biddy @ biddy @feddit.nl

Posts

0

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

Have a closer read of points 2 and 3 in the image. For most lanes there isn't enough width for cyclist + wobbling side to side + 1.5m margin + car. So the car needs to overtake in the other lane, which means the other lane needs to be completely free of cars.

If it's faster to get an AI to write your commit messages than to write them yourself, your commit messages are too long. They should be one sentence.

A single rail clamp would have a lot of friction because you need contact all the way around the wheel, increasing the surface area. The reason why regular train wheels are so efficient is because they're balanced on top on a tiny surface area, using the clever tapered shape of the wheels to go around corners without jamming against the side of the wheel.

Balancing on a single rail is practically impossible. However a common design for rail bikes is to have a normal bike on 1 rail with a detachable outrigger for balancing on the other rail. https://i2.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rail-bike-conversion.jpg?resize=1200%2C670&strip=all&ssl=1

Metal on metal is way more efficient than rubber on road. Imagine how awesome it would be zooming along a dis-used rail line at 50 on a modern version of this.

This is without mentioning the dickheads who drive at 40 everywhere

Is this 40 mi or km per hour? The UK seems to arbitrarily flip either way. Both are far too fast for a residential street.

But you're dismissing all the scientific evidence that proves that resurrection is impossible. Even assuming all the anecdotal evidence is accurate, which I'm happy to do if it's accepted by historians, the leap of logic from "some people 2000 years ago thought they saw a guy get executed then reappear a few days later, and they were surprised so they started a religion out of it" to "God is real" is unfathomable to me, and dismissed by any serious expert.

It's certainly a strange event in history and we can have a historical discussion about possible historical explanations. But this was originally a philosophical/theological discussion.

I find these discussions interesting. It's interesting to hear other people's world view, why they believe what they believe, and to have my world view challenged.

What part? There's nothing revealing about calling it anecdotal, all historical evidence for that time is.

I just don't think the anecdotal evidence is relevant to this discussion. The claims of Christianity are so great that it doesn't cut it for me.

I looked at it. It's a bunch of anecdotal evidence from 2000 years ago. Anecdotal evidence is well established to be extremely unreliable, people hallucinate all sorts of nonsense all the time. I couldn't find a justification for how any amount of anecdotal evidence can prove resurrection, which violates many scientifically proven theories.

Your argument is called Pascal's wager. My main objection is there's a lot of superstitions to try. If you want maximize the benefit of a strategy like you're describing, you have to worship every god of every religion, obey every limitation on what you can do in every religion, superstition or conspiracy, take every supposedly magical medicine, ect. They all seem equally unlikely, but they are all believed by someone and if true would have huge benefits, so by your logic I should follow all of them completely. Except by doing that I am sacrificing most of my life for the tiny possibility of a benefit, rather than making the most of the life I know I have.

That sounds like a great outcome for the original company

What if they don't believe in Jesus?

Yes, exactly, you get it! I don't like paying for things, you don't like paying for things. Paying for things sucks. We need post scarcity communism.

The last paid Mac OS update was Mountain Lion in 2012. Wasn't the last paid Windows update Windows 7 in 2009, since it's technically possible to update all the way to Windows 11 without buying another license.

Corporate welfare is a problem in all capitalist countries

It's a sad irony that people move out of the city because cars make the city unpleasant, then commute to the city by car.

You're implying that a pickup truck is necessary or even desirable for camping. The civic would do fine, or a minivan or van if they have a lot of people and gear. But if they only camp once per year they wouldn't realize that.

There's a nice explanation of how caddy reverse proxies work here. https://caddy.community/t/using-caddy-as-a-reverse-proxy-in-a-home-network/9427

Essentially you setup your router to port forward any new incoming connections to Caddy, which then decides what to do with them according to the configuration (Caddyfile).

Even simpler: Your local network is like a castle, inside is a safe and secure place where your devices communicate freely. Your router is a firewall around the castle, by default it blocks incoming connections. This is good because the internet is scary. By port forwarding you allow a door in the firewall which leads to Caddy, which is like a guard. Caddy asks them what they want, and if they say e.g. jellyfin.example.com, then it sets up an encrypted connection with https to your local jellyfin server. If they want anything else they aren't allowed in.

No, I don't think so. Living as if you don't have free will would be impossible, you'd never get anything done. We have to ignore a lot of interesting philosophy in order to function.

I guess so. Your question was

Would anyone be interested in something like that?

Which most of us have answered with a clear "no". So I guess we're done here.