You have it right, perhaps the original poster was referring to it in a more colloquial manner, in the sense that against 200 million in revenue, 50,000 and 30 are in the same ballpark?
Yes. If people are constantly moving into your appropriate head way this is doubtless annoying but the correct response is allow yourself to decelerate slowly to re-open that space again, repeat as many times as necessary, even if it means a bunch of agros end up in front of you. Better for them to be in front where you can see them, than behind or to the side, were you can't.
Yah. There's something that feels unjust about it -- the perception that the people cutting are getting something over on you -- that causes us to want to behave badly.
But even if 2 dozen people go around you and creep into that following space, you've been cost like 45 seconds at worst. Better not to play the game.
Also, it really doesn't happen that often. I'm that guy following at 3 or 4 car lengths in rush hour traffic and people aren't constantly funneling in front of me. It's a hypothetical "problem" that is bigger in your head than in reality.
Sometimes I think it's just people's reflexive scarcity mindset that tells them "that spot must not be that desirable or someone would be in it."
Regarding the broader topic of hitting your brakes, I find that I can commute 20 miles in stop and go traffic and only tap my brakes a couple of times. Helps to pace yourself behind the car 3 cars ahead of you instead of the guy right in front of you.
I'm that guy following at 3 or 4 car lengths in heavy traffic an people are constantly funneling in front of me, all to go exactly the same speed they'd be going if they were behind me.
We'd also avoid a lot of accidents if we stopped the people that are doing lane changes for position-jockeying and no other purpose.
So it's bad to be mad while driving, but there's a lot of lane changes that deserve the ire. (It's a tiny fraction of drivers that get really bad, but a less tiny fraction of lane changes.)
Being angry at them won't change their behaviour, but will make you more stressed. Remember: driving like that is its own punishment, because they'll be extremely angry and frustrated at everything. Between that and the realisation that driving 2% slower adds about 1 minute more per hour of driving you have to do, I find I can avoid stressing at people lane weaving and have a nicer journey myself.
> Being angry at them won't change their behaviour
Yes, but the comment above was about society collectively making a decision, so that's the context I responded in.
And while it's relaxing to not worry about your own exact speed, I don't see how that lets you avoid stressing about the people that are lane-weaving. They're acting dangerously and I need to be ready to react to them.
Unless they careened into your vehicle while making the lane change, just calmly allow your vehicle to drift away from theirs until you have a safe buffer again, and take joy in the fact that it didn’t meaningfully impact your arrival time, but you’ve meaningfully impacted the safety of your immediate surroundings.
I try to maintain a constant speed in traffic, even if other people are speeding up and slamming on the brakes around me. Something like the average speed of traffic. Slamming on the pedals isn’t going to get you there faster.
Even if I do need to brake, speeding up more slowly also usually means I have more buffer time to slow down too.
This algorithm is garbage because it puts no value upon the danger cause by other traffic changing lanes when they would not have otherwise.
You're just going to wind up being approximately the slowest person on the road, which is fine if you're constantly trying to go slower to build space but this means that a bunch of traffic that would have not gone around you will do so. This ups the danger vs a steady flow less all these lane changes because every "thing" other people do is an opportunity to do it badly.
Kinda ironic when you consider that TFA was about detecting dangerous merge situations in the data.
I think a much larger concern is that political activists have fully committed to using the open nature of Wikipedia to slant articles in their favoured direction. Unfortunately, the public and other consumers of Wikipedia have been slower to catch on, resulting in a slow poisoning of what was once accurate knowledge about the world.
Why is this a concern? Like either you have open sources of information that have distributed vulnerabilities or closed sources of information that have centralized vulnerabilities.
The risk that some articles are biased is way better than reading a corporate encyclopedia where all articles being biased. That’s open access, that’s a bottom up process. That’s “democracy” so to speak.
A thing I’ve noticed more and more recently, is that everyone talks about like small - open source, small towns, small business, but then decries the tradeoffs.
Like socialists basically saying Walmart is better than small business because they can use their efficiencies to pay better.
So much “fuck it, let’s do autocracy” because self-government is hard.
A few comments:
- a "corporate" encyclopedia does not mean all articles are biased, but it does mean that you know who wrote it and you can use knowledge of the author's biases to inform your interpretation of the text
- Walmart may be bad in all kinds of ways, but it's not at all comparable to autocracy
I'm not trying to argue that Wikipedia or any other source can meet some utopian ideal of objectivity, but I am concerned that the anonymity of Wikipedia allows it to be weaponized in new ways, and despite this, it retains a gloss of "community" and "grassroots" that was undoubtedly appropriate at one time, but probably isn't any more.
This would, IMO, be bad enough when humans were the main consumers - they could be mislead in subtle ways that influence their political opinions & actions, but at least it was possible for the affected humans to update their opinions with other sources. However if AI is treating Wikipedia as basically fact and encoding it within the model, then it's not clear how mistakes can be corrected or even noticed.
IMO a worse problem than collectivists arguing for Walmart is collectivists slowly whitewashing the murderous historical record of collectivist regimes.
This assumes parents would vote in the interests of future adults. In my experience, parents are quite happy to vote against future adults, even their own. Housing policy is the most obvious example.
Trains only require subsidies in a world where human & robot cars are subsidized.
As soon as a mode of transport actually has to compete in a market for scarce & valuable land to operate on, trains and other forms of transit (publicly or privately owned) win every time.
> It argues that rapid and decisive shifts in the propensity and capacity to kill powered capitalism, imperialism, and climate change
Shocker - Jacobin leaves communism & collectivism out of it's list of history's great killers. Mao & Stalin can leave 10s of millions in their wake, but Jacobin will find a way to blame markets. Very unserious people.
reply