I think a coherent framing is to imagine that the soul is a perceptual construct built into the hardware layer of human perception.
Sort of like how the collection of particles you see as a tree doesn’t look like that without being passed through a bunch of brain hardware. If we want to be pedantic we can accurately say that trees don’t exist, but given that physical object and tree are constructs in the human brain it’s pretty convenient to just treat them as “real”, while at the same time understanding that at some granular level they aren’t truly “real” (and at some further granularity we actually have no clue what’s real).
Neither existence nor nonexistence is obvious. Ergo, differences of opinion. Militants on both sides are problematic. I strongly dislike Dawkins, in the same way as I do people knocking on my door trying to convert me to any other religion.
At least the zealots who knockon my door. I've had a few good conversations.
Ditto for LLM sentience. We have no evidence either way.
And the older I get, this does make sense to me. Belief in a soul doesn't really require proof for me. I understand that this may not be satisfying in an academic way for some, but "humans have souls and machines probably don't" strikes me as the wisest default position until we have some other very strong proof otherwise.
What evidence is there for humans having souls to support your "wisest default"? What would constitute "strong proof otherwise" in the case of machines?
Wouldn't the wise position be that since there is no evidence of souls at all that the default should be that both humans and machines do not contain a soul until proven otherwise?
Consider that your experience isn’t universally applicable to everyone.
As a lifelong musician, I find it to be a great resource for discovery. I really lean into curating what I do and don’t want to see and it delivers amazing results frequently.
It’s also a nice counterpoint to recs I get from other sources: streaming services, friends, strangers, and good ‘ol fashioned digging.
Reading the discussion in these comments I have the exact same thought about parallels with hi-fi enthusiasts. Then I saw your comment. 100% agree.
The person I really want to hear from about brewing coffee is a chef. Someone who probably doesn't have the time to nerd-out to this degree, has great taste, sees the big picture and is likely to have settled on the most practical balance between quality and diminishing returns.
As a cyclist and a driver it’s not immediately apparent which Waymo behavior I prefer for passenger dropoffs/pickups.
While it’s annoying in the moment to pedal around a parked car, I’m fine with it. However, having a Waymo dropping off clear of the bike lane sounds good, until the exiting passenger accidentally doors a cyclist who isn’t prepared for that possibility.
I suppose I’d rather suffer the inconvenience of going around a parked car than risk the devastation of being doored.
One thing we should be happy about: Waymo's next gen Zeekr cars have sliding doors, eliminating the traditional risk of dooring. Passengers might still jump out without paying attention, but my expectation is that they'll be more cautious than opening the door; cyclists will have more forewarning than an opening door; and even if they do get hit, it will be a less catastrophic accident if a collision does occur. (The tradeoff, as there are always tradeoffs, is that the passenger having more skin in the game means that they'll likely be physically hit more often.)
You can get doored on either side of the car, and when you are forced to pass, you have to enter the traffic lane, which pressures you to maintain speed.
Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.
Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.
Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car.
I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).
Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.
Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.
In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.
Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals?
If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason).
The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.
Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).
Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).
> The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
That was my point, thanks for making it: There is money for building and maintaining 6 lanes of sophisticated road surface that needs to withstand trucks¹ we surely have the money to replace part of it with a cheaper to maintain bicycle path that sees next to no road wear aside from weather effects. I'd argue that we cannot afford to not have bicycle infrastructure.
You appear to be propping up public transportation against cycling, when in reality they are a match made in heaven. Why not both?
¹: weight factors into road wear by power of four. Double weight equals 16 times the road wear
Google maps is your friend to discover that most cities of the world don't have 6 lanes in every street!
And ready to invest in your shipping container-on-a-cargo-bike startup, which will be used to make deliveries to supermarkets in the city centers (for the last plebs who don't order their slop on Uber Eats ofc)! Or cement deliveries using drones!
1. Even with a single lane the upkeep for a bicycle path is lower than for a road lane. There being more or less lanes doesn't change the math. The only difference is that for single lane road a bicycle path may be unnecessary to begin with since maybe it is a calm backwater anyways. Modal splits can be a good idea then.
2. Do you think trucks magically lose their ability to drive when there are bicycle paths nearby? Or which strawman variant of my argument are you arguing against? I said: a decent network of bicycle paths is needed, not that all roads should be torn up. If this is your style of arguing for your position, it doesn't really reflect well on you or the position.
