The existence of a credible threat of a fine for breaking the law is enough to dissuade nearly everyone from breaking it. Nobody respects speed limits when there's one in a gazillion chance that a cop actually pulls you over. If they know that if they go over the speed limit the camera WILL snap and they WILL cough up 250$, no chance about it, there's no one that will actually speed there.
"The existence of a credible threat of a fine for breaking the law is enough to dissuade nearly everyone from breaking it."
Yes, but they need to know that threat exists. If they arent aware the bus takes video and sends it to the police, then they don't see the threat. If they don't know you have to stop on a multi-lane road without a median, then they don't see the threat. That's why measuring repeat offenders could be a better signal than an overall number in a relatively short time.
As an aside, diplomats will gladly break laws with a $250 fine because they are largely immune. This is relevant as there are a fair amount in that region. So there are exceptions to your rule.
> The footage is sent to local police for review. If they decide the law was broken, the driver receives a $250 ticket in the mail.
Where is the automation? This is no more automated than a speed camera or a parking camera. It's not even worthy of being called AI truth be told.
Traffic laws are underpoliced by orders of magnitude. Setting aside the general catastrophe which is car-centric (more like car-exclusive) design of our urban and suburban spaces. Technology gives us extremely cheap and easy ways to monitor traffic laws, much cheaper and much more reliable than having a cop roam around. The very least we can do is use it to make cars suck a bit less.
Unfortunately it sounds like this program is designed to maximize revenue for the private vendor, not make roads safer by changing driver behavior. The county is also using this surface-level fix as an excuse to avoid more fundamental road design changes that would actually improve safety for vulnerable road users.
Other automated enforcement mechanisms like average speed cameras and automated tolling are more effective at achieving their purported goals. Ultimately, enforcement will always be secondary to proper road design in both cost and effectiveness.
The speed camera that was found to shorten yellow lights to force more tickets? The flock camera that is used to stalk an ex? These are the cameras you love?
Traffic laws are usually arbitrary, victimless (or at least the perpetrator is the victim), and over-policed because they are revenue drivers and police job security. No crimes, no need for the police.
Is there a concise introduction / overview of jj? I've read 8 pages of this link and the author is still in preambles and considerations... Not my favourite style of article!
You have a DAG of "changes" to the repo state. Each change has a stable ID, you can modify its contents or description without changing the ID. There's always a "current" change checked out, JJ automatically snapshots your edits to files into this change. JJ provides tools to edit changes, describe them, group them into named branches (bookmarks), reorder them, split them apart, etc.
JJ defaults to being backed by git. Each change has a corresponding git commit. When you edit the contents of a change, jj makes a new git commit & points the change at that new git commit. JJ is never actually amending or editing git commits, it's using git as a content-addressed data store.
That's the mental model. It's like git with a lot of accidental complexity (staging area, stashes, commit ID instability) removed.
There are a few ways you can work with this model. I like the following:
When I want to start new work, I fetch any changes from upstream `jj git fetch`, then make a new change after the current `main` or `master` bookmark: `jj new main`. Then I start writing code. When I want to commit it, I type `jj commit` and write a description. If I find I want to make an edit to a previous change, I edit my working copy and interactively squash to that change ID with `jj squash -i -r <change_id>`. When I'm ready to push those changes, I name the branch HEAD with `jj bookmark create`, then push it with `jj git push -b <bookmark_name>`. If there are review comments I squash edits into the appropriate changes or add new changes, and move the bookmark to the new head with `jj bookmark move`. If I want to merge two (or more) branches, I use `jj new <branch_1_name> <branch_2_name> <...>` to make a new commit with those branch names as parents. If I want to rebase some changes I use `jj rebase`. JJ doesn't care about conflicts, I fix them after a rebase has completed, instead of in the middle.
Git `checkout -b` equivalent is `jj bookmark create`
`git commit -a` equivalent is `jj commit`
Git push equivalent is `jj git push`
No more faff than git, I just prefer to do things in a slightly different order. I don't usually name the branch (`git checkout -b` equivalent) until after I'm done making changes & ready for a PR. I prefer to make changes, try things out, get it working, and then rearrange the commits to have a clean history to make my reviewer's lives easier. With `git` that's an interactive rebase, which tends to require a lot of faffing about.
JJ doesn't require branches to have names. By default it just leaves bookmarks (names of branches, roughly) where they are when new changes are made, but that's easily configured. You can even have it automatically create names when you push.
You've got some decent replies, but if you give me some background, like how comfortable you are with git, how much you care about certain details, I'd be happy to respond here with something more concise.
> Cool! I checked the source and noticed that even LLM prefers simplified, high level Rust coding styles: use value types such as String, use smart pointers such as reference counting, clone liberally, etc… instead of fighting the borrow checker gatekeepers.
Yeah that tracks because the AI is dumb as a bag of bricks. It can apply patterns off stackoverflow, but can hardly understand the borrow checker.
The Signal desktop app does both too, I guess, but in a way that actually makes sense. Enter sends a message since IMs tend to be short one-liners. Shift-Enter inserts a line break.
But if you click an arrow on the top of the text box, it expands to more than half of the height of the window, and now Enter does a line break and Shift-Enter sends. Which makes a lot of sense because now you're in "message composer" / "word processor" mode.
I would say it mirrors common behavior in the Web, which in turn was largely influenced by old desktop software: Enter in a `<textarea>` inserts a line break, while enter in an `<input>` submits the surrounding form (or does nothing). It is an established idiom after all, many apps just get it wrong.
I would guess Israel as many do not have deeper insights into the general situation there.
Palestinians in Israel in general have full citizenship and rights and as far as I am aware lives relatively well integrated. My experience is from before the mass murdering on 7th October and the following cruel war so things might have changed though.
The West at large continuing to be complicit in Israel's aggression and genocide is a source of great shame to me. Unlike many other atrocities of the past 75 years, this could not have been done without our help.
A global view is probably not the right way to look at things, encouraging as it may be. Of course globally hunger rates fell and so did child mortality. If nothing else, by the inexorable progress of science and technology.
But what about comparing the same country/region? After all that's a better sense of how things are progressing locally to you, and when people are asked "are things better or worse" they probably compare the way they live with the way their parents lived.
Would you rather be born in 1980 or 2020 in China? In Poland? No question. Same question but in the USA? In the UK? The West in general? I'm really not so sure.
As an American with severe hemophilia, 2020, without a doubt.
I was born in 1978, and in the early '80s, beat approximately 50/50 odds by not getting infected with HIV from the only available treatments at the time, and as a result of this and other risks including hepatitis, treatments were only used in response to active bleeding episodes throughout my childhood, resulting in arthritis in my ankles and elbows by the time I was around 8.
And I still wound up with hepatitis C from near birth (at which point it was referred to as "non-A, non-B", as the virus would not be identified until the late '80s) until a cure was developed decades later, fortunately never symptomatic.
So, while I beat the odds, my life expectancy from birth until much later would have been considerably longer had I been born in 2020, and my joints would work a lot better.
Oh, and as someone who grew up with the Shuttle and attended both Space Camp and Space Academy in Huntsville, inevitable political nonsense notwithstanding, I'm elated about the successful mission.
As for the odds, given the opportunity, I wouldn't even hesitate unless they were worse than 1 in 10.
reply