And are the only ones incentivized to, given the asymmetric danger between driving and walking. Drivers would be a lot more cautious with big spike in the middle of their steering wheel. Externalized risk (and unlikelihood of facing consequences if a driver were to maim or kill someone) has a very predictable outcome.
I’ve lived in places where crossing areas have little buttons that set of flashers, but really it would be safer and put the responsibility where it belongs if that button would shoot a bollard post up in front of the crosswalk.
I think you misunderstand “Right of Way”. It’s not just an option for a pedestrian to cross, it’s incumbent on them to maintain predictable movement through the intersection.
Giving up Right of Way creates more confusion (think about the “go” / “no you go” game of a car not moving when it’s their turn at a 4-way stop).
If you don’t want cars to stop for you the solution is easy, stay far enough back from the intersection so it’s clear you’re not trying to cross. Otherwise I will stop for you — it’s the law.
In the US we’re terrified to take away someone’s access to a car because there are so few valid alternatives in most of the country. To the point where driving tests are basically a rubber stamp, and re-tests are nonexistent.
They did not. Cited, points, and I'm sure their insurance went up.
We got to fight with their insurance company to try to get enough money for another car and to cover medical expenses. That was fun.
Even though there was no contest that the other driver was at fault, I started driving with a 4K dashcam after that. And I found something interesting: I started driving more carefully myself because if there was an accident, I wanted the record to show I was blameless.
You do know that state-issued ID cards exist, right? They usually just say "Identification card" or something.
Yes, they look similar to a driver's license card, but so what?
We have ID cards. We have driver's license cards. The latter is so ubiquitous that there's really no reason to require drivers to carry both. Just allow the second to be used as the first. AFAIK, in most states, they're both issued at the DMV (or your state's equivalent organization) anyways.
I'm just really struggling to see what you're trying to get at. Your question is posed in such a way that I'm interpreting it to be an attempt at some sort of "gotcha" question.
They are often called driver's licenses, though, because it is so common that the official state issued id is a driver's license. In less formal language (in my experience) "identification" usually means random student id or bus passes or any picture id would be ok while "driver's license" means official state id or military id.
I didn't listen to the full podcast, but as someone who has spent much of my work time in the past few years trying to hire -- it seems surprising to hear its not a pipeline problem. I advertised and solicited from as many diverse venues as I could find and still found hardly any qualified applicants. In fairness it wasn't easy to find White or Asian qualified applicants too, but still found disproportionately more.
My biggest fear is that if we try to sweep the pipeline problem under the rug, we're not going to fix it. I do have a potential solution, but I think it's a tough sell...
>I advertised and solicited from as many diverse venues as I could find and still found hardly any qualified applicants.
So if you were e.g. recruiting for SWE roles at an HBCU presumably there are hundreds of CS students there. Are you saying none were qualified? If so isn't that a problem with education/preparation?
> Are you saying none were qualified? If so isn't that a problem with education/preparation?
Yes, in other words... a pipeline problem.
When you have bars set in fields where outcomes are tangible (STEM), you cannot improve the situation by lowering the bar, you must improve the situation by improving the populace so more can get over the bar. This is a lot harder to do, and not possible to do in a way that juices the numbers, so very few people and institutions bother to do it.
An EDI advocate I talked to was of the opinion that lowering the bar was the best and only way to include more minorities in tech. When I asked her whether she felt the same about men in nursing, she said that nursing is a critical function and standards can't be lowered.
I'm pretty sure the casual racism and misogyny she displayed are par for the course among genuine believers in the EDI space, most just being better at dancing around it than she was. The idea that 'whatever those people are doing' isn't harmed by lowering the bar is probably a less obvious component of how the ideology perpetuates itself.
Yes, I have encountered this often from DEI folks as well. Thomas Sowell calls this the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It's definitely compounded by lay-people thinking that STEM disciplines are somehow less critical or dangerous than medical functions... not realizing that STEM functions often become medical (or other life-critical) functions. Someone has to design the medical technology, write software for the machines, and design the vaccines, design the medicines, all of these are STEM roles.
The solution I hinted at is to actually double-down on standardized testing. I taught test prep to HS'ers in poor schools in California in the past and there are a couple of things I noticed:
1. For kids who cared, I could raise their score dramatically. The College Board disputes this is possible, but I could do this pretty consistently over the course of a year. There were a non-trivial number of kids who didn't care and the results didn't apply to them at all.
2. In the course of my prep I drastically increased learning. And this isn't a direct corollary to (1), and actually somewhat surprised me. The same students I taught saw their course grades go up and felt more confident in school. I think in part because I was a relentless, but effective teacher (if I say so myself).
Oddly, this is going the opposite direction from what people are proposing now and that worries me. People underestimate how well some of these students can do. It's like when they used to say Blacks didn't have the intellect to play QB. We didn't dumb down the position. But because of how important the role is, and how meritocratic sports is, Black kids figured it out. Give them a chance to figure this out, with some of the right incentives. (Side note, I do think the College Board also makes this harder and there is at least some anecdotal data that they have biased the test against underrepresented minorities -- but even with all that, I'm still optimistic).
Regarding my original comment -- it wasn't an entry level SWE role. I'd be open to hiring someone out of college, but you rarely find ones with the level of embedded systems background we needed.
I think you're mixing up how people understand pipeline in this case. Generally the thinking is there aren't enough minorities, women, etc. going into STEM in the first place not that there are plenty but none meet the standards necessary to get a job.
looks like you gotta listen to a whole podcast here, do you mind summarizing the points? the research I've looked at mostly has been around number of graduates in certain fields which would seem to lend credence to it being a pipeline problem, at least so far down stream. would love to hear evidence on the other side. thank you.
No I disagree. They're state propaganda it's just the current journalist profession is so activist left they won't do anything for a right leaning government, but they will sue over a plainly fairly use video before an election to try to create chaos. They're too entrenched in their brand of leftist ideology to be used by the right.
They're a state backed propaganda machine pushing the state's narrative, but resisting any other narrative when the current opposition in power because they've been entirely staffed by activist journalists.
Just as Al Jazeera is Qatari state propaganda, BBC is British state propaganda. You can pull the wool over your eyes and disagree, but they're all state backed narrative machines.
> Perhaps the single most complex, insidious, and long-lasting mechanical problem in the history of commercial aviation was the mysterious rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s. Although it had long been rumoured to exist, the defect was suddenly thrust into the spotlight when United Airlines flight 585 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs on the third of March, 1991, killing all 25 people on board. The crash resulted in the longest investigation in NTSB history, years of arduous litigation, and a battle with Boeing over the safety of its most popular plane.
So that would mean that the right side is tipped slightly away from us, right? Because the matter in the accretion disk starts approaching us at about halfway down the ring on the right side?
"Third, adopting an inclination of 17° between the approaching
jet and the line of sight (Walker et al. 2018), the west orientation
of the jet, and a corotating disk model, matter in the bottom part
of the image is moving toward the observer (clockwise rotation
as seen from Earth). "
There are a lot of claims about why F# is better and not much data to back them up. I'd really like to learn F#, but are there proven benefits to code quality / shipped defects / etc? For example, looking for research like: https://quorumlanguage.com/evidence.html
