Especially when they die after 2 years. Bought 3 G4 Pros direct from Ubiquiti and two are dead. Apparently it's just the POE daughterboard but my RMA requests were rejected due to being out of warranty. My cheap Lorex cameras have been running for 8 years now.
I think cars are more dangerous for that exact reason. I was being sarcastic in saying that roads filled with lots of cars aren't as dangerous or noisy.
For the laypeople: dark matter is literally defined as "the gap between our existing model and the data we've collected". It is not a model, it is merely an acknowledgment of a lack of one (see: the vagueness of the name "dark matter").
There have been proposed models for why this occurs (WIMPs, etc.) but none have been convincing from a scientific perspective, mainly due to the inherent lack of observations which can justify such models.
It’s careless language which positions scientific theories as normative rather than descriptive. This makes refinement look like failure (“Science told us things that turned out to be wrong!”), when actually refining theories is progress that should be celebrated.
Can you suggest an equally terse title that would avoid problems such as "position[ing] scientific theories as normative rather than descriptive" and "mak[ing] refinement look like failure"?
I think you're assigning far too much wrongdoing to this perceived sleight here, I wouldn't even think that saying "our current understanding makes this look impossible" is a way of saying we shouldn't celebrate change and improved understanding, I would instead go the opposite way and think how interesting it is to find things outside our understanding
I'm sympathetic to your point, but this usage of should in a non-normative way is also thoroughly colloquial and understood by pretty much any native english. Maybe there is some slight, subconscious coloration, but I can't think of other things which have had a bigger effect on the public's distrust of science than leaving off "according to our best model" from the end of a sentence.
The wording definitely intrigued me, and I understood the implied "given current models". I think sparking curiosity is more important than catering to someone who is not the target audience of a university news article.
you can build the largest reservoir in the world, but if water consumption and evaporation exceed precipitation in the watershed you're on borrowed time.
Wet forest land cools the air. When humid air hits cold air you get rain. We don’t know the extent to which biological systems create their own rain, but we know it’s greater than zero. Also ground water recharging helps restore the water table, which helps keep the flow rate of the river higher for longer.
So yes, keeping water in the system longer doesn’t magically increase the rate you can draw it down… unless it does.
I wonder how beaver activity impacts evaporation rates versus human reservoir-building? Does lots of small ponds (perhaps mostly in wooded areas?) work better than a few massive reservoirs?
Wait, what? You'd need hundreds of thousands of "small ponds" in the woods to approximate a comparison with a human mega reservoir like Lake Mead and associated reservoirs. I don't really understand the comparison.
I think you're underestimating the extent of beaver altered terrain in the west. Estimates are between 60 and 400 million beaver before the fur trade started. We are currently sitting at 6-12 million and there are a number of watersheds where they have to be reintroduced because there are no populations in that area.
I was actually reading the other day about beavers and supposedly as much as 10% of North America was covered in beaver-built reservoirs and ponds. There were a lot of beavers.
clearly we need a social credit system where citizens are scored based on their financial history, trustworthiness, charitable efforts, and praising the government on social media.
While this driver appears to be facing homicide by vehicle charges in addition to fleeing the scene, it is very common in the US for a driver to kill a pedestrian and face no criminal charges or loss of driving privileges as long as they stop and dial 911. While out walking I often think of a quote from a Freakomomics podcast that goes something like 'the best way to get away will killing someone in the US is to hit them with your car'.
The high rate of pedestrian deaths is a result of policy regarding road design, pedestrian infrastructure and lenient criminal charges. The driving culture is also to blame. Driving is a god given right. Cars equal freedom, and the bigger the better. Pedestrians are a nuisance and cyclists are the enemy.
Vehicles sold now are too fast for their intended purpose. You can buy a Toyota Camry with 300 HP and a 0-60 time of 5.1 seconds. Twenty years ago that was Porsche 911 territory. The upcoming Hummer EV touts a 3.0 second 0-60 and weighs in at 9000 lbs. Insane
100% agree. As a cyclist, I try to stay up on local road design, planning, etc. We design our roads for maximum throughput of cars, without much consideration of other road users. 25mph roads are usually wide enough to safely travel 50mph or more. Trees are removed, which reduces the driver's sense of speed. Crosswalks are an afterthought and signaled crosswalks are a rarity outside urban cores. Bike lanes get introduced alongside 50+mph traffic with no separation.
It's amazing we don't have more deaths. And disgusting we don't do better at designing safe roadway for all people.
