For what it's worth 2 out of 3 subway lines are already fully automated. They started in 2008.
Trams have the same issues as self driving cars though: you need to 100% reliably detect people in front of the carriage. And you can easily find tests with Teslas which just run over a child sized doll because they didn't detect it properly. The tech is just not there yet.
No shit it's bullshit. It's a meme about AI text in a research paper that makes fun of Elsevier by having ChatGPT write an apology template for Elsevier.
It doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion. Basically everyone is aware of those arguments. The top level comment states some facts (e.g. climate change), but does not offer deeper insight or start a discussion. Nothing was gained from reading that comment, so it may as well not have been written in the first place.
In order to turn it into a meaningful contribution the author of said comment should have added something more.
For example by going into how they feel those facts are insurmountable and therefore how they see the demographic changes as inevitable and what sort of effects this will have on their personal life/on their community/on their country. This can then lead to a discussion about the severity of the effects and people can contribute what they think possible solutions are.
Or for another example, one could use these effects on demographic change as a basis to start a discussion about one of the contributing factors. i.e. take the difficulties that arise from lower birthrates as an argument for better family oriented policies/for more climate action/against bodily autonomy (that one would certainly start a fierce discussion, lol)
I don't understand why Ptolomy XII and Cleopatra III are drawn with a different connection to their parents. The local tree looks the same for both, but the lines are drawn differently.
Edit: nevermind, I scrolled down and saw the comment with the better picture.
For what it's worth, I think even for disk storage tags would be better - but we don't have a filesystem that supports it yet. As you rightly pointed out, widespread support is a prerequisite to widespread adoption.
Tags allow set operations (union, intersection, etc) that are impossible with a tree based file hierarchy, even when using softlinks.
For basic usage, sure, you could make a folder for every tag you make and softlink everything into that folder to make it have said tag. But what if you now want all files tagged as "rent" but that are not tagged to your current landlord? You'd have to get the list of files in the "rent" folder and subtract form that list the list of files in the "
<current landlord>
" folder.
If you make tags have an order I'd even argue they are strictly superior to a tree hierarchy. Edit: that means that there is not a single operation you can do in a tree hierarchy that you can not do with those ordered tags.
My comment was not asking for clarification, I am contradicting your claim.
Granted, my experience is mostly limited to python and rust. But I find that in python you reach the end of "jump to definition" much much sooner. Fundamental core libraries of Python are written in C, simply because the performance required cannot be reached with python alone. So after jumping two levels you are through the thin wrapper type and your compiler will give you an "I don't know, it's byte code".
In Rust I have yet to encounter this. Byte code is rarely used as a dependency, because compiling whatever is needed is no issue - you're compiling anyway - and actually can allow a few more optimizations to be performed.
Edit: since wasm is not yet wide spread, JavaScript may be the best language to dig deep into libraries.
Eh, "data available upon request" - fuck you, just add a table in the extra materials part. Also applies to any code written for a project.
I am doing a data analysis that has been described in another paper. Somewhat complex equations, but I managed to put them into code. Except when I use my code to reproduce figures from the paper two of five equations are off by a factor of kT/E_phonon (empirically determined by me, it's just a value that makes my plots correspond with theirs). I have absolutely no effing clue where that discrepancy is coming from. They clearly wrote code for their paper but it's not online and while I did have a pleasant correspondence with the author, they (understandably) do not have time to go digging for 10 year old code.
Train or car. Car free mostly refers to inner city trips, for special occasions it's totally fine to use a car (e.g. moving, buying something big, a weekend trip, etc)
What do you do if the city has high slopes making walking and biking too hard?
Bus, ebikes, other types of electric assist stuff, walking. Crazy steep slopes do put a limit on exclusively human powered mobility (i.e. walking and cycling), but those places are incredibly rare.
Or how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?
A walkable city features amenities close by, plenty of benches to rest, and a solid bus system. There are absolutely no issues for people with restricted mobility. This applies to people with disabilities as well btw.
In fact I would turn that question around: how do elders deal with the requirement to drive a car to get groceries, etc? Isn't that like super duper dangerous?
Colloquially it is used to refer to the capability of a place that allows its inhabitants to live car free.
Completely banning cars is rarely a demand because it makes no sense. A car is not a problem, hundreds of them are. Especially if they are used and required for everyday mundane tasks.
This is the way.
Install tiling wm, because I can't without anymore. Install a DE, because I actually like the discoverability of graphical settings programs.