Let me restate that. Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is vehicles and pedestrians using the same space at similar times.

Who has priority is largely uninteresting, because ultimately if a car hits you, you're still probably dead whether you had the right of way or not.

Ostensibly, sure, if you got rid of all the cars, streets would be safer for pedestrians, but they would also be a huge waste of space, because pedestrians don't need huge roads to walk. Roads exist principally for cars. The fact that pedestrians have to cross them is just an unfortunate design constraint that's hard to avoid cheaply, and giving pedestrians priority is mostly just feel-good policymaking that doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems.

The only truly safe way to share the space is to ensure that pedestrians aren't in the road when cars are. The best approach, at least in cities, is second-floor walkways, so that pedestrians and cars are never vertically at the same traffic layer. A slightly less optimal, but still reasonable approach is to give pedestrians a separate walk cycle in which the entire intersection is theirs. Pedestrians have priority during that cycle, and cars have priority the rest of the time, and as long as everyone follows the rules, nobody gets hurt.

But none of those solutions work for neighborhood streets, which is why the presence of pedestrians on neighborhood streets without sidewalks and proper traffic control for pedestrians results in the roads being inherently more dangerous than other streets.

My point is everything about that sentence could be wrong.

Again Amazon will replace ALL of their warehouse workers as soon as it is feasible. So far they have only been able to replace some of them.

The article says this: "Various sources indicate that a single Am9080 processor cost AMD only 50 cents to make (100 per wafer), yet it could sell them to military customers for $700 each." It however does not name "various sources". My best guess is the $0.50 does not include any capital costs and only certain operational costs.

Robots have been coming for decades. And Amazon is one company that will replace all their warehouse workers with robots at the first sign that is feasible. Amazon, of all companies, knows the limits of robots in automation as they have been trying to create fully automated warehouses for decades.

Attacking nuclear facilities is at least moderately rational. Various countries have done that half a dozen times over the past few years. Attacking drone manufacturing and storage might also be reasonable.

But...

What does an illegal decapitation attack have to do with nukes? Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one? There is a fundamental difference between going after clear military targets to prevent Iran from developing weapons that threaten their neighbors and going after civilian and government targets.

No, they will keep doing this until they are a nuclear power. They've seen what denuclearization did for Ukraine, and it's hard to argue with their logic. Having nuclear weapons is a strong deterrent to invaders, who realize that the response could be swift and devastating at a scale that countries never recover from.

It's unclear what other things they will do at that point. We can only speculate. Mind you, I don't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran, but again, I see no evidence that anything happening over there right now is going to change anything, or even delay it enough to matter.

Is anything that the U.S. government is doing right now going to change that reality? The way you prevent them from laying mines is the same way that you prevent oil from leaving Iran — bombing ships the second they leave the harbor. If you're not willing to start with a full air and naval blockade, you've already failed, and the only thing continuing the war can do is increase the number of ways that you've failed.

My AI says there aren't enough em dashes, so you're probably both wrong.

At 3 A.M.? Probably. At 3 P.M.? Unlikely.

Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is pedestrians. After dark, this concern goes way down. At some point, it becomes effectively zero, and the only thing increasing the risk is the number of driveway entrances, and in particular, blind driveway entrances.

And, of course, the presence of small children who behave erratically. In general, you should drive those speeds whenever you see evidence that small children are playing or are likely to be playing anyway, e.g. when driving past parks before sunset, when you see small children walking down the sidewalk while tossing a ball back and forth, etc.

And when there's no evidence of children, it doesn't make sense to slow down nearly as much.

Cyclists and pedestrians are also a big risk. They often behave in unpredictable ways. Also, if you pull out in front of cyclists, this is a very bad thing. But all of those factors are also highly timing-dependent. When there are no cyclists nearby, a road can be 45 MPH, but when cyclists are nearby, you need to slow down. Drivers need to have the situational awareness to realize that driving at the speed limit is not always safe, because the alternative is for the speed limits to be set so low that they are always safe, which results in miserably slow roads.

I've heard of neighborhoods pushing for 5 MPH (8 KPH) speed limits. When cyclists and even some pedestrians would be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit, you're doing it wrong. Even at 15MPH, there's only a 9% chance of an accident seriously hurting a pedestrian even if you don't slow down at all, so the benefit would only come from drivers who are completely not paying attention, and would likely be cancelled out by a higher number of drivers zoning out and not paying attention, in which case the chances of pulling out in front of a cyclist (who realistically won't be going that slowly) goes up. No free lunch. But that doesn't keep people who don't understand statistics from saying "If 25 (residential default) is good, 5 is better."

Or worse, because it is on the Internet, it must be true. I had a friend whose entire argument that some conspiracy theory was true because multiple people posted things on websites. I countered that I could set up a website to detail how that friend murdered a homeless person one summer.