Design can be good. I think even with good design we need better driver training.
For example, I have no problem with 55 mph roads along farm fields, even with bikes or buggies sharing them. The idea is that drivers should be slowing and waiting patiently to pass. Many drivers don't even know that the law requires a minimum of 4 feet separation when passing a bicycle. Just like many bicyclist either don't know or don't care to stop at stop signs or walk their bike across a crosswalk when using one (at least slow to walking speed).
To give just a few examples of the legal side of this: Here in NY, killing someone with a vehicle is a misdemeanor (unless you're drunk/high). People avoid this charge by claiming a medical incident while driving, and are often able to drive off from the scene of the crime. Hit-and-runs result in arrest less than 1% of the time. Speed cameras are restricted in number, location (only by schools) and hours of operation (they're off on nights/weekends) by the state. And good luck complaining about illegal/unsafe parking, you might start getting death threats from anonymous phone numbers[0].
It won't shock you to know that people are aware of all of this, and drive accordingly.
Without better/actual enforcement, the alternative is to simply ban cars. Of course, the true choice will be to do nothing and let innocent people die (hey-o covid!).
I live outside Philadelphia and tend to follow the local PHL news (as opposed to NYC's). A couple of times per week, there are reports of hit & runs, as well as an occasional the driver stopped.
In any case, anecdotally, the hit & runs tend to happen a night, late at night. I often wonder if the pedestrian and/or driver were under the influence.* Or, at the very least the car's headlights were off (as I was nearly hit a few months ago because of lack of headlights on).
* afaik, drug and alcohol usage has increased in the last two yrs "due to Covid."
I drove a 1990 Mustang V8 from ‘00-06 or so. It was 0-60 in about 6-flat. So that is a good reference point. Our 4Runner also makes 300hp and is actually sluggish, even by older standards. So not all cars are insane and it is really nice to have efficient 300hp engines for a lot of reasons. My truck makes 500hp and 1000 ft/lbs torque and gets like 18-19 mpg in its stock form. Extremely useful for towing and amazing efficiency given what it does.
So, some cars are too fast, but that efficiency and power also has a lot of practical purpose in many vehicles. Anyhow, I agree with the thrust your statement, but most people are responsible enough to not drive a powerful car recklessly.
Anecdotally, when going on walks in my neighborhood, the cars with massive fender damage in the driveways are the modern "muscle cars": the Dodge Charger, new Ford Mustangs....
Are car manufacturers, knowingly or not, selling a reckless lifestyle?
My anecdotal evidence shows it being mostly small cars like civics, darts, etc that have the fender damage. Most of the muscle cars I see are very well taken care of. Also, when I used to drive a muscle car, the people acting like idiots wanting to road race were always in small stuff like an RSX, Golf, etc.
Most car guys love their cars and are well aware of the power and dynamics that can destroy it (or have it seized). But that's just my experience.
"Are car manufacturers, knowingly or not, selling a reckless lifestyle?"
If they are, it's across the board. Any vehicle can be dangerous - civics, F150s, mustangs, minivans, etc. Many people don't understand vehicle limits, dynamics, and their own limitations. A lot of this is because people have rarely experienced situations that would require, for lack of a better word, extreme actions. Things like autocross can give people some understanding of these, provided they aren't the personality that would use it to create false confidence.
The demographics that buy cars that are high on the performance per dollar spectrum are the same demographics who are going to think twice before or at least delay spending money to fix cosmetic body issues.
"face no criminal charges or loss of driving privileges as long as they stop and dial 911."
I don't think this is necessarily true. Criminal charges generally require some form of intent. That could be recklessness. Most driving doesn't constitute reckless driving (per case law and customary enforcement). The police do investigate. I would imagine that many of the fatalities include drivers following the law and exercising reasonable care (as based on society's expectations), as well as pedestrians and cyclists not following the law. I would love to see the data to show the breakdown one way or the other.
Possibly. I feel split on this. I believe we need stronger testing. But I also wonder, if someone is following the law (which is vast), what would be the other steps for reasonable care?
They're generally not following the law. But they do something like turn right on red without stopping and we consider that a "mistake". Or they do stop but they have 1,000 yard stare off to their left and they hit a pedestrian legally in the crosswalk. Or they're just speeding and we consider 15 over to try to beat the light perfectly reasonable because everyone does it. Being distracted and driving a bit too fast will also be viewed as "accidental" because again it is so common.
