I mean, I get it, like I can't imagine being new to the scene and starting with "Unlimited Love" or something as your first listen, but of course - if you were there for the "Mothers Milk" era, it's obvious why you'd like the peppers.
The answer is: nobody knows, because nobody pays for anything with FileCoin. The services that get pointed to, like estuary, have the price of "free," and most of the incentives in the system are pumped in automatically to "reward suppliers" rather than there being any value transferred between people paying for storage and those providing storage.
Happy to adjust this conclusion - I've spent some hours trying to figure out how to pay for anything with FileCoin and come up empty-handed. Does anyone want to do a walkthrough of buying the coins, installing the software, storing data in exchange for FileCoin, and retrieving it?
In the meantime, you have to wonder: is this a sort of "you get what you pay for" scenario, and you pay nothing, so you get… no reliability?
Sure, so I’m from a tiny town in New Jersey. I was used to having to drive 30 minutes to the train station as a kid, and there are no buses there, so car ownership is mandatory.
Took a long time to realize that next to one of the buildings in town was a train station. And twenty years ago there were buses, too.
Anyway, solve the last mile by funding transit and rebuilding trains. We had them before, we should have them again.
it sounds like that'd work where you're from, probably because it's a tiny town. you can probably walk to restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores and pharmacies, right? so you mostly need transit for commuting to the city, which is cake.
the suburbs are hell. everything's far. walking is dangerous and unpleasant. the city's sprawled, so everyone commutes to a diffuse cloud of points between the cities.
I hate living in the suburbs because I'm a wheelchair user, and walkable places are safer and more accessible. so I like your idea, I just think the burbs are beyond saving.
I agree. My town has a certain saving grace: it’s really old. The initial town plan was made before cars, so it was, at one point, a sort of walkable place. It isn’t anymore because of redesigns that favor cars and incredible sprawl, but there are still some of those bones in there.
“Modern” car dependent suburbs are beyond saving. We should save the towns we can and resist this suburb-style development in and around cities.
The suburbs were designed around car ownership and home ownership. They are often isolating and inefficient. We need to change our zoning system to allow for more mixed use, mixed density zones which can allow more affordable and transit-connected homes to be built.
Why can't efficient self driving cars also be public transportation?
What if we had a publicly funded self driving car network?
No more drunk drivers mowing down children, no more gigantic parking lots everywhere (like uber, you wouldn't likely get in the same car that took you there).
It would also almost certainly reduce traffic fatalities to near zero.
In my opinion the main benefit is the most overlooked - NOT spending X hours of your own mental bandwidth and focus worrying about crashing a deadly vehicle. You could spend that time reading/learning, relaxing watching a movie, or any number of activities other than driving your metal coffin around.
Obviously there are a lot of hurdles to get there, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Sure, so the most direct answer is that a belief in self-driving cars that are safe and reliable and accessible isn’t grounded in any current evidence. We’ve spent a few billion on development and spun up dozens of companies and so far accomplished - relative to expectations - almost nothing. No self-driving trip across the country, like Musk thought we’d do years ago. The self-driving fleet in SF keeps breaking down.
Maybe in the future it’ll suddenly go from bad technology to good, but in my mind it’s like betting on generalized AI or small-scale cold-fusion nuclear: it could happen, but not a great idea to bet the farm on it.
Second. Car form factor is inefficient. Are we doing 1-seaters? 4 seaters with 3 empty seats usually? So every car has four wheels, its own computer, its own engine, and so on? In intersections, even with self-driving technology that does not exist currently and is showing no signs of existing any time soon - even with that technology, you’re still threading individual cars through each intersection? It’s not great.
Third. I’ve seen no evidence that the people talking about self-driving cars as a shared or car share-like resource actually believe in it. Remember Musk talking about how public transit is gross because other people breathe on you? Or the tendency of Americans to treat their cars as sacred property, so much that they’ll get in a fistfight with anyone who touches them? Transforming self-driving cars to some sort of public-ish transit requires just as much worldview shifting as actually using public transit, but none of the benefits.
So: if self-driving cars suddenly exist, sure. But right now, there is no baby. There is only bathwater.
I totally agree with everything you're saying, there's definitely a long way to go. I am certainly not advocating for going all-in on them any time soon.
I don't see any harm in trying though, or continuing to try and improve them. If we had said that a boom-box sized car phone wasn't useful enough, so why bother trying, where would phones be now?
Besides, you can probably point to any number of people in history that said that humans would never fly, that computers were unwieldy room-sized devices that consumers would never use, that the internet would never be anything more than communication between universities.
