Class 1 and 2 e-bikes limit assist to 20 mph, not 15. You can ride them faster than that, but you have to provide the power. 20 mph is well above what most recreational cyclists can maintain on a flat course, so if these classes arenâ(TM)t fast enough to be safe, neither is a regular bike. The performance is well within what is possible for a fit cyclist for short times , so their performance envelope is suitable for sharing bike and mixed use infrastructure like rail trails.

Class 3 bikes can assist riders to 28 mph. This is elite rider territory. There is no regulatory requirement ti equip the bike to handle those speeds safely, eg hydraulic brakes with adequate size rotors. E-bikes in this class are far more likely to pose injury risks to others. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat them as mopeds, requiring a drivers license for example.

Would treating them as mopeds be so bad?

What weâ(TM)re looking at is exactly what happened when gasoline cars started to become popular and created problems with deaths, injuries, and property damage. The answer to managing those problems and providing accountability was to make the vehicles display registration plates, require licensing of drivers, and enforcing minimum safety standards on cars. Iâ(TM)m not necessarily suggesting all these things should be done to e-bikes, but I donâ(TM)t see why they shouldnâ(TM)t be on the table.

I am a lifelong cyclist , over fifty years now, and in general I welcome e-bikes getting more people into light two wheel vehicles. But I see serious danger to both e-bike riders and the people around them. There are regulatory classes which limit the performance envelope of the vehicle, but class 3, allowing assist up to 28 mph, is far too powerful for a novice cyclist. Only the most athletic cyclists, like professional tour racers, can sustain speeds like that, but they have advanced bike handling skills and theyâ(TM)re doing it on bikes that weigh 1/5 of what complete novice novice e-bike riders are on. Plus the pros are on the best bikes money can buy. If you pay $1500 for an e-bike, youâ(TM)re getting about $1200 of battery and motor bolted onto $300 of bike.

Whatâ(TM)s worse, many e-bikes which have e-bike class stickers can be configured to ignore class performance restrictions, and you can have someone with no bike handling skills riding what in effect is an electric motorcycle with terrible brakes.

E-bike classification notwithstanding, thereâ(TM)s a continuum from electrified bicycles with performance roughly what is achievable by a casi recreational rider on one end, running all the way up to electric motorcycles. If there were only such a thing as a class 1 e-bike thereâ(TM)d be little need to build a regulatory system with registration and operator licensing. But you canâ(TM)t tell by glancing at a two wheel electric vehicle exactly where on the bike to motorcycle spectrum it falls; that depends on the motor specification and software settings. So as these things become more popular, I donâ(TM)t see any alternative to having a registration and inspection system for all of them, with regulatory categories and restrictions based on the weight and hardware performance limitations of the vehicle. Otherwise youâ(TM)ll have more of the worst case weâ(TM)re already seeing: preteen kids riding what are essentially electric motorcycles that weigh as much as they do because the parents think those things are âoebikesâ and therefore appropriate toys.

That is the story, although there are some conflicting stories so it's not really clear whether "a patchy server" came before or after using the Apache name.

Either way, as far as Native American references go, I find the use by the Apache Foundation to be relatively benign.

While all the reactionaries in this thread (like the first post) are completely ridiculous with how quickly they pulled out their soapboxes to decry cultural sensitivity as "anti-white" while demonizing liberal white women, there is a small kernel of truth in their complaints that we can be a little too sensitive at times. Backlash against the "Apache" name is an example of that. Unfortunately, they take that small kernel of truth and turn it into a mountain of racism.

Damn you're a pussy. How come all the dudes who pine for "masculine" content are such whiny little bitches?

There are all sorts of action movies with white people on Netflix for you to jack off to. If you're watching the type of juvenile ass movies where casting takes things like race into account to get the perfect racial bingo scorecard, you only have yourself to blame for watching stories created for idiots.

I do not see how your post makes sense as a response to mine, but unlike the poster I was responding to you at least made an argument that was on topic and made sense.

However, I think your post largely misses the point of the complaints against the voucher system. The problem is that it takes money away from public schools to fund schools that have to adhere to less strict academic standards, do not pay teachers well, and often teach religion. Not all private/charter schools are worse than public schools, but if you are able to send your kid to one that is better than public schools you are wealthy enough that you do not need that public money. Nice private schools are not built in low-income neighborhoods.

Your concerns about public schools are also quite the over-generalization. My children attend a neighboring school district because we did not like the cultural fit of our local school district (probably for the opposite reasons of your complaints). Public school districts often reflect the culture and mores of the local community, and if they do not it is very easy to win school board races if your values are more aligned with the community. Where I live pretty much all of the rural school boards are run by conservatives and the urban ones by democrats. Maybe that introduces its own set of problems, but it demonstrates that choice exists without the voucher and charter school systems. Taking public money and giving it to non-public schools might provide even more choices, but those are low-quality choices that function as an anchor weighing down the existing public school system. Who really benefits from vouchers? Those looking to prop up low quality schools for personal profit, religious schools, and private schools that are geographically out of reach for low income students.

A quick search shows that some disgruntled former employee is suing Redhat/IBM for "anti-white, anti-male" discrimination. His legal counsel is "America First Legal."

