Adding distinct or group by to a query is not some advanced technic comments are suggesting. It does not slow down development one bit, if you expect distinct result you put explicit distinct in the query, it's not a "safety measure for insulin pumps". Scratching my head what I've missed here, please enlighten me.
Stated goal was not necessarily reduced traffic, but additional funding for MTA. The agency that never had an audit and is widely known to be very corrupt. Why on earth not to tie additional funding with an audit requirement? Every New Yorker wonders the same. The fact that Hockul does not mention MTA accountability in any form and shape makes it very hard to take seriously.
Twilio has a concept of "hosting a number", meaning, the original carrier retains the number, only SMS is handled by Twilio. So parent's link will be more accurate for this application.
Colorblind person here. This debunking video is piling on more BS, like oh, colorblind people learned to be amazing at detecting slight color changes! No, we are not. We learned what names are attached to what color, but we see them differently, much poorer (save for blues). Enchroma apparently helps with separation, as parent comment suggests. That being said, the fake dramatic videos are definitely shameful scam, agreed.
What boggles my mind a bit is that true colorblindness glasses don't seem that difficult to me. Standard red-blue 3d glasses almost do it, it's just you need red-green differentiating glasses. I don't think this would Open the World of Color!, but it would with a bit of practice probably allow you to at least perceive a difference.
But the glasses need to be visibly-differently (to a non-color-blind person) tinted. If they look the same, they're not going to work. Just like a "blue-reducing" pair of glasses needs to look visibly yellow, or it clearly (in all senses of the term) isn't doing anything.
A truly optimal pair would take some sciencing but bashing something prototype-quality with something like https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0928YT83C would be a matter of holding up the cyan-ist of the films up to one eye and the magenta-ist of the films to the other, and looking at some red and green things, concentrating on which eye the object is bright in.
If one removes red while the other removes green, then if something looks dark through the lens that blocks green, and looks bright in the one that doesn't block green (but blocks red), then one could tell that it is green. (and visa versa for something red)
Not that this would give the same subjective experience of a person w/o colorblindness seeing red vs seeing green, but I wouldn't be surprised if it allows one to pass r/g colorblindness tests fairly well?
It wouldn't. It would subtract, but differently for each eye. Differential subtraction between two eyes is not addition, but it has certain characteristics in common with it.
Exactly this, it's gone from a something like a yahoo listserve with your friends to nextdoor with the whole world. And this repositioning happened completely behind the scenes seemingly as a side effect of pushing monetization too hard.
yeah but it's still probably related. "videt" and "vitat" (to welcome) is probably the same etymological base. and "svitat" is kinda like see again, or welcome again. But yeah, this is diggging kidna deeper in the meaning that you normally don't think of in regular use of our languages.
Mastheaders like David Brooks carried water for the far right for decades until he couldn’t keep up with them. He’ll still wax philosphical about Reagan, Gingrich or W at the drop of a hat.
There isn't really a mainstream left wing in the US. Since the times of Reagan, the right moved steadily rightward, and the left "compromised" its way towards the center.
Note for example that the mid-90s GOP health care proposal was eventually the basis for the Obama plan 20 years later, which the more recent GOP called some kind of communism.
Chomsky is left of the mainstream American "left", and it is common in that crowd to refer to the latter as center-right.
What you write is only true on the economic axis. E.g. attitudes towards LGBT or immigration (as measured by number of immigrants, not hot air spouted by politicians) certainly haven't moved rightward.
That doesn't mean NYT and WaPo are far-right. Just that they will regularly publish far-right opinions (eg Bret Stephens) and rarely, if ever, far-left opinions. The bulk of both papers content is dead center but by constantly using far-right opinion to contrast their own opinions against, NYT and WaPo establish themselves as the left-wing of "acceptable discourse".
If by Western you mean US, then probably. Because in any other part of the world, being pro universal health care is not considered a left-wing position per se. Even most Tories support it in the UK for example.
I don't understand infatuation with NYC subway. Moscow subway, while being very old, very deep and in supposed third world country had count down clocks for 25 years, all major carriers LTE for years, very fast wifi on stations and in tunnels for forever, doesn't even require stupid login, just connects, imagine that. The only feeling I have for NYC subway is shame. That pride that some people have is apparently because they never visit anywhere. Oh, and trains are very fast, and come every 3 minutes
Despite how bad it is, the NYC subway is still the best public transit system in the US, so Americans are infatuated with it, especially those who never user other subway systems.
