Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA
Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.
To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.
If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.
So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn’t really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it’s just that; an explanation, not a justification.
Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it’s a bad example? That would bring some quality in.
FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.
Adding a comment so people can experiment more in this thread.
Just a guess: to prevent bots from scraping the full content?
So why is this? The answers so far seem unsatisfactory, since things like phones, SUVs and car-centric infrastructure are on the rise in other countries as well, without that staggering rise in deaths.
I spent about 3 minutes browsing the report linked in the article, and am rather less confident than before. For example, on pages 25 and 26 they look at the share of SUVs in deaths and sales. And while both figures are rising, the bodycount from non-SUVs has gone up as well.
The answer is probably not a single factor anyways. Can anyone make a more or less informed guess what might explain the US being so bad?
Are the Dutch naturally more responsible drivers or something?
Maybe: https://www.dutchreach.org/
But don’t take that as a conclusive answer, your question still stands.
Best take imo. Yes, the “bliss” is that we are ruled by ruthless billionnaires instead of cruel dictators. At least some of us.
As pointed out in my top level comment, the post is quite one-sided, omitting the dark truths. Cooperation is the overall best strategy, but so is to exploit as much as you can. Both are true, the combination is true.
Yes, and no.
First and foremost, you need no “justification” for being a decent person. And there are other reasons to be that way, as arbitrary as “I like it this way”.
Game theory is strongly related to evolution. It is safe to assume that everything we can observe in nature is a successful strategy. So this confirms the statement: Cooperation is a successful strategy. But the other side of the picture also exists: Betrayal is as well.
What the excerpt omits about the Prisoner’s Dilemma (not sure wether it’s mentioned in the video, which I did not watch now): The Nash Equilibrium can be the overall worst outcome. What does that mean?
A Nash Equilibrium is a situation in which no player can improve their own position. It is therefore a stable state. Things will change until they have settled in a stable state. It can be shown for Prisoner’s Dilemma that the Nash Equilibrium can be the worst case, where each betrays the other. Yes, they would both score better if they cooperated, but the system will still tend towards the state where both play nasty.
When multiple iterations are played, this changes a bit. It seems, if you not just meet once in a lifetime, but can remember your past, and have a common future, it makes more sense to cooperate. But there is still a place for uncooperative exploitation.
So yes, it’s true what you say about “best performing strategies”, but it should be noted that “evil” strategies don’t go extinct either.
It should be questioned how much these theories can be applied to our lifes. I mean questioned, not implying an answer. Either way I find it interesting how behaviour which we associate with morals emerges in very simple and abstract games.
One reason might be: Each instance only has a partial knowledge of content in Lemmy. It can be unaware of certain communities on other instances, if your instance has not discovered them yet. Hence the need for all these meta-search tools.
I feel like I’m pretending to know what I’m doing.
I guess that explains the observation. As kids, we’re fooled by the pretenders. So we grow up with this expectation.
I feel the most consequent stance is to demand all the things. Not to reject all the things except for the one pure solution.
As long as ICE vehicles are still sold, even make up the most of the sales, supporting EVs is moving in the right direction. At the same time, even better solutions can be demanded and supported.
They eliminate a part of the emissions, since one big engine (like a power plant) can be run more efficiently than many small engines (in individual vehicles).
Similarly, transporting electricity through wires creates less emissions than transporting fuel with trucks. Both serve the purpose of refueling other vehicles.
Even coal powered EVs are better than gasoline cars.
If you are not in charge, replace the “You” with whoever is in charge. When you said “I won’t give it up” it seemed you had some control.
If that wording makes a difference, these people should not be in charge of what energy enters their home, or not be in charge period.
Also TIL, the attempt to rename it is not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Name
You can install your own panels and turbines and storage, or do it together with some neighbors or the city.
Independence is possible with renewables, but not so with fossil fuels.
Yes, I feel you.
And yes, that’s how it is. It’s an insanely complex industry if you really want to understand how things work.
Which you don’t need to get things done.
Which you still can if you really want, if you’re willing to invest the time and energy to study it thoroughly for many years if not decades.
But even then, chances are you’ll be touching libraries, concepts or technologies which you did not study in-depth yet. I think you need to be both aware and tolerant of limited knowledge, and willing to learn continuously.
For those who don’t know what Firefish is: https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_is_Firefish%3F
Hehe, good point.
I think AI bots can help with that. It’s easier now to play around with code which you could not write by yourself, and quickly explore different approaches. And while you might shy away from asking your colleagues a noob question, ChatGPT will happily elaborate.
In the end, it’s just one more tool in the box. We need to learn when and how to use it wisely.