The guy got laid off and is trying to claim it was because he was white because in the past Red Hat had discussed a desire to add more diversity to the workforce, although there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that one had anything to do with the other.

Won't someone please think of the poor, disadvantaged, disenfranchised white man!?!

I contend that you were aware of how stupid you post is, but for political reasons you want other people to believe this stupid bullshit, so you posted as AC.

You don't even try to make sense. You just structured nonsense as if it were a zinger. Do you think anyone here is stupid enough to think that you just made a real point?

Unfortunately very few projects did that.

That's the press doing its usual lousy job of communicating science.

The predictions aren't absolute, they are sets of scenarios for which probabilities are calculated. The longer we drag our feet, the more the set of plausible outcomes narrows. Take Syria -- Syria was a wheat exporter in 1990, but since 2008 or so has been unable to grow enough wheat to feed itself because of climate change when it had become dependent upon imports from Russia and Ukraine. This was early enough that likely we could not have prevented it even if we heeded early warnings in the 1990s when the current scientific picture solidified. We're not going to lose the entire planet in one go, it's going to be one vulnerable population after another.

It may seem like the climate crisis has completely fizzled to you, living in a large, wealthy, and heretofore politically stable country, but it is catastrophic for the people who have got caught. That's how the climate crisis is going to unfold: the rich and comfortable will be able to adapt to the continually changing status quo by moving their financial assets and supply chains out of the way, although you may be paying more for coffee.

At this point it's a matter of degree; we can't avoid problems now like countries being destabilized by climate change and generating millions of refugees. The question is how fast and how big a problem we'll have.

It seems pretty plausible that sub-recreational doses of psychedelics could reduce anxiety, but we have to be mindful that anxiety evolved in our species for a reason. Like inflammation, it’s a natural and critically important protective process that gets out of control in modern lifestyles. It’s unpleasant but pharmaceutically banishing it could leave patients vulnerable.

One of the biggest risks psychedelic therapy will expose patients to are the therapists overseeing their treatment. Psychedelic therapy has an appalling track record of abuse by therapists, including both sexual and economic exploitation. Advocates for psychedelic therapy claim it will “open you up” and I think they’re absolutely correct. But there are other ways to say “open you up” that mean the same thing but set off alarm bells: becoming more suggestible and compliant for example. If the therapist uses psychedelics himself he may have “opened himself up” to some bad ideas about therapist-patient boundaries.

Likewise people microdosing to enhance creativity should exercise caution. Psychedelics absolutely can in some instances unlock creativity by turning down excessive self criticism, but those criitical facilities play an essential role in the parts of the creative process that come after coming up with out of the box ideas. Self reports of microdosing effectiveness should be taken cautiously, due to their potential negative impact on metacognition. Those might be like the drunk who feels more confident driving after a few drinks.

No doubt these drugs have tremendous potential to treat extreme crippling anxiety. They probably even have nootropic potential. But their beneficial effect s come by suppressing natural mental processes that serve important purposes, and the promising results we have come from self reports or clinical reports from advocate researchers. I’ve been following this because I’ve been interested in experimenting with psychedelics for years, but what I have learned has convinced me to hold off until there is evidence and protocols for safe use that would persuade a skeptic.

They're paying sub-wholesale prices for the hardware, so if an equivalent PC costs 2-3x, they could be selling it around the break even point (with the assumption of profit the minute you buy a second controller, a single game, or any other accessory).

It's weird that you accuse me of cherry-picking when that's what you're doing. There are a ton of pedagogical theories, movements, and ideologies that could all be described as "liberal" and they all compete and at times were supported by various people of various political persuasions.

Were most of those people liberal? Yes. But most people involved in education are liberal. The people who toppled the anti-phonics movement—not the state politicians that railed against it for being "politically correct," the people who actually persuaded educators to drop it—were primarily liberals! I live in a very conservative state that, until recently, was all in on the whole language approach. This had more to do with the successful lobbying efforts of certain textbook companies than any true ideological preference by the state legislature.

How can you honestly assess a situation when you're so stuck in this mindset where everything is left or right?

I have no interest in that, I don't know enough about the statistics you're citing to make an informed comment about it, and it's not related to phonics vs. whole language despite your best efforts to rope them together. Your weird ideas about "Critical Theory" and somehow suggesting that California schools are pedagogically influenced by Foucault's postmodernism demonstrates you are clearly out of your depth here. It sounds like you read a lot of Quillette but don't understand half of what you're reading.

I can discuss at length my gripes with the "theory" movement in higher education and how detrimental it has been. That has very little, if anything, to do with our K-12 problems. Our K-12 problems primarily stem from funding issues that are exacerbated by charter schools, disparate school districts, attempts to "punish" poor performing schools, "teaching to the test," and allowing religious schools to exist. There are also major cultural issues.

Only a fucking moron would assume the accusations are accurate, so there is no reason to go down that route.

The anti-phonics trend was not some liberal partisan thing, as you attempt to portray it. The whole language thing got a huge boost from George W. Bush and the whole No Child Left Behind crap.

It also has its roots outside of America, primarily New Zealand. The whole language thing method took off more because certain textbook companies committed to it than anything else.

There was a tendency for liberal educators to buy into the bullshit about phonics being discriminatory, and there were some conservatives who pushed back against this. But that is hardly the whole story, as you attempt to frame it.