I literally just ran into this myself with my spouse. She is ready to upgrade her M1 MacBook Air and thinks she doesn’t need more RAM because everything is “in the cloud”. Hopefully 8GB is enough RAM for the next 5 years or so...
I'm for all for less bus stops, but how do you make it equitable for people who can't walk longer distances if they are disabled or have an underlying health condition? Run a separate paratransit line?
In European cities this is mitigated by having low-floor buses and stops with level boarding to support mobility scooters and wheelchairs. There are also dedicated taxis available for people with disabilities (possibly subsidised). Over a long term this is also a self-regulating problem. Elderly people and services/businesses for them take into account availability of public transit when choosing properties.
Buses are mass transit. The real goal isn't serving poor people, but moving people with higher throughput than it's possible by cars individually (a single bus fits ~50 people). If you make bus lines slow and fail to attract significant numbers of passengers by forcing buses to serve every whatabout case, you're making them fail at their primary goal.
You can't make half-pregnant public transit. If you have a congested city, and just add nearly empty buses sitting in traffic and blocking lanes at every intersection, it will be strictly worse for everyone. OTOH if you can make buses an attractive option, then each bus can take 30+ cars off the road, leaving room for dedicated bus lanes, more buses, resulting in faster and more regular service.
I would agree with and extend your remarks that we also have problems where traffic patterns and geography don't match political boundaries and transit is traditionally locally run and locally budgeted.
So in the USA you end in scenarios where it takes 20 minutes to drive 20 miles but a bus would take four legs with three transfers across three separate city bus companies, figure at least three hours each way. And again, as per your "mass transit" you can't expect taxpayers in my city to provide a special bus run into my neighboring adjacent city much less the city next to that one.
This results in people being very happy indeed to pay the financial and environmental costs of car ownership to avoid sitting in a bus for six hours of daily commute.
There are also interesting social issues; if you're late its a personal failing, even if you take mass transit. I recall a friend at work getting fired because the bus was late too many times. Oh well, should have bought a car. The feeling of not being in control is further worse due to crime rates. No one will sneak up on my wife and stab her in the neck in her car, but it certainly happens on buses and no one cares if it happens depending on local race relations. None of the other passengers on the bus even cared, for racial reasons. Its pretty messed up here.
Its easy for the public in general to advise others to do inconvenient or career ending or life threatening activities, to "save the planet" or whatever, but I wouldn't do it, and I'd certainly never let my wife or kids do it, so we own cars and avoid public transit at all costs. Not taking that advice as been pretty nice so far.
The answer is to keep the same number of stops but run two or more vehicles simultaneously. Or open more doors. Or expedite fares.
The authors get mixed up equating count of marked stops with dwell time. Running leapfrogging vehicles , or numerous other strategies, reduces dwell time because one boards passengers and the other disembarks at any given stop or vice versa.
In fact, I’d argue bus fare gates, steps, 1-door loading and traffic signal/stop interactions are far more significant than stop count.
> The answer is to keep the same number of stops but run two or more vehicles simultaneously.
How exactly does that help? If you’re suggesting every bus go to alternate stops leapfrogging each one in the middle then that will cause a lot of confusion especially for tourist heavy cities.
In 2022 according to the transit system annual report, the suburban quarter million person city I live in has ten routes and operates about 12 hours per day and per the annual report average weekday service consumed is 1556 UPT, so 1556 people step aboard the system and toss coins in the fare jar or pay with the app. UPT means they're not tracking transfers and essentially 100% of trips require a transfer so the real number of people served daily is closer to 775 than to 1550, but we'll run the optimistic numbers. Each of the ten hourly routes is about 4 miles long. So the overall system drives 12 hours * 10 routes * 4 miles * 5280 feet/mile = 2.5 million feet per day and divide that by 1556 passengers per day that's a pax every 1628 feet driven on an average day.
So if we had a bus stop every 800 feet, on average half the stops would be empty and passed by. If that high level of use is causing too much congestion and slow down at stops, if we had two buses running out of phase, pax arrive at the same rate, so we'd pick up a pax every 3000+ feet driven. So if we had bus stops every 500 feet to keep people happy, on average the bus would drive right by about 5 out of 6 empty stops, which seems reasonable and would not result in unusual delays or congestion. Also the bus would pass by every half hour not every hour, which would probably increase ridership a lot.
So if the only labor expense were the $23/hr driver, and we pay 10 drivers on 10 routes, to drive twelve times, thats $23/hr * 10 routes * 12 hours if everything except driver labor were free that means we spend $2760 per day to transport 1556 people, or about $1.77 per trip (assuming diesel is free, buses never wear out, etc). If we doubled the number of bus that would be $5520 of driver labor to move 1556 people per day or $3.55 cost per pax trip. On one hand the actual annual total "OE per UPT" counting weekends and maint and office people and dispatchers etc, according to the annual report is $13.94, so an extra $1.77 would seem cheap, but the bus does not run for free and the total expense of doubling the runs might cost as much as an extra $14 per pax trip.