The way it works is very simple: a better and safer network of bicycle infrastructure means everybody can more easily use the bicycle and public transport, of course people coming with the public transport and locals get the most out of it. That means less cars on the road, that means less road wear, noise, dirt and other bad side effects that mostly just affect the people living there. And who is going to decide how to use the space a city owns? Ideally the people who live there.
I live 2 hours from Kopenhagen and it works perfectly fine there. I visited the Netherlands quite often ot works fine there. Trucks also still work and you can still buy stuff at the grocery store, crazy huh? It is also a thousand times more enjoyable to get around than in some brutalist hellscape where you need to go everywhere with the car. In my own city my commute is 15 mins with bike, 20 mins with subway and 30 mins with car. Guess which one I pick most often.
Because taxis and cyclists are road users like others, car drivers also have to stop if a taxi has to drop off someone as long as it's quick. Same with buses, also. Or trams.
It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.
As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.
It depends how lively/busy the street is, but in towns like Paris, every day I would have to accommodate fellow pedestrians unloading trucks or doing deliveries in the street. The macha lattes doesn't appear magically in your favorite coffee shop.
Going around a parked car is not merely an inconvenience, it introduces an extra risk of being hit from behind (obviously you should check over your shoulder before moving into the lane, but this is the imperfect real world, and even the act of checking over your shoulder is a small risk) or by a vehicle pulling out of a cross street which didn't see you through the stopped car.
However I agree that there isn't an obvious solution without making major improvements to infrastructure - right now where the bike lane is just paint everyone parks in it (Uber, taxis, delivery drivers, etc.).
It's also possible to use a feature that is present on the bikes, even if rarely or never used by urban cyclists: braking and waiting for the passenger to drop off, before continuing for your destination.
Something car drivers and pedestrians do, usually.
Not in my city. Taxis and ride shares tell you to get out on the right hand side so that you don’t get swept by cars passing you on the left.
Also often difficult to tell as a bicyclist how long that car will be sitting there. Sometimes it’s a delivery or pickup or something inane that will have you looking like a doofus for waiting.
No. Going around a parked car is a basic ability you need to have as a cyclist.
If you can't do that safely, then you have no business riding in the first place.
Looking behind you is not optional, as you seem to suggest it is. And if it is actually a "small risk", then you are going way too fast.
Again -- if you don't have the environmental awareness to go around a parked car, then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. Full stop.
This comment assumes a high mix of cars and bikes in an environment of unseparated traffic.
With literal decades of near daily bike riding behind me I've rarely had to maneuver a bike or a car around a parked car in regular (not US) traffic flow.
It doesn't matter how often you have to do it. It's still a basic ability you need to possess.
And yes, my own experience comes from Manhattan, where that's something pretty much everyone has to do on a daily basis. You've got double-parking everywhere.
But even if you don't need to often (lucky you), the idea that this is somehow something unusually unsafe just doesn't hold any water. If it's unsafe for you, you have no business being on the road. You are a danger to others if you are unable to look behind you when changing lanes.
I agree here that it can depend on the infrastructure which option is better. But one way to look at it is that if a car is parked in the bike lane then the bike will be in the car lane == more risk for the bike. The bike is also at risk for being doored from either side when passing the taxi.
The best option would actually be to have some indicators on the taxi which shows which doors are "hot" and expected to open. A taxi with closed doors is always a huge risk and will always need to be passed outside the dooring range.
> While it’s annoying in the moment to pedal around a parked car, I’m fine with it.
Personally, I'm fine with it too. Problem is, a lot of motorists are not fine with that. Whether I get stuck on the road because the bike lane is curb separated or because there is an excessive number of cars parked in the bike lane, motorists start screaming at me. A few months back, I had one aggressively pass me. I checked to ensure the road was clear before entering it, the only way they could have passed me in that manner is if they accelerated (i.e. they created an issue out of something that shouldn't have impacted them).
The sense of entitlement of some motorists is dangerous. They are willing to behave in a manner that puts people's lives at risk.
Just had someone speed up and blow a stop sign on a right turn in a residential area (known for being walkable with young children) to cut in front of me my bike to make sure they wouldn’t have to wait for me to pass them at the stop sign. Full-sized SUV whose grill was at my chest height. Fairly routine and simultaneously completely unhinged behavior.
