I’m assuming that changes what it actually displays, but is there confirmation that those data dont enter the notification system on the back end?

This is my problem. I essentially want a suburban-sized lot, cause I would make use of every inch of it. I really dont want to live surrounded by 1000 other identical lots full of people who just want to have a big patch of non-native turf grass that they are going to complain about in the rare event that I see them actually outside of their house.

I think there are a hell of a lot of people who would actually be happier in just a roomier condo or townhouse if they: 1) had ever lived in one that wasn’t just the cheapest possible student housing, and 2) they weren’t conditioned to believe that a single family detached home is the only place that a non-poor person should live.

Myself, and probably a good percentage of this community dont just have a blanket hatred of cars. It’s mainly about how car-centric design sucks, even for people who drive cars.

Many cities that are designed with good public transit are also way easier to drive in. If 99% of people have to drive into a city center for work, or school, or groceries, or whatever, everything has to be really spread out for enough parking, roads need a lot of lanes and a lot of entrances/exits, so driving is stressful, and you still end up spending a lot of time in traffic.

With competent infrastructure for walking/biking/public transit, the mode share for cars drops, and driving actually gets easier since you aren’t competing with everyone else.

Flying is not low likelihood of death. Commercial passenger aviation is.

Private planes crash and kill their occupants fairly often.

Commercial flight is safe just because there are so many regulations that are (were?) strictly followed. If you really wanted to reduce auto deaths, you could absolutely regulate it down to the same risk as commercial aviation, but that would nerf the purpose of a car to the point that no one would actually use them.

Broadly speaking, the way regulations are written is according to our appetite for risk of death in that medium. Modes where you have some appearance of like cars and bikes see high acceptance of risk while modes where you are strictly “along for the ride” see low acceptance.

I’ve always wanted to just park an enclosed trailer on the street to use as a bike garage. I know the Dutch solution to bike storage is to just have a crappy enough bike that no one wants to steal it, and you dont care about leaving it in the elements, but I want nice bikes, lol.

If I can park a car on the same spot indefinitely, why can’t I do a trailer full of bikes?

Those bike lockers address theft, but not protection from the elements. They want it to be translucent for safety, but you could do that with plexiglass.

Crosswalks exist to limit where pedestrians are allowed to be.

The lame answer is that there are specific legal requirements around what sound they have to make.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.141

Obviously, thats in the US, but i bet other regulatory agencies have similar.

To me, it seems like they think the fact that I selected the “public transit” option means that walking must be minimized at the cost of everything else.

E.g., It will recommend I take 2 busses followed by a train, followed by another bus rather than just having me walk for 15 minutes to a bus/train line that goes directly to my destination.

How would they know that?

The same way they do driving estimates. They have your phone’s location, and they know where you are trying to go. They could have the trip “end” when your location is actually inside the place you are trying to get to, instead of ending the trip when you pass your destination at full driving speed when you dont see a parking spot out front.

They collect so much data, it would be trivial. If you are going from your house to a Starbucks, they could absolutely just have the “end” condition be when your phone notices the Starbucks wifi.

P.s., not that I think they should be collecting that data, but the reality is that they are

They aren’t necessarily asking the right question. It shouldn’t be “who wants to live without a car?” It should be “who wants to live without needing a car?”

I dont want to have to drive every day. I dont want to need a car to get to work, or get groceries, or go to restaurants, or visit friends, etc. But, cars are handy for stuff. I like to use a car to go to random trailheads, or do a roadtrip, or do a big grocery day, or carpool with friends to an event, etc. Those things ultimately make the cost of owning a car worthwhile to me.

Yeah, I would extend that to basically any vehicle-based crimes. It’s crazy how often people in cars blatantly break laws in dangerous ways, and the only thing preventing death is pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers keeping their heads on swivels.

If a private corporation can take a picture of your license plate and send an automated ticket for speeding, why can’t I submit dashcam footage of a car blowing through a stop sign in a residential neighborhood.

If i can report a truck driver for weaving through traffic to the DOT, why can’t I report a Nissan altima?

I wouldn’t even care if it was like a lower-level offense compared to being ticketed by a driver.

If there’s not a car in the way, you can plow travel lanes. In big cities, snow is literally trucked away, so it’s not like you’d be moving the problem further up onto the sidewalk.

And also not understanding of the average Rochester hills driver.

If advocates are clever, this could be used against cars. One thing that I think prevents adoption of utility ebikes in areas they are most useful (relatively population dense areas) is that many people who might otherwise be interested in them do not have anywhere to park them.

Think of someone in an apartment or townhouse that relies on street parking. They might have a bike rack, or maybe they can carry a regular bicycle inside, but there often isnt space for something like a bakfiets that could absolutely replace a car.

If you decide to regulate them like cars, why shouldn’t people take up car parking spaces with them?

Yeah, that’s the main problem. They are obviously here, and people obviously want to use them, so they will. Pretending like they dont exist only makes things suck for everyone.

We need clear policy and enforcement.

Most ALS is not genetic, and im not sure about parkinsons, but I suspect it’s similar. Lots of studies these days are finding links between viruses that dont actively cause much harm when you are infected, but and up being highly associated with autoimmune diseases. A prime example is Epstein-barr virus and MS. I have no clue what the mechanisms are, and im sure scientists are still learning, but basically an infection could cause an immune response that is too strong, and even after the infection is gone, the response remains.

That is a relatively new vaccine. In the US, that’s part of what you get as a kid now (not going to fact check the current guidance cause im afraid to look), but if you’re old enough to have actually gotten chickenpox, you likely havent gotten the vaccine unless you asked for it.

In my experience in the US, it seems like Dr’s dont really keep up with recommendations once you are over 18.

Oh yeah, I didn’t think you were conflating them. I actually really like the “among 100 women” wording cause it makes it really clear.

I basically just wanted to mention a common pitfall in this type of literature if anyone wanted to dig into it based on your comments.

Not nitpicking your numbers at all (mainly cause im too lazy to go hunting down the original sources), but a big problem that science media gets completely wrong is how they report risk percentages. They conflate changes in absolute risk with relative risk constantly, and it really hurts messaging.

For example, a few years back, the WHO released a report on consumption of processed meat and how it relates to colorectal cancer risk. Even their own press release, which should be perfect, says “each 50 g portion eaten daily increases the risk by 18%”. That is really misleading if you dont know they are talking about a relative risk. The average person will interpret this as new risk %= baseline risk % + 18%.

The absolute lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is ~4%, so daily consumption of processed meat should bump it to ~4.7% (well, technically lower since the 4% includes processed meat consumers). Giving the before/after percentages helps communicate the risks way better. Even better is a risk curve showing how the risk changes as consumption increases (obviously that relies on the data being available).

Its also better to be able to contextualize so you can make well informed decisions across your life, e.g., it’s dumb to deprive yourself a joy that increases lifetime cancer risk by 0.5% while ignoring other facets of your life that increase cancer by a much larger margin.

Idk about where you are, but basil plants sold in grocery stores by me are always way way too densely planted. They throw like 25 seeds in one small pot, which puts out a lot of foliage to look good for a very short window. If you harvest basil like you are “supposed to”, any regrowth becomes basically impossible, and the plants die. The better way is to just cut off whole stems until there’s only one or two. Or, if you want to keep a basil plant, just buy one from a gardening store, not a grocery store.