It's also just fun to think about the possibilities! :)
I’m totally fine with folks trying - plenty of companies want to build self-driving cars and investors want to buy into those companies, and all that can just sort itself out and win or lose.
The problem is when folks - and I’m not saying just like this thread, but this is a phenomenon in some governance - when folks say that self-driving cars mean that we should reduce public transit or rail investment now, because those problems will be solved, right around the corner, as soon as the cars work.
If/when self-driving cars happen, sure, that’ll be great! People who are skeptical about the technology aren’t going to stop Tesla or Waymo from forging ahead. But car-centric planning does, currently, reduce public transit investment, and self-driving car hype does reduce the political will to build rail.
>Why can't efficient self driving cars also be public transportation?
Cars are inefficient. It has nothing to do with the operators, ride-sharing, time-sharing, clever routing, the powertrain, energy storage, emissions, etc. The form-factor itself is horrendously inefficient for moving people. In terms of traffic density cars are virtually the worst mode of transportation we have.[1]
It's not an argument against automation, it's an argument against cars. (Particularly in America: where people seem to want the largest, heaviest vehicles they're allowed to operate w/ a typical license. On a daily basis I see multiple vans or trucks, most weighing in excess of 4,000 lbs now, transporting a lone individual.)
>In my opinion the main benefit is the most overlooked - NOT spending X hours of your own mental bandwidth and focus worrying about crashing a deadly vehicle.
You can get that, right now, without investing another cent in self-driving cars. There is plenty of time (and space!) to curl up with a good book on a train, for instance.
Zoning needs to change as well. Exclusionary zoning has resulted in very weird town layouts in the US. Make small errands (coffee, dining, convenience items) reachable by walking and the rest reachable by transit.
Really liked the post! I really admire the attitude & intention that's there – at least from an outside perspective it seems like you've made the most of the experience and sort of had fun with it. Hope to take some inspiration from that.
I'm not sure the over-exaggerations are necessary (one of the most important? Everyone's editors?), CodeMirror is plenty good to just stand on its own merits without over-hyping it.
It's exhausting to tailor language to the comments section. I once wrote a post called "the best programming font" and all the comments were about how it was not provably scientifically the best and it was just "my opinion." We're not writing math proofs here, let people express thoughts.
Sure, I'm not saying it doesn't power a lot of editors. But it doesn't even come close to powering the editors most people use daily, so your over-exaggeration just makes the praise feel less like adding value to conversation and like over-hyping something for no reason.
As some sort of reference, the most common (loved) editors are: neovim, vscode, rider, vim, emacs, intellij, ipython/jupyter, webstorm, pycharm, visual studio, rubymind, phpstorm, notepad++, xcode, sublime, android studio and so on.
> Question: Which development environments did you use regularly over the past year, and which do you want to work with over the next year? Please check all that apply.
Yes, CodeMirror is big and popular, and great overall. Again, I'm not saying otherwise. It's just hard to take comments seriously when they are obviously not factual, and it detracts from the message you want to convey.
Edit: To be a bit more constructive: Instead of saying "CodeMirror is what everyone uses!" or "This font is the best font for programming!", try to write out the reasons of why you think like that instead, and let people arrive to their own conclusions. Describe the cases you've seen where CodeMirror shines, or write why and in what cases the font truly stands out to you. And maybe then you'll get a warmer reception in your replies.
Yep, at the end of the day it's just text editor. I hope UX people with coding skills would re-visiting Paredit and make it mainstream. Designing keystroke for the mass is hard, especially for text heavy (e.g. docs) content.
This seems to go beyond choice of words. All you’re saying here is that context is exhausting. But sounds like you’d sooner exhaust your listeners with vagueness then try to exhaust yourself to find clarity.
This list of requirements is long, specific, and narrow enough that it's really unlikely that what you're looking for exists, and if that did exist, it'd probably be extremely niche. At the end of the day, you'll probably have to build your own thing and be the sole maintainer or settle for an application that is not exactly what you want.
Some people are just so ahead of the average. I thought I was pretty good knowing the basics of Rails/Databases at that age, but I was no where near the level of writing coherent posts on languages.
Hope this kind of thinking becomes the norm! There are different tools for different problems, and SPA-like architectures are a good fit for a bunch of hard problems.
As much as I agree with you, I don't think it will. Unaware identification with the mind is rampant and black-and-white thinking as a consequence as well. It's going to take a long time until these patterns resolve slowly.