I also enjoy playing chicken on runs with the SUVs in another rather entitled urban neighborhood where if they begin accelerating into the intersection after a rolling stop while I’m still in the crosswalk (to “anticipate” me getting across the road and save 2-5 seconds), I’ll simply stop running and force them to actually come to a complete stop.
> having a Waymo dropping off clear of the bike lane sounds good, until the exiting passenger accidentally doors a cyclist who isn’t prepared for that possibility.
Note that Waymos will alert you if a cyclist is approaching so you don't door them. Not saying it's perfect, you can still open the door if you want, but they are very consistent about this.
I disagree, as someone who doesn't practice any religious faith.
The fact is, many people in AA and related programs do have faith, and the program is wise to engage with it and help those people orient themselves in a way that compliments that worldview and strengthens their resolve to get sober.
For the members who don't have faith, my experience with the program has been that it does not impose any Christian worldview onto the actual practice. There's no imposition for non-believers to conform to that belief.
I've never left a meeting and felt like I was being pushed a religious agenda. The vague talk of a "higher power" is a way for believers and non-believers alike to articulate a personal spirituality that will bolster their likelihood of success in the program.
I've been to many meetings over the years to support friends and am heartened by the nature of AA as an organization. It's been a wonderful experience. I often leave joking that I wish I had a problem so that I could come back more often and participate with the community and the program.
I have a lot of positive things to say about the program, but they're beyond the scope of this comment.
Few things are as satisfying to me as seeing a musical idea realized and executed well.
It is immensely fun to write, play, and record with friends. In a good session there's usually a moment where something falls into place and suddenly the record feels awesome and the path forward is clear. The whole room will jump up and say "That's it! Do that again!" and shout and high-five and get a second wind to keep going. It is invigorating and it never gets old.
Even if the records aren't any good, it's so. much. fun. to make dumb shit. Whether by yourself or with a friend. Don't underestimate the fact that music is pure play. It is one of the most plastic mediums available to us and you can sculpt it endlessly and continue to surprise yourself with the things that you can make. Have fun and do it for it's own sake.
This is all to say, the reward of making music (for me) is doing the work and being creative. Even if that's all you achieve it's valuable and priceless. You've already won. Great work. All secondary rewards (adoration, financial success, etc) are a cherry on top of that thing you've created. You did that.
I hear people complain about laptop ergonomics all of the time and I don't understand it. I have zero issues with either of my Macbooks. I can go for hours and not be fatigued.
If I have it in my lap, the outer ball of each wrist is resting on the body to the left and right of the trackpad and that means my forearms are angled upwards, away from the edges. They never rest on the edge of the laptop until I use the trackpad, and then the puffy outer pad of my palm is resting on the laptop edge. Still very comfortable.
If I'm using it at a desk it's the same story. My seat is high enough (relative to the desk) that my forearms lift up and away from the laptop. Never resting on the edge.
Are people seated so low so that the desk height is at breast level and they're making T-Rex arms to reach the keyboard? It seems so intuitively obvious to avoid such positions.
That sounds like you have your desk too low. You're going to get some major repetitive strain injuries in 10-20 years.
If you have your arms at your sides, elbows should bend 90 degrees. Then just move your arms slightly forward and you'll end up somewhere around 95 degrees. Now you can rest your forearms on the desk. This won't save you from all kinds of RSI, but it might help your wrists, elbows and shoulder joints last a bit longer.
Having the desk low, the chair high, or putting a laptop on your lap is okay. Having the desk or table "high" (i.e. at normal height for writing with a pen or eating a meal) is generally worse but not an insurmountable problem.
In either case, the most important thing is to keep your wrists in as straight and neutral position as possible, with your palms and wrists "floating" rather than resting on anything while actively typing. Having the wrists either flexed downward or extended upward is a really bad idea. Having the wrists turned out to the side isn't great either, but not as bad.
The keyboard should be positioned close enough to your body so that your shoulders can be relaxed with your upper arms hanging loosely. The laptop surface should be roughly parallel to your forearms, so if you have a high desk or table relative to your torso you will need to prop up the far side to tilt it up a bit.
You don’t even need 20 years, I spent the better part of a year in my mid 20s in pain because I was typing with my wrists at an upward angle like GP is describing.