So New Yorkers are like "BART sucks, my subway is way better, itś amazing", while the rest of the world is like "oh, you have shitty dirty metal boxes that break down all the time and you call it public transit, how cute..."
And just shows the provincialism in a supposed "world capital" that is NYC. New York shouldn't be compared to San Francisco, it should be compared to London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc.
NYC subway is complete trash, it's one of the most depressing aspects of living in New York. Any impressiveness that comes from it is not from the system itself but rather the density of the surface above it. You feel like you just got from one side of the city to another quickly, but that was in spite of the crappy subway system; it was because so much is crammed within 2 miles above you!
Should a person not be impressed by being able to travel through two miles of incredible urban density in just a few minutes?
I think vehicular traffic is far and away the most depressing aspect of NYC. All of the noise, pollution, bad attitudes, and danger to pedestrians and cyclists and it's not even close to being a timely and efficient way to get around. The subway is a damn miracle compared to any other current form of surface transportation.
Biking is the best mode of transit here. If I take nearly any destination that I could reach via subway within an hour - which for me is pretty much anywhere I'd need to go - I can bike there in the same time as the subway ride or less. And that's assuming that there are no delays or other hiccups on the subway. With the increase in delays these days, I just see no point in taking the subway under most circumstances anymore.
> And just shows the provincialism in a supposed "world capital" that is NYC. New York shouldn't be compared to San Francisco, it should be compared to London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc.
New York is compared to London and Hong Kong. That's why they're called the Big Three.
I'll be the first one to talk at length about the many problems of the MTA and the effects on New York public transit, but to be honest, it still comes out ahead of London. It's absurdly expensive due to corruption, and there's no excuse for amount of money the MTA spends for the outcomes it delivers on, but the picture you're painting isn't accurate either.
I promise you that most New Yorkers are deeply unhappy with the subway.
The pride that we feel in the MTA is in carving out a non-automobile based way of life in a country where the ability to drive and own a a car is synonymous with independence and coming of age.
We're also a little proud of the fact that it never stops running even if the trains are only running every twenty minutes. I can not describe how freeing it is to not feel bound by a metro closing time (as I so often do when I visit London or Seoul or Hong Kong).
The fact that Moscow's subway outperforms NYC in every metric despite rampant corruption and embezzlement (buddy of mine used to be an engineer there) means one thing: MTA is inept beyond any measure and any repair. Some changes are in order to unshackle NYC Subway, so we all can be proud of it
> The fact that Moscow's subway outperforms NYC in every metric despite rampant corruption and embezzlement (buddy of mine used to be an engineer there)
Wait, are you talking about Moscow? Because the MTA/TWU in New York is rife with corruption and embezzlement. That's the whole problem.
I agree, though, with the ultimate point: the MTA is utterly inept (or more accurately: utterly corrupt) and needs massive reform.
> Moscow subway, while being very old, very deep and in supposed third world country
Moscow is not in a third-world country, in either sense of the word. It's not in a developing nation (colloquial contemporary use of the word), and it's not in a country that remained unallied with the US and Russia during the Cold War, which is the original meaning of the word.
The Moscow subway is astonishing for the architecture. Some stations look more like the interior of the Hermitage than a subway. Marble, art, chandeliers!
In that respect I think it's truly unique.
If you don't know of this try an image search for moscow subway
I lived in Moscow for a while as a kid and the Metro system was such a joy in retrospect that it's really soured me on some other cities' transit systems. Living in Seattle right now while we struggle to achieve a single-route light rail system is especially saddening.
Crazy that Moscow's system is almost 100 years old, dating from 1935. (I just checked and London's Underground has it beat by a margin though - 1863)
HN is a US-cetric forum. Americans are bad about being oblivious to the existence of anything outside the US. New York is, by far, the largest US city and one of the oldest. It is hugely influential here and has essentially legendary status in the minds of many Americans. To most Americans, New York is kind of The big city and symbolizes anything and everything urban. I am not sure if we even have subways elsewhere (which just may be my own ignorance showing). If we do, they wouldn't be as extensive.
> I am not sure if we even have subways elsewhere (which just may be my own ignorance showing). If we do, they wouldn't be as extensive.
