The trouble is that you aren't chilled at all today.
Tomorrow's government may decide that attending certain protests, or having "associated" with certain people was always a crime. It doesn't even need to be "retroactive", since enforcement and interpretation of the law is always adjustable in the present.
This sort of thing is happening today in certain countries. Why are you so sure it won't happen to you in yours?
You can get doored on either side of the car, and when you are forced to pass, you have to enter the traffic lane, which pressures you to maintain speed.
Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.
Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.
Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car.
I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).
Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.
Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.
In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.
Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals?
If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason).
The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.
Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).
Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).
> The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
That was my point, thanks for making it: There is money for building and maintaining 6 lanes of sophisticated road surface that needs to withstand trucks¹ we surely have the money to replace part of it with a cheaper to maintain bicycle path that sees next to no road wear aside from weather effects. I'd argue that we cannot afford to not have bicycle infrastructure.
You appear to be propping up public transportation against cycling, when in reality they are a match made in heaven. Why not both?
¹: weight factors into road wear by power of four. Double weight equals 16 times the road wear
Because taxis and cyclists are road users like others, car drivers also have to stop if a taxi has to drop off someone as long as it's quick. Same with buses, also. Or trams.
It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.
As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.
It depends how lively/busy the street is, but in towns like Paris, every day I would have to accommodate fellow pedestrians unloading trucks or doing deliveries in the street. The macha lattes doesn't appear magically in your favorite coffee shop.
I think it was perhaps useful, at least in knowing which things are Chesterton's Fence. I doubt that AI can figure that out, since it's not always possible for humans to figure that out either.
But with AI, simple codebase understanding or even just paving over everything, including the fence, is potentially easy, and getting easier each month.
Certainly, a certain amount of senior experience is needed. The AI lacks taste and discretion. But the greybeard sensibilities the come with increasing seniority will probably hold back the new pace of things.
In parts of Europe, it's a crime in and of itself to fail to identify the driver of a vehicle. Under that system, if the vehicle is registered to you, you can be charged criminally for its conduct, and even if you prove you weren't behind the wheel, you can be charged criminally for failing to identify the actual driver.
Driving isn't a game. It's the most deadly daily activity, and while I'm not sure I want Euro-style speed enforcement, it shouldn't be something that you can just shrug off, especially 30%+ over the limit in a low speed area.
I don't think you even need to attack anybody to do this. Just have an AI media package ready for the top-N CEOs, and wait for any incident involving their name and "injured", "hospital", "attacked", etc. Then short the stock, go to social media and show the CEO being transported in an ambulance, or a gurney with a sheet over it, "X still missing", whatever.
Probably automatable, and simply counting on automated systems and panic selling. Might be possible just with the AI package these days (not even requiring a traditional media article).
According to the book, Apple had a special team to prevent divorces among the engineers sent to Asia. That's how long they were over there training.
An argument can be made that Apple nearly singlehandedly advanced China's consumer electronics manufacturing by 20 years, and hastened the decline of U.S. manufacturing while doing it.
China doesn't allow key AI engineers and scientists to go overseas. They literally have exit bans and confiscated passports. The west could have ordered companies like Apple to stop sending engineers, banned companies like Boeing and Rolls Royce from building factories in China, and retained massive wealth, expertise, and national strategic advantage, but allowed it to be pissed away for quarterly profits.
Boeing is a US company. RR is, last time I looked, a UK company. "The West" isn't a coherent political unit.
Besides, this is the exact opposite of the FDI strategy of past decades. How far should the ban on overseas FDI go? Ban on investing in South America? Full capital controls? As you mention, passport confiscation (!) for key nationals? I don't think any of this would have worked for "the west" at any point past about 1970, or even post-WW2.
Airplane and jet engine manufacturing are literally defense industries.
Corporations operate at the discretion of the local government. Corporate charters could be revoked or threatened to be revoked to preserve national interests.
I'm not saying that I agree with or recommend the mechanisms that China uses. I'm saying that the West actually does have alternative mechanisms if it wanted to try.
As it stands, we are now under a ticking clock before China creates competitive, commercial and military airplane industry and begins to massively undercut Airbus and Boeing, and it was our own companies that wound the clock.
This is probably the wrong denominator. There are more than a billion white-collar workers. Making them all just 10% more effective would possibly be worth more than $650B/year (~$650/worker).
Die size increases cost exponentially, by decreasing chips per wafer and decreasing yield.
I expect that this kind of burned-in model is also very difficult to verify (how do you know if some of the weights are off), and not amenable to partial disablement to increase yield. For CPUs, you just laser disable bad cores. Can't forego part of a neural net.
You can ablate surprisingly large chunks of a model with near to no effect, you can try this easily - download an open weight model in torch.
Obviously it’s not ideal but you could likely have single digit % of all weights affected and still have a useful model (many caveats here: e.g. locality of damaged weights matters, distribution of errors matters, fail high/low matters, …)
I mean, you probably can just turn off defective parts of the network. You better believe if this becomes popular they would salvage yields by selling "dumber" chips at a discount.
Tomorrow's government may decide that attending certain protests, or having "associated" with certain people was always a crime. It doesn't even need to be "retroactive", since enforcement and interpretation of the law is always adjustable in the present.
This sort of thing is happening today in certain countries. Why are you so sure it won't happen to you in yours?
reply