Yes, age diminishing driving skills certainly is a huge factor but I wonder how much of this age stat is due to the different generation in which they learned to drive.
Isn't that basically the process some "thinking" models try to do for you under the hood? Prompting itself to improve your prompt. I actually have no idea but this is what I guessed it did when using it.
They do some variant of this, but this is more directed. They might not do this on their own, they might follow other lines of reasoning. Maybe more effective, maybe less.
What's interesting about this is chess.com allows you to stack as many pre-moves as you like but they each cost 0.1s, whereas on lichess you can only have one pre-move which is technically free but maybe not because of delay.
Exactly this. I've been single for four months at 27 and dated a lot during that time and I noticed that the bar is set _so low_ to place yourself as a better candidate than, let's say 80% of other men, that's it's simply scary.
Most men have literally nothing interesting to offer for a relationship. When you look at their situation from an objective point of view it's so obvious why they remain single and yet most are unable to see it. They either have no hobbies, hobbies that are almost exclusively shared by other men and often show no interest in their potential partners' hobbies. A lot of them also spend most of their time in online communities that are almost completely absent from women. They end up having discussion subjects and interests so far away from their dating partners that it turns into an awkward date.
I daresay a higher percentage of men have interesting hobbies than women, at any age. Mostly because having interesting hobbies is a good way to attract mates for men, and not for women.
It's still an issue. When online dating, one of the main thing you get from a person's profile is "what are their interests?". Even if it's not explicitly written down, people try to infer based on the pictures.
Oh, a picture him riding an ATV with the boys. Ah, here's one of him fishing with the boys. There he is, happily posing with a normally dangerous but sedated wild animal. Hmm.
>Oh, a picture him riding an ATV with the boys. Ah, here's one of him fishing with the boys. There he is, happily posing with a normally dangerous but sedated wild animal. Hmm.
>You get the idea.
I don't get the idea.
Half the comments here are about men lacking healthy masculinity. Now you just described someone who loves going out in the nature. Fishing and hunting are fun hobbies and it's not for men only (literally my local angling club is like ~40% women)
>hobbies that are almost exclusively shared by other men
So all the best ones.
Programming, GNU/Linux, complex bideo gamez...
>and often show no interest in their potential partners' hobbies
So all the braindead ones for people who for some reason are too cognitively limited or environmentally discouraged to be into the ones above.
Sex, drugs, travel, shopping...
This stark sexual partitioning is either a joint failure of society and feminism in not encouraging women to do better or some redpill biological thing, but, either way, it sucks and the answer is the same: posthumanity. Let's go bb :clap:
No, because they do explicit vacation passes. If you literally maintain two households --- or, like my family, have a kid in a college apartment --- you're probably going to have to spring for a second account. Which, fair enough: the college apartment also requires us to spring for a second ISP bill, second utilities, second toaster; it was nice to get away with not duplicating the Netflix bill, but not reasonable to feel entitled to it.
No, it is not "fair enough". Those aren't the same situations. You need to pay a second ISP bill because that requires physical infrastructure to be laid down and maintained. Same with utilities and the toaster. Once you have the network connection you can access Netflix just fine. Unless they place an arbitrary restriction on it.
Then they shouldn't sell multi-screen plans. I don't particularly care about how much they spend on infrastructure-- that's not my problem. If I'm a customer I expect to be able to use what I pay for
I don't know anything about Netflix's system, but similar-seeming anti-fraud systems just fingerprint devices. Chances are, if you normally watch from your laptop or iPad and travel a lot, you're not going to notice any changes.
Exactly. Is what I tried to allude to with "common device."
That said, with how many folks leave their contacts in rental cars, I wouldn't be too shocked to know folks try to login at other locations. I imagine that would be a popular integration with hotel booking systems. Basically, make it so your netflix is attached to the hotel tv when you get there.
Presumably they know when they are streaming for a given account. They could simply say an account can be used for a single stream, and decline to start a second concurrent stream for the same account. Include download playbacks as a form of stream. The headache of coordinating watch times when sharing accounts would incentivise additional subscriptions.
That is precisely what they shouldn't do. I have several televisions and devices in my one house.
Granted... We don't actually watch too much television, such that it may not actually impact us if they do it this way. Still, I imagine many families with children would be heavily impacted by this strategy.
