I've been getting the itch to go deeper into KSP after a scratching the surface of the first one (simple landing on Mun). I was considering buying 2. What's your review against playing KSP 2?
The reviews have been so universally negative on KSP 2 that I haven't bought it yet. Anything I'd say would be hearsay; you can go read the reviews yourself. My impression is it's standard enshittfication: some asshole MBA saw a company that wasn't as shitty as it possibly could be yet, so they bought it, fired/drove out the original team, and made a cheap-ass knockoff 2nd game hoping the laurels of the first would drive sales long enough for them to make some quick bucks before buzzing off to parasitize another company. The exact details may be different but it's basically the same story happening over and over and over and over and over in our dystopian cancerous capitalism. We can't have nice things anymore.
I wasn't aware of Intel's practice of using their home state's natural places for code names. I shouldn't be surprised that Apple wasn't first the that game.
A place I used to work had the internal name of a release called Ulaanbaatar. AFAIK, nobody on the dev team was from Mongolia, but this sort of thing was the norm.
Recent OSX releases are all various places (High Sierra, Big Sur, Mojave, etc.)
Azure regional codenames are "Black Forest" and "Fairfax" for Germany and USGov sovereign clouds.
That was probably the most use "Ulaanbaatar" got that year. Mongolians usually shorten the capital to the initialism UB/Уб in speech and text because it's such a long word.
As I recall, they got sued by the musician's estate for using the code name, "Hendrix," so legal declared that they would henceforth only use place names as codenames to avoid the risk.
18-wheelers already pay taxes very differently than consumer cars. I don't know how much higher they actually are. Maybe someone with knowledge can weigh in here.
In the UK a forty ton artic pays about a 1000 GBP per year for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) plus Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) Levy. Cars pay different amounts based on emissions generally between one tenth and half what the biggest HGV pays. So the HGV is not paying anything like enough to compensate for the extra road wear.
A typical medium sized car weighs about 1 600 kg and has two axles, so an axle weight of 800 kg. The artic has six axles and weighs 41 000 kg, 6 833 kg per axle. The artic has over 5 000 times the effect on the road.
> So the HGV is not paying anything like enough to compensate for the extra road wear.
Do your road repair money not come from fuel tax on hundreds of liters of diesel per fill?
I can see this becoming an issue for EV's but that can be fixed by taxing mileage and weight. Though the mileage part is tricky as its going to be a cat and mouse game of fraud and privacy concern.
> Though the mileage part is tricky as its going to be a cat and mouse game of fraud and privacy concern.
It's not a privacy concern. The mileage is already recorded as part of the periodic safety test, annually in the UK, every two years in Norway (and the rest of EFTA I think).
> Do your road repair money not come from fuel tax on hundreds of liters of diesel per fill?
No that goes into the general treasury funds, as far as I know. It's about 0.60 GBP per litre in the UK. Typical fuel economy gives about 3 km/l so a tax of 0.20 GBP per km.
UK HGVs travel about 25 x 10^9 km per year so the income is about 5 x 10^9 GBP/year. The UK spends over 11 x 10^9 GBP per year on roads, mostly maintenance, more than double the income from diesel fuel duty.
Not just class 8 tractors, either. Everything from (approximately) class 3 up (10,000+lbs GVWR, e.g., 1- and ¾-ton pickup trucks) is taxed by weight in some states (e.g., NC and VA) and taxes at a different rate (but not directly by rate) in others (e.g., FL).
Rates for each state are available through their respective DMVs. Max-weight rated class-8 trucks (overweight is handled by by-instance permit, not registration) are 80,000lbs, and they are not cheap anywhere that I'm aware of.
It definitely doesn't add clarity for me. Paragraphs group sentences about an idea. Breaking sentences into paragraphs implies that you're starting a new thought. If you're not, it just makes the writing choppy, and it reads with extra pauses in my inner monologue that I think most people wouldn't have if they were speaking rather than writing.
This is victim blaming, plain and simple. Why are people ever forced to be close to high speed traffic? The likelihood of dying goes up very quickly as vehicle speed goes up. It is possible to design livable cities where screwing up doesn’t cost you your life.
People aren't forced, they make bad decisions. The homeless in Portland often choose to camp near major freeways and cross them regularly. By near, I mean directly next to (like between the offramp and the freeway). The city isn't allowed to or chooses not to remove these people in unsafe areas and when they do things to dissuade camping next to freeways they are cast as terrible people for hating the homeless.
Driver was DUI, but was later found not guilty because they suspected even a sober person would not have been reasonably able to avoid hitting this woman crossing a major freeway in a bad area at night.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/09/homeless-woman-dies-...
I would find the deaths per miles walked to be even more interesting.
We drive a lot so that number would be low, but if we’re dying quite a lot for how little we walk, that would be extremely telling of how bad the problem is.
One thing I've been noticing more and more since Not Just Bikes pointed it out is the shape of truck hoods.
I've gone over the hood of a Honda Odyssey minivan. It wasn't fun, but I walked away because I rolled over the sloped shape and off the side. I look at the big flat intimidating front grills of modern trucks as I ride my bike around town everyday, and it's very terrifying.
There's legislation around the shape of car hoods that make such things illegal, but trucks are exempt because they were viewed as "working vehicles" at the time the laws were written. Your personal truck is not a working vehicle. You think it's sexy and strong looking. I think it's terrorism. Stop making and buying these monstrosities.
Meta launched a twitter clone called Threads. An existing chat application (in the Slack vein) is called Threads. Meta’s Threads might infringe on the other Threads’ trademark in the US.
If I have gathered correctly, it's that Meta (Facebook's parent co) has launched a new product called "Threads", but there is already a company called "Threads" which OP linked with his or her post.
So the question is, how can Facebook launch without owning the trademark, which it is surely violating.
They have successfully submarined us into looking at the product page on Threads.com as a Slack alternative, while opining on whether this might be a trademark dispute around Meta's new thing with the same name.
Maybe they mean, "brighter than daylight ambient light levels indoors"?