Other road users don’t have anything to do with it though, including those who aren’t even driving

Or the road design doesn’t facilitate compliance with the speed limit. This is how policy and guidance on road infrastructure talks about these issues.

Not so great for people walking or cycling though. Higher speeds mean more serious and fatal collisions.

Where these modes of transport mix, 20mph is becoming the default choice in western European countries, there is a global declaration on this. If roads feel like they’re made for higher streets: that’s bad infrastructure design.

https://www.fiafoundation.org/news/stockholm-declaration-focuses-on-reducing-urban-speed

But that’s okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. There’s absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.

Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than we’d like…

Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.

In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.

Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that’s taken by the driver.

It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.

The clever dripper is pretty nice pour over cone with a shut off valve.

When I’m making just one cup of coffee I use an aero press, for 2+ cups I use the clever dripper.

Still, people find it difficult to navigate this. Its use cases are limited, but it doesn’t enforce that limit by itself. The user needs to be knowledgeable of the limitations and care enough not to go beyond them. That’s also where the problem lies. Leaving stuff to AI, even if it compromises the results, can save SO much time that it encourages irresponsible use.

So to help remind people of the limitations of generative AI, it makes sense to fight the tendency of companies to overstate the ability of their models.

And I thought I was the only person who had this problem! I have large hands, so lots of water splashes in my fave when using of these (•_•)

A former colleague at a place where I used to work added my personal MS account to a Teams community inside the organization. It split my Teams account in two, prompting me to choose which one I wanted to use every time I opened Teams.

One side was associated with the organisation, the other was still my personal account. My personal account became inaccessible and attempting to login would result in a referral loop and an error. The MS advice for the error code was to get the system admin to remove my account from the organisation, which wasn’t possible because I don’t work there anymore.

But its mechanism requires a deep understanding of your target and makes you empathetic to their needs and desires. Ultimately, you are just really good at reading people and empowering them to stand up for themselves.

since ads are always repeat

For now. Netflix announced generative AI ads for 2026