I am stumped by that person's comment. Waze is superior in every single way for navigation:
Faster adjusting to real-time traffic, better navigation UI, more importantly tells you where polices are but also other various things that are good to know beforehand.
Google maps is still useful to pre-plan a route, get information about businesses, restaurants, opening hours and just better overall building information with street view and such, but I'd never go back to using maps for navigation unless they do exactly as waze does.
> You build as much new housing as you can afford to, and let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels.
In many larger cities, older housing occupy prime location where the value of the land is twice the value of a new building you could build on it, so all these would never filter down to affordable levels.
>all these would never filter down to affordable levels.
Another factor contributing to the same thing is that cities aren't closed systems. Building new units at the top of the market doesn't mean that everyone in the city will move up one rung in quality leaving the cheapest unit now vacant. Many cities will have a latent demand for housing that is being suppressed by high prices. When that exists, someone from outside the city will move to the city to occupy the new construction or the newly vacated units at the top of the market. All that latent demand needs to be satisfied before the benefit of the new construction will trickle down to the bottom of the market.
Then it's time to break out the one-two punch that would specifically address the land being disproportionately valuable: a land value tax + a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. universal basic income). If anyone's to benefit from that land being valuable, it should be the citizenry as a whole, not some cartel of landlords who lucked into it.
Could that really work at a local level where people can freely move cities? Local UBI seems hard to implement in a non city state.
But if we are talking city states, why not take the Singaporean approach? Just have the government build apartments and subsidize sale to citizens? Everyone gets a flat eventually.
I'm in Singapore and that's missing a lot of context. The supply of government housing is not nearly enough to meet supply and there are restrictions on who can apply and even then it's a lottery. Property is still considered an investment, and no wonder when resale prices for the HDB flats are significantly higher than the purchase price.
IMO the HDB flats should not be saleable on the open market and can only be sold back to the government (subject to inflation and depreciation adjustments that no-one's going to agree to) but I'm an expat and not eligible to partake in the upside so I might be a bit biased.
All that being said they have done a better job than most of making government housing both accessible and appealing even if it means that I'm having to find a new place to live in the middle of an inflationary period (even as the country is seeing net emigration for the first time in decades, wth is going on??)
> Could that really work at a local level where people can freely move cities? Local UBI seems hard to implement in a non city state.
Only if you overthink it. An "open border" LVT+UBI system is self-balancing; a flood of immigrants would drive up demand for land, which drives up its value, which raises LVT revenue, which raises total UBI disbursement, which keeps each individual's UBI stable.
That said, it would work even better at a state level, and better still at a national/federal level.
> why not take the Singaporean approach?
The Singaporean approach (IIUC) includes land leases, which is in practice equivalent to a 100% LVT (assuming the government prices the lease at the land's full value).
Land being more expensive than the improvements atop it is a great milestone that your restrictive zoning is truly out of control, and that your area has probably bumped up against serious geographic constraints.
Which is to say, what you've described is a signal to demolish and build higher intensity, while the filtering happens elsewhere.
No, at some point you tear down the old structure and build a new expensive one. Or in the Japanese extreme, you tear down and rebuild the house whenever it changes hands (since no one wants to live in a second hand house).
Can you describe an example? Generally in my high cost of living area I observe this trend pretty clearly. Pricier apartments are typically newer or nicer, cheap ones are usually at least 50 years old and unrenovated and scarcely maintained beyond what the letter of the law outlines, and these units could have identical square footage measurements, be $400 apart on monthly rent, and exist across the street from each other.
you're describing apartments or condos and I was referring to the whole building. In Montreal, the central neighborhoods are mostly made of duplex/triplex/fourplex where one unit is often occupied by the owner and the two others are rental units.
For rental apartments, the most expensive ones are both renovated and in a prime location which is often still a centennial building. Brand new buildings are most of the time outside of these locations.
I wonder -- "-fuse-ld" has some somewhat surprising behavior in how clang ends up discovering the linker. I think that even if clang has a sibling `lld` in the same distribution, "-fuse-ld=lld" will pick "ld.lld" from the $PATH if it's present in there before the directory where clang and lld are installed.
So maybe that "--ld-path" option helps resolve ambiguity by expecting an explicit path instead of a linker name.
