I won’t disagree with what you said, but I’ll disagree that it’s the same point I was making.

My point was that there isn’t a technical solution to traffic congestion. You need less fluid or a bigger pipe. What you correctly mention is why a bigger pipe won’t work for humans when it does for water.

And out of pure pedantry, I’d disagree purely because my analogy said “non-newtownian liquid” - those don’t expand. :P it’s more like a hyperactive toddler manically jamming silly putty into a PVC pipe.

Traffic congestion doesn’t happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says “fuck off”, the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.

Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There’s a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.

Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.

You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won’t help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they’re likely to make collisions worse because humans don’t know what they’re going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, “the theory of mind” will break down. Right now they’re so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.

Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.

What, to you, constitutes “shitty”? I’m seeing people giving feedback on their question. The person you specifically responded to and called shitty and self centered just told OP their motivations were childish and their father was pretty reasonable in his request, given the circumstances.

So no, not as shitty as you want just because they asked, but “not being an echo chamber” isn’t shitty.

So yes, I have the gall.

Almost certainly.

They don’t have to, since it’s not a part of the system that it requires them to hold onto the information, but they all invariably hold onto the information to keep training on it, which includes your personal information.

They are likely not using for selling to other people or anything since that’s not their business model at the moment, but it’s probably finding it’s way into the next version in some capacity.

I mean, they literally asked how people felt about skipping their father’s funeral for the given reasons.
If their reasons are childish and disrespectful you can’t really get mad at people for sharing that.

Sure. But also: planning a funeral and communicating your funeral wishes is also for the living, which the father is. and respecting the deceased by honoring their wishes is also for the living, since it’s how we help solidify the norm that we respect people’s final wishes.

Demanding they do it your way is shitty and self centered.

Yeah, how dare that fucking asshole ask his son to attend his funeral just because he cares about “family” or something. It’s like he doesn’t understand that his sisters might ask some slightly uncomfortable questions or gossip!

You’re right that funerals are for the living. They’re a place for the living to grieve, mourn and honor the deceased. Acting like it’s shitty or self centered for someone to express an opinion about their funeral or what’s important to them is honestly disgusting.
The man isn’t asking his son to deal with someone who traumatized him, or violated him in some way: he just doesn’t like the aunts. That’s like refusing to attend the funeral because you just really hate waking up early if you don’t have to.

They don’t need to read you your rights for a field sobriety test. I believe every state has laws that make consent a condition of the drivers license and establish that the tests aren’t self incrimination.

They should have read you your rights but if they didn’t question you after arrest it’s probably academic, since failure to do so would mean the answers you didn’t give to the questions they didn’t ask were inadmissible.

A dwi doesn’t require alcohol. They could just say you were on “something”. It’s a catchall for not being in a fit state to drive.

Anything anyone says here is pointless. You need to talk to a lawyer.

Absolutely no idea. I almost logged on when typing the previous reply to see if they were still offering me the “thin blue line commemorative gun holster” they were the last time I was on, but I realized I really didn’t want to.

I feel like I see it being used as a common enough way for events to share details though, so it probably isn’t just older demographics.

It’s some of that, on some platforms. Other platforms also get paid to promote posts or advertisement. Depending on who pays the most, you can see different things based on your demographics.
An important thing to remember is that they will show you something in the money making category. If they know what you want, they make more if they show you something that’s likely to be effective. If they don’t know what you want, they make more if they show you something targeting your demographic. If they’re fuzzy on everything, they show you something.

Which political geographic is more likely to target Facebook? Which one is more likely to spend demographic money to try to court younger white men from a low to middle income bracket?

Your phone fell off the dashboard phone stand, you caught it and set it in your lap.

Feel free. There’s nothing stopping you.

The reason it’s not feasible is because most human activity happens during the daylight hours. As such, having the unit of a “day” cover what’s typically a day makes things easier.
For example, banks , businesses and schools need to have a unified schedule across a jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction specifies a utc offset that defines the official business day you just have a less coordinated timezone system.
You also make knowing roughly what part of the waking cycle other parts of the world are in much harder. Right now it’s 0100 in utc-5. So it’s 0800 in utc+2, and people are eating breakfast, at work, getting kids to school and so on. If I want to know that without timezones I need to know where they are on the planet and what the relevant legal jurisdiction has mandated as coordinated business time. That’s effectively just a worse version of timezones.

The human conception of time is intrinsically linked to spatial location. Fighting that is just making it hard for no reason. What we need to do is stop fiddling with the time. No more (major) clock adjustments. Daylight savings only sucks because of the switch , so we should just pick one and stay.