Ergonomics is one of those things where you don't understand it until it effects you. Everyone can tolerate discomfort at some level and at different levels but obviously there best practices that manufacturers can partake in to make hardware more ergonomic.
For example, the monitor should be at eye level vertically but with laptop that's very hard to accomplish unless you position yourself in a reclined fashion to bring down your eye level closer to your lap - on a macbook you get wrist cuts like this.
One of the most important thing that makes a good ergonomic laptop is the ways it accomodates as many positions and setup as posible so your can rotate your working position to avoid excessive strain on one particular area. So when your back is tired you slouch down, when your wrists are tired you straighten up, when your eyes are tired you adjust the display brightness/theme etc.
When taken seriously it's totally possible to work safely even in poor conditions like outside or on a train but devices that completely ignore ergonomics just don't even give you the chance.
This is slightly misleading advice. The ideal place for the display has the top of the display at roughly eye level, or for a very large display maybe slightly above, which puts most of the display below eye level. Humans actually have great ability to look slightly downward for long periods of time while doing stuff with their hands, even while keeping their head held up straight, and indeed our eyes can more comfortably focus on close objects in the lower part of our field of view than straight ahead. What you don't want to do is slouch or bend your neck too much.
A laptop display attached to the keyboard usually isn't an ideal placement, but it's generally not too bad.
Welcome to "tech neck" - upper crossed syndrome, from looking slightly down.
You're inviting some surprising symptoms, not just neck and back pain, but things like numbness, tingling, or pain shooting down your arms. Really not fun.
Key posture correction seems to be pulling head back. Some physical therapy exercises can help as well.
In trying to picture this, I suppose there are certainly some stock photo models who'd feel the sharp edges:
google.com/images?q=person+using+laptop
I totally know what you mean about shifting positions. All the positions I've been in where I've felt the edges have been quite unergonomic, but perhaps not for everyone.
People have differently sized hands too: with my fingers on the home row, 13" and 14" Macs have the heels of my hands resting exactly on the sharp bottom edge.
Glare from the screen can affect you more if you have problems with halos in general (many vision problems can cause them, and fatigue won't help either), causing reflections to disproportionately affect legibility of the screen for you.
Finally, the keyboards are simply bad in comparison to best keyboards (in terms of typing feedback) on small portable laptops like Thinkpad X1 Carbons (though those have gotten significantly worse with Gen 7 onwards too).
Additional gripe I'd have is that they are very heavy in this day and age when we are getting laptops under 1kg (2.2lbs) in 14" size that perform and hold battery adequately well. This only hurts if you travel a lot and carry more than one laptop with you (business and personal, for instance).
But really, ergonomics is hard because everyone is different, and as long as you are outside the 2 SDs from average (and you can be so only on one of those measures, like your hand size or torso height or head size), your ergonomic position might be impossible.
You may have smaller hands (no offense meant); imagining my hands in the position you explained, my fingers would be well outside of where they need to be. I have the same issue as OP, the corners dig into my heel/wrist area. I do have big banana hands though.
This piece is fine but one of the sections, entitled 'Why people lie about it' includes this line:
> If you’re selling a travel writing course, a mentoring program, a mastermind group, or a book about how to break into this competitive industry, the implicit promise is that you’ve cracked it. You’re selling the dream that full-time travel writing is achievable and sustainable and wonderful and – hey presto! – you are living proof.
...and after the article concludes very next thing is:
> While you’re here … I invite you to sign up for my free 5-day writing course called Unlock Your Creative Flow. One email, once a day, for five days, plus a follow-along workbook containing further space for reflection. You’ll also join the list to receive my (semi-regular) newsletter. Sign up now!
I guess I appreciate the honesty of this article, but the whiplash from this juxtaposition hurts. Clearly not intentional from the author, but I can't think of a more tone-deaf pitch in this context of this piece.
I rue the day the IG reels crowd pick up on it and it becomes the "word du jour" that gets overused to the point of being intolerable. Right up there with "narcissist" and "gaslighting".
The problem isn't so much overuse as misuse, as "gaslighting" gets thrown around for almost any kind of falsehood.
Another example would be "Ponzi scheme", which I've seen abused for any situation the speakers seems unsustainable, even when there isn't any records fraud.
It doesn’t seem obvious to me.
reply