Is it?

If only there were a huge trove of nutrient dense biscuits nearby. Too bad that one that did exist was incinerated by the Tump regime just days ago. A tragic coincidence I’m sure. /s

I suppose we’re about to find out if these things (LLMs) are any good at extrapolation. I expect not really as they’re effectively just interpolation machines.

By all means: be an advocate for safer driving. Just know that this kind of advocacy been the dominant strategy for decades and the research says it doesn’t work, or at least not as well as roads engineered to be safe. Have a look at the work by Strong Towns for more information, if you’re interested.

I know there’s nothing I can say in this moment that will change your mind, as were just typing to eachother on the internet. I’m just an advocate for this because I believe it has the potential to fix huge portions of Canada and Noth America generally, without a strictly left/right partisan stance.

Instead of hoping people will feel a particular way, would it not be easier to get people to drive safer using measues that directly cause them to drive more safely, irrespective of their feelings in the moment?

That’s exactly the point… If they drive safer because they don’t want to scratch the paint on their car or because the feel some kind of communion with others, what difference does it make? We often chalk up problems to “personal responsibility” when we should be focusing waaaay more on systems and the built environment.

People use things the way they’re implicitly built to be used.

Either I missed it or they added it.

It’s kid-approved!

You’re off by 3 orders of magnitude… Retracted.

I’m not CS smart enough to understand this… 😢

Plrase please please do this

It’s really hard to reason with the car-brained NIMBYs, it seems… They want nothing short of “more cars.” It’s a cancerous idiology that can’t see past the steering wheel, so to speak.

“Look! New white shoes!”

I would usually agree with this kind of normalization, but in this case I actually think it would actually obfuscate the picture. Safer roads are a good thing, but if traffic deaths are reduced because more people bike or take the train, that’s still a win. Roads and cars are inherently dangerous, and that danger needs to be minimized using multiple strategies. We need to focus on holistic changes that consider people’s behaviour and their interactions with the built environment.

When people feel they absolutely need to drive, that’s a failure of infrastructure.

Don’t try to change their mind, but rather, ask them why they believe that. Talk about their reasoning for holding that position. Point it out gently when their reasons don’t make sense. Ask them “if details were different, would you still believe what you believe?” Ask them what they would need to see to change their mind.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Ah yes, the shelling of a desperate crowd to bring order. Makes sense… /s

all your base are belong to us

You really need to clean your fireplace

Not to add too much credibility to noncredibledefense, but uranium salts would just burn with a particular color like any other metal salt. Uranium is not explosive unless you force it to undergo a fision chain reaction under very specific conditions.