We actually have a very high tolerance for vehicles breaking the law (but then whine endlessly about that bike we saw blowing a red light).
I'd argue that if you wind up killing anyone that you were necessarily negligent in your driving and someone killing someone else when they were actually taking due care is extraordinarily unlikely. Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence.
"Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence."
This I why I'd like to see the stats/breakdown. There are more laws that apply to pedestrians than many realize. Like walking on the left side of the road, jay walking, not obeying traffic signals. This could be seen as negligence or recklessness.
There are a ton of irresponsible or unknowledgeable drivers, and those same people are also likely to be pedestrians at some point and exhibit similar actions.
Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable even when they're not perfectly following the law.
Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard.
And I've been driving for near 35 years and never once come close to hitting a pedestrian, no matter what kinds of mistakes the pedestrians have made.
"Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard."
And the laws show that (cars are obligated to try to avoid it even if they have the right of way). The question is what qualifies as negligence or recklessness. In civil law there is the idea of contributory negligence. Meaning if the pedestrian breaking the law by being there then they contributed to the situation through their negligence. This may be enough to prove that the driver wasn't at fault through negligent or reckless behavior if they were following the law.
"Walking is a necessity, driving is a privilege."
Driving is a privilege. Walking may be a necessity. However, performing illegal acts is not a necessity. This is crucial in the discussion of negligence and recklessness. Especially if the activity is reckless, as they know the risks of their illegal activity and accept them by doing it anyways.
"Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable"
Slower, yes. More predictable, no. People can change direction more quickly and erratically (no turning radius, etc). Cars can be very predictable because of the constraints their mechanical nature provide. You also have to see them to be able to predict, which could be difficult if they throw open a car door from a heavily tinted (illegal in my state) car parked on the side.
So, to get back to the original topic... we could assume that the act of hitting a pedestrian is de facto negligent unless proven otherwise. But what would 'proving otherwise' mean? Here I'm saying that if the pedestrian was negligent or reckless, then that could provide evidence that the accident was the fault of the pedestrian. This could absolve the driver if they were following the law.
And let's not forget that there are people who will throw themselves on cars for the payout. Upsetting the current balance could exacerbate this issue.
It is mostly all about speed and kinetic energy and the protection of having a cage vs. having protoplasm. That creates an asymmetry, and cars need to not be treated fairly. They need to be discriminated against. You need to be ten times more careful around people when you're driving than pedestrians need to be around cars.
And if you're worried about someone throwing themselves on your car, have a dashcam and/or get security cam footage. And I live in Seattle where we get a lot of people jaywalking indiscriminately who one way or another don't seem to care about their own safety and I've never come close to hitting any of them either.
There's a real simple tactic to avoiding issues like that which is that if you see someone do anything erratic that you slow down and don't assume that just because you've got a legal right of way that you don't need to react at all. I've seen some videos of truly unavoidable accidents involving vehicles, but I don't think I've seen any unavoidable accidents involving pedestrians, other than the people who hurl themselves on the hood of stopped car to try to insurance scam. Those people aren't dead though.
And I don't see where you've offered any evidence that we have an issue with pedestrians being irrational and you seem to be very transparently trying to flip the blame without any evidence. Find that evidence if it exists. I doubt any traffic safety experts will agree with you though. Most will cite speeding, distracted driving, drunk driving and size of vehicles as the predominant factors behind pedestrian deaths. Everything else is pretty much whataboutisms unless you have evidence and not argument. You don't have the default position here, the default position needs to be that car drivers need to change.
Depends on your definition. They don't need to be treated equally, but if the system isn't "fair" then what's the point of anything? Nobody will follow a system they don't believe in and that doesn't make sense. Cars aren't treated equally, and are held to a higher standard.
"And I live in Seattle where we get a lot of people jaywalking indiscriminately who one way or another don't seem to care about their own safety and I've never come close to hitting any of them either."
If the police enforced the law, then perhaps we could protect those people from themselves. That's the way the system is designed - to have all parties be alert and responsible so as to reduce the probability of two irresponsible parties meeting, resulting in an accident.
"And I don't see where you've offered any evidence that we have an issue with pedestrians being irrational and you seem to be very transparently trying to flip the blame without any evidence."
Do you have any evidence of me flipping blame, or are you just attacking me now? I'm not trying to "flip" blame. You can look up contributory negligence if you'd like. You can look up just about any city you want and you will see a significant number of accidents show at least partial fault on the part of the pedestrian. Now, we could look at redesigning infrastructure to be safer, but as it stands pedestrians not following the law account for a large part of the problem under the current system. Simply changing the system to shift the blame around, as you propose, is not going to result in a safer system (you've shown no proof). Link at bottom
"You don't have the default position here, the default position needs to be that car drivers need to change."
