meat alternative, I will go for it (even absorbing the $2-3 upcharge).*
This is not to say that I _only_ go for the meat-alternative-based non-meat dishes. I often go for a tofu or mushroom alternative too. I don't even think Beyond Meat/Impossible taste _like_ the meat they're trying to substitute -- they're just simply good, meat-y, protein-y, umami-y flavors that I simply can't get enough of.
The more options there are for people like me the better. My diet has been able to shift closer and closer to removing meat entirely, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing battle. I just want to eat _less_ meat, not _no_ meat.
* One thing that's frustrating to me as someone that's not _actually_ a vegetarian/vegan is that restaurants often make the assumption that if I'm choosing the meat-alternative, then I must be vegetarian or vegan. No, I still want the cheese or the dairy, or even the meat (e.g.: an Impossible Cheeseburger with real bacon is still delicious). I'm trying to reduce, not _eliminate_, meat from my diet.