And you missed the point. You could easily verify the cases exist. AI cited cases do not exist. You could subsequently argue to the court that the cases do not support the opposition's arguments.

More than likely, the cost of any alternative is now cost prohibitive as AI is buying out those as well.

In theory, sure. In practice, the FTC regulates things like this about as well as the CPUC regulates electric rates. Regulatory capture and bending to industry pressure has become the default at this point. Right to repair laws are really the only solution. Such laws distribute the enforcement responsibility by potentially enabling random annoyed DAs to prosecute or class-action attorneys to sue, depending on whether they are written as civil or criminal law.

This reasoning is flawed. The same logic could easily be used to justify genocide. When I read your post, I read it as:

"You've killed 5% of [insert group of people]. Do you really want to stop now? Because if you do, the ones who are left will hate you for the rest of your lives, and will find ways to attack you for decades. The only reasonable choice is to nuke the entire country."

Because literally, you could justify turning Iran to glass with your same logic. This is why decent human beings do not even consider starting a war without a concrete strategy, including:

• goals that they hope to achieve
• exit criteria (both for a successful exit and a failure contingency exit)

Regardless, criticizing the U.S. going into the war in the first place is not letting the current government of Iran win. Hell, insisting that the U.S. exit the war is not letting the government of Iran win. Their country took a lot of damage, and it will take years to rebuild. At best, it would be a draw.

On orders from the elected hacks, with justification from the elected hacks, and exit criteria specified by the elected hacks, assuming it has been specified at all.

Unclear. What is clear is that if China decides to go to war with the world, their economic output will go away, so they have a lot to lose by doing so. Russia and Iran have every excuse to be abusive neighbors, because they have nothing to lose, and this is the fault of decades of failed foreign policy by the United States.

The U.S. is going after Russia? Seems like this war is creating a huge surplus of oil revenue for Russia, now that the entire Middle East is cut off from the rest of the world. It is making Iran weaker and Russia stronger. At best, it's a draw, but more likely, it's a huge mistake.

One would hope that the U.S. is going after Iran's drone factories, which does hurt Russia a little bit, particularly in their war against Ukraine, but given that this is likely to basically erase all of the consequences of Russia starting that war with Ukraine, not to mention massively damaging the relationship between the U.S. and its NATO allies, effectively making Russia *massively* more powerful on the world stage than it was before this disastrously incompetent war began, it's hard to see this war as having any meaningful upside.

Nobody ever thought it did.

Not going to happen. TSMC is building factories in other parts of the world. Lots of manufacturing happens in other parts of the world. If China invades Taiwan, TSMC will go scorched earth. The factories will be leveled, the machinery destroyed, and the world will go on. China gains nothing from that strategy other than control over a small amount of land that has basicallyl bombed itself back to agrarian levels of modernity.

For now. See above, though. They're going to make out like bandits because of this war with Iran. Instead of the U.S. helping Russia rebuild after a defeat, the U.S. is letting Russia basically win and keep the spoils. This is quite problematic at multiple levels, at least in the medium to long term.

Would be nice if it worked that way, but I think it is way more likely that Russia, enriched by all this oil revenue, will buy Chinese-made weapons and use them to make the lives of everyone around them miserable.

Sure, but only if it is planned competently. When you're bombing girls' schools and music schools and running out of actual military targets, while not planning ahead with enough air cover to prevent Iran's ships from planing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, you've taken what could have been a catastrophe in 5 years and turned it into a different catastrophe right now.

From my perspective, this is the most botched U.S. military action since Vietnam, planning-wise, and the only thing preventing it from turning into another Vietnam is the lack of troops on the ground. Start sending in ground troops as is currently rumored, and the outcome could be grim.

You would be surprised. Again Micron is making high bandwidth memory for AI instead of consumer DRAM. They have already announced this.

Again you would be surprised by the lack of logistics for some of these data centers. And no one is not saying it does not require that level of planning. What we are saying is some of these data centers are being built on hopes and dreams as the foundation.

They know that critical infrastructure *must* be repaired, and want exclusivity over those repairs so that they can profit unreasonably. As you said they're going to make frivolous claims that you might buy counterfeit parts made by some fake parts manufacturer in China or whatever.

The problem with any argument they come up with is that most repairs don't involve motherboards or other components that could realistically have compromised firmware, but rather power supplies, RAM, and storage. (And yeah, storage could have firmware, but probably not firmware that could plausibly result in any sort of remote compromise or anything similarly interesting.)

So there's no plausible rational reason for this weakening of the original law, beyond "IBM and Cisco paid a lot of money to lawmakers so that they could continue to get their mandatory handouts."

The way I see it, this is literally a bill whose sole possible outcome is increasing the cost of providing Internet service to the people of Colorado. If you vote for this bill, you're voting to raise everyone's Internet service costs, with no actual proven benefit.

This bill is trash, and anyone who votes for it should be voted out. It's that simple. Vote accordingly.