It happens every couple of decades with AI. Since it’s a broader field than most people think, we have a pretty long cycle of a new development looking exciting, people getting way too excited and optimistic, the development being exactly what it was promised to be, and then people getting disappointed and avoiding anything with the AI label. Then we decide that because we’re used to this new thing, it can be used in stuff as was originally appropriate but it no longer qualifies as AI, because “that’s not AI, it’s just ___”.

To make the trade? Not actually that long. Planning and evaluating take longer, but he’s inevitably not the one pushing the buttons or making the plan, which is also not something that needs to be done for each one.

It takes me longer to move money between my checking and savings accounts.

The concerning thing isn’t the time investment, it’s the active nature of financial involvement in a situation where there’s a major conflict of interest.
Stock trading isn’t automatically problematic for an elected official, but it’s very easy to produce the appearance or actuality of improper conduct.
The safest route is to turn control over to a third party who doesn’t know who they’re managing.

It’s because I live and work with Muslims. Turns out there are as many of them who hold values I agree with as there are Christians or Jews.

The biggest difference I see is which groups get hate. I don’t see the need to defend Christianity because there’s no pervasive disparagement or hostility.
I occasionally defend Judaism because I occasionally encounter disparaging language or people who conflate the nation of Israel with either the ethnic group or the religion.

A lot of people make comments about how they’re not islamaphobic, but it just so happens to be that reality perfectly reflects their prejudiced beliefs.
Kinda like the people who aren’t mysoginists or anything, but have found that, coincidentally, the ideal and natural gender roles and power dynamics between the sexes perfectly mirrors the media representation of the 1950s.

As much as I think we should look to Europe for running a society, race and religious tolerance are not one of those subjects in which I defer to them.

Do you actually think it’s unexpected that people who are never fully allowed to integrate into society for some reason don’t fully integrate into society? That laws that make it specifically difficult for them to coexist might result in them … Not coexisting as well?

If it’s the content of their texts that’s causing you a concern, have I got news for you about every fucking religion.

Hopefully they never even knew. Just assumed the catch would come until it suddenly didn’t and they never noticed.

Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.

Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.

I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.

A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.

Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.

Yes, I will just take your word for it over the word of the original people involved.

You keep talking about DARPA, when they’re not the same organization that backed ARPANET. Arpanet came before laws were passed saying DARPA could only fund projects directly related to defense.

DARPA was originally ARPA. They were under the department of defense but their project scope wasn’t limited to defense projects. The reorganization that rebranded the agency as DARPA and made it defense focused ostensibly saw the non-defense oriented moonshot project responsibility transfer to the NSF, although the funding shift wasn’t proportional.
The order of creation isn’t exactly relevant to how responsibilities have shifted.

It’s kinda like how, for the longest time, presidential security was handled by the Treasury department. It wasn’t because presidential security was considered a financial matter, but because that’s where it fit.

https://www.darpa.mil/news/features/arpanet

Secure communications and information-sharing between geographically dispersed research facilities were among the ARPANET’s original goals.

From your link to the arpanet wiki:

Building on the ideas of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor initiated the ARPANET project in 1966 to enable resource sharing between remote computers.

Sutherland and Taylor continued their interest in creating the network, in part, to allow ARPA-sponsored researchers at various corporate and academic locales to utilize computers provided by ARPA, and, in part, to quickly distribute new software and other computer science results.

There’s a big difference between ARPA funded labs and general university usage.

I’m not sure why it would matter that you worked for them in the early 90s. That doesn’t exactly give you a privileged insight into the creation of ARPANET.

The Internet that you’re posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war.

Responding to this part alone: that’s not actually true.
The intent of arpanet, the direct predecessor to the Internet, was to make it easier for universities to use high powered computer resources located at national laboratories, as well as making it easier to distribute software updates. The person who initially pushed for it’s creation wanted “an electronic commons open to all, 'the main and essential medium of informational interaction for governments, institutions, corporations, and individuals '”. They secured funding for the initial computer science labratories, os research that underpin everything, and the foundation for the “INTERgalactic NETwork”.

Arpa was, at the time, the advanced research project agency. They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.

In designing the system they referenced work done by people who were studying robust communication networks. At the time that meant the phone system and nuclear weapons. The research, however, was applicable to any unstable network, and so had particular interest to them because computers had terrible reliability and they wanted to not have to call people if they discovered they had turned off a computer halfway between New York and LA.

The closest thing it has to a cold war military objective is to help us win the research race and spite the Soviets. It can withstand a nuclear attack, but that’s just because that’s the easiest way to make it survive a farmer with a backhoe accidentally hitting a wire.