There is no "default position" here, and to assume one is uncharitable and detracts from the discussion.
My position is that we need stricter testing for drivers. It's also in opposition to assuming a driver is guilty of manslaughter - I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
In an effort to explore your position, I've repeatedly asked for what proof would absolve a driver under your proposed system of guilty until proven innocent, yet you haven't provided any. We need criteria.
I've given examples of when pedestrians could be at fault by breaking the law. It appears you are the one engaging in whataboutism since my statements are backed up by law and fact, yet you have provided neither.
Having read this entire comment sub-thread I think you should spend some time operating some small and nimble piece of equipment in an open pit mine, a rail yard or a harbor. The rules on the road are not perfect but they are not arbitrary and exposure to even bigger size differences makes the reasons slightly more obvious.
It does. Have you read it? It shows that pedestrians are at fault in a large percentage of accidents. If we want to change that, then we have to change the infrastructure design. Not just shift blame within the existing system. Just look at their positive example in their article of Toronto having 67% of pedestrian deaths due to driver error. 33% is still a large number worth addressing.
This guy is facing vehicular homicide charges because he was driving an unregistered not street legal ATV and fled the scene. Probably also because he has a history of motor vehicle infractions too.
If he were driving a legal registered pickup truck, and didn't flee (and wasn't impaired at the time) it would probably be a moving violation.
It also seems to me really rare that a hit-and-run driver is ever caught. It pains me to say it but it almost seems rational to flee the scene if you were drunk.
> kill a pedestrian and face no criminal charges or loss of driving privileges as long as they stop and dial 911
If drivers were to face high consequences no matter what, would a possible result be that more pedestrians and cyclists die because more motorists would fail to stop and render aid/call 911?
In general, I agree. The braking distances on newer cars are actually pretty incredible, even for some of the ones that enthusiasts decry has having insufficient brakes.
I do wish more emphasis were placed on teaching drivers the situations where hard acceleration is actively harmful, though. We are seeing some EV accidents already from people not realizing the differences between expected behavior and their behavior.
>>The high rate of pedestrian deaths is a result of policy regarding road design, pedestrian infrastructure and lenient criminal charges. The driving culture is also to blame. Driving is a god given right. Cars equal freedom, and the bigger the better. Pedestrians are a nuisance and cyclists are the enemy.
Yea, but almost none of those things have changed in the last two year - so does nothing to explain the spike in the last two years.
What has changed in the last two years? Police being told not to police, not to pull people over for minor infractions, police departments being defunded or having their budget's cut - or being threatened with being defunded or having their budgets cut. Can't have to both way folks - like it not, the threat of being ticketed, towed or arrested has an effect on many peoples driving habits.
More like blue flu than any real policy changes. The society at large threatening to hold the police accountable for their actions seems to have made them decide not to do their jobs even less than they were before.
Attempts to make the police more accountable are the cause of pedestrian deaths?
Do you have any data showing this causal link at all? Maybe broken down by place so we can see links like the pedestrian death increases match the places that did those things. Since you actually list several causal things, it can be broken down by places that limited enforcement for covid reasons vs those that defunded vs those that didn't do those things? Bonus points if you bother to break out the overly broad "defunded" category into actual policy change groupings, there were a lot of reforms that got lumped into that term, many of them having nothing to do with money to enforce laws.
The parent is not just talking about budget cuts. There were policy updates to not pursue most traffic violations and other minor offenses at the beginning of the pandemic (or to take down the info, but not into custody), like in Philly.
There has also been a push to do away with pretextual stops, which includes a lot of traffic law. Not sure that has been wide spread enough, and may also be too recent, to impact these numbers.
I agree with you regarding lax enforcement, especially in the last few years. But this is also cultural. We have the technology to enforce traffic laws via sensors but even then they are implemented they are often removed by the next local election or blown to bits with buckshot.
My state has targets for acceptable rates of annual pedestrian deaths when designing intersections. I find the fact that we elect to sacrifice lives in order to bump up vehicles-per-hour stats rather disturbing. Again nothing new but helps explain why the US is an outlier.
reduced social interaction in a suburban setting could simultaneously explain both the psychological harm to young men and the elevated 'way worse' things in cities.