There are subways in other US cities, but nowhere near as extensive. One-third of all subway stations in the entire country are within New York City itself.
New York City has more subway stations than any other subway system in the world, and that's not counting the non-subway transit (commuter rail, PATH, etc.)
The people I know in Boston/Somerville/Cambridge avoid having a car due to how irritating it is. I had one while living in the city (family reasons), but if I had the option I would've happily ditched it.
> The people I know in Boston/Somerville/Cambridge avoid having a car due to how irritating it is.
Anecdotal stories notwithstanding, New York is the only city in the country in which the outright majority of people don't own cars. (D.C. is a very distant second).
I've lived in California all my life and was somehow ignorant of this fact. Apparently it does exist, although the bulk of the Urban Rail system is light rail, not grade separated. Daily ridership is somewhere around 360K (not bad honestly!) vs. SF Muni at 660K and NYC at 5.7MM.
The light rail isn't that bad as far as traffic goes: it isn't grade separated, but its not in the street either (e.g. to Santa Monica). The two subway lines I'm referring to (red and purple) are actually subway lines though (vs. the Expo line which is basically light rail). Living in LA, I actually never had a chance to ride any of these routes.
Without trying to stir up a debate about the merits of various political systems, could this be due to the strong state control in the Soviet era?
I'd imagine it would be a lot easier in Soviet Russia to just say "we're upgrading this, the line will be down for a week, deal with it". It was an authoritarian state, you're not running for reelection, it didn't matter if people got a bit miffed at delays due to an upgrade.
Well, nothing you said is wrong, but the reason is wrong. Both St Petersburg and Moscow have a very well distributed and supported above ground public transit system as well, going back to the early years of the Soviet Union. Trams, trolleys, buses, and the pay vans (Marshrutki) are extremely prevalent and help people get around fast and relatively cheaply. I live in spb right now and am riding a tram where the placard lists the commissioned date as 1958. The wagon of the metro train I moved to while writing this post says 1972; point is this infrastructure has been around a long time.
So yeah, people had no say if a district shut your metro station down for 4 months for repairs (which still happens today), but you had and have many alternatives to get where you want to, so at best it's a minor inconvenience.
Compare this to where I grew up in the Midwest, if the buses there broke that was it. Hope you knew someone with a car who was home or liked walkjng (and I've done a few 7 mile walks home when buses broke down, since my choice was wait an hour in the cold for the next bus or just walk)
Deal with it now in russia and in the ussr basically meant "pick one of these other services".
But the democratically elected state senators do routinely cut the MTA's funding so that they can give their overrepresented rural constituents a tax cut.
> But the democratically elected state senators do routinely cut the MTA's funding so that they can give their overrepresented rural constituents a tax cut.
1. New York is not a democracy in anything but name. Voters have basically no control over the state government; the party establishment has fully captured that role.
Because urban New Yorkers are paying for rural areas' transportation infrastructure. In fact, state taxation and spending policies represent a large net transfer from urban areas to rural areas.
An old lament. Why should rural (anywhere) fund the city folks' needs? E.g. Here in rural Iowa, we pay state taxes for schools like everybody else, and have a tiny underfunded school vs the nearby city's grand edifice with two theatres, enormous football facility, AP classes and full staff.
In most cases it's the city folks subsidizing the rural folks. It turns out that it costs a lot more money to build the roads, power lines, schools, etc than the small number of rural residents that benefit from them will ever pay in taxes [0]. And in the specific case of New York's MTA, revenue from subway fares has repeatedly been diverted to pay for things other than the subway [1].
Everybody benefits from farm access to markets. Rural roads are there for everybody. To say 'its more money per capita for rural folks' just means you're using a heatmap of population and putting it over infrastructure - shazam, it doesn't match!. But it says nothing about who's getting the utility out of the infrastructure.
24/7 "service". Sometimes I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a tunnel just so some middle manager can claim that the line is still running. I would prefer they closed the thing at night and put some serious effort into improvements.
The stations in Moscow seem amazing, but they have half as many as in NYC. Plus I don't believe they run 24/7 do they?
I believe Moscow has traditionally had way more support from the overall country as opposed to just being funded from Moscow proper. Has there ever been something similar as "Ford to City: Drop Dead" with Moscow/the metro system?