The costs don't really matter, if the taxpayers want it as a luxury bragging feature of the city. Everyone wants everyone else to use it even though no one would be caught dead actually using it. My point being that adult fare is $2 but adults don't ride its mostly elderly and disabled at the $1 fare, so a profit (loss) ratio of (28 - 1)/28 with two buses per route isn't much worse than (14 - 1)/14 with one bus per route.
Maybe another way to look at the analysis is in my city if the stops are more than 1600 feet apart there will be multiple people per stop and that would "slow things down" whereas a small fraction like 400 feet would mean the bus mostly just speeds by.
No one can seem to explain why we can't have infinite bus stops. How about every stop sign is a bus stop? The bus has to stop anyway. Artificial scarcity to drive down ridership, I suppose.
Great idea, would it be possible to make it possible to add my own custom tshark one liners under weird stuff? For example, sometimes I find myself troubleshooting TCP retransmission issues that is specific to proprietary applications and that may not be relevant everyone else to have by default.
As an aside, I was thinking about something similar to this tool for a while now after seeing this post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46723990) where someone was using Claude to troubleshoot a PCAP. It made me think that it would be nice just to have a nice collection of tshark one-liners to quickly weed out any weird stuff right off the bat. I would assume that it would be a lot more performant than using a LLM and more scalable if you have large PCAP files.
absolutely. May be the best way to do this would be some kind of a recipe store where the user can run (we can fuzzy match?) tshark oneliners. I'd love your thoughts on what the easiest/quickest integration would be.
This is a great idea, thanks. I built an IPv6 only webhost in Digital Ocean a while ago as a learning exercise and it’s been sitting idle. Making a personal portal sounds like a fun project.
I just use “New Tab Redirect” in Chrome so I can make new tabs default to google.com. The home page only applies to the initial browser window/tab. It’s pretty silly.
This has been the worst downgrade for me. Response times have skyrocketed. The minimum time to response is now a few seconds slower and the responses continue to be low quality. The speaker seems to have even lost some functionality where it says "I can't do that yet" for a thing it mostly could already do previously. If I could tell anyone with Google Home devices one thing, it would be to not 'upgrade' to Gemini.
Google update sucks. Not only is it slower + generally dumber, but their AI alignment has made it refuse to answer very normal questions (I got scolded by my speaker for asking about the hours of the nearest liquor store)
No experience with Google yet. Amazon still has more work to do with making their tool-use calls bullet proof, but I've been able to search Youtube naturally and "open the first video" (this is still rudimentary, it's not perfect yet). Pretty good success moving around the Fire TV app with voice (open, exit), reasonably good at switching Live channels. Really fun with Amazon music, "pull up a Taylor Swift album, but acoustic only, from 2010s ...", stuff like that. It's great, and I expect it to become rather ... perfect in time.
Other things:
- Great for todo/reminders with timers
- "Hey Alexa, turn my lights on at 5 everyday, close them at 12"
- Not great at controlling Prime Video yet, can search it, but not great yet at all. Expecting this to be perfect at some point as well.
They also had this as option to pay at Amazon Fresh, which seemed odd to me. You needed to use your phone to scan the QR code from your phone anyway, and they charged the credit card on file in your Amazon account.
>Corporate/enterprise networks have nightmarish setups for centralizing access to LLMs.
As someone who is on the other side of the fence on this and trying to keep the network secure and preventing data exfiltration there could be a good reason for this. More often than not we have folks doing all kinds of crazy things and ignore what’s in the handbook. For example we had someone who didn’t like MFA for remote access and would use Tailscale to have a remote permanent reverse proxy to their homelab to do whatever work they were doing. What’s funny is that we are not BOFH’s and would have helped them setup whatever they need had they just sent us an email or opened a ticket.
The whole Tailscale ethos is exactly what you're talking about:
* Security/risk teams have coherent, sensible goals for managing access
* The technology stack they've landed on makes those goals performative; so complicated that they can't even express their most important goals, so annoying that users route around it
* What's needed is a radically simplified approach that centers end-user experience (particularly around onboarding).
I'm not saying banks are crazy to want to control LLM usage (I'm not bullish on it long-term either, but I see the issue), just that the systems I've talked to friends about them using today are batshit, ranging from "foundation lab shmoundation lab we'll just do our own models" to "OK you can operate in 2025 but only in a Citrix terminal".
reply