I wonder what the performance characteristics are?

I'm assuming this is going to work well for small datasets that fit in memory, and probably less well beyond that. So good for config, context etc.

Also curious how the tables and index are maintained, for example if there's a write heavy workload. Does TigerFS handle rebuilding/repacking and the associated drudgery?

Making a typeface takes a tremendous amount of work. The financial upside is extremely hard to justify.

I think non-designers underestimate the amount of effort required by an order of magnitude. I put it in the territory of building indie games. Potentially years of your life go into it, and it's a huge problem if everyone pirates your work.

That said, a certain corporation's bought up a load of fonts made over the past x decades and is making a tidy sum selling old rope again and again without adding anything of value, or funding the original designers/converters, so I'm quite happy to illuminate how an individual can get around such things for use on their personal blog with an audience of ten, should they so wish.

.

ed - you're also not as likely to be able to get a whole usable font from a small foundry in the first place, without buying it.

I get that they're trying to make their ROI back from enterprise customers who can justify paying thousands a month for their specific corporate font, but I would like to see more personal use, project based pricing that's affordable for hobbyist use

You're not paying to use the alphabet, there are plenty of perfectly legible typefaces that are completely free for you to use.

Legally based off the carefully considered positions of philosophers of law like Thomas Jefferson, and others just as renowned, who actually created modern copyright law in the United States, because they weren't trying to set you up to be rent-seeking degenerate scribblers for the next umpteen millennia.

>but digital font files are considered programs

As precedented in case law by degenerate judges who should be brought up on treason charges. They aren't programs in any meaningful sense, culinary recipes are likely closer to programs (they, arguably, run on a Turing-complete machine, the human brain, and have something akin to branching going on once in awhile).

>You can try to justify the theft

What theft? No theft occurred, because I denied no one the possession of their own property. Even the judges and lawyers have to admit that this is at most infringement, so please use that word or just confess here and now that you'rea manipulative liar.

>I would note that bitmap fonts do not receive the same protection as Type 1 or OTF fonts.

What!?!?! Those aren't programs too? Please, consult the computer scientists, they must be informed! Are they also not stored as ones and zeroes?

I do not argue with idiots.

The details and pitfalls that are unique to your specific scenario, that you only discover by running into them.

And yet this less obvious, more uncommon stuff is also what AI will be weakest at.

The author's approach is really good, and he hits on pretty much all the problems that arise from more naive approaches. In particular, using a perceptual colorspace, and how the most representative colour may not be the one that appears the most.

However, image processing makes my neck tingle because there are a lot of footguns. PNG bombs, anyone? I feel like any library needs to either be defensively programmed or explicit in its documentation.

The README says "Finding main colors of a reasonably sized image takes about 100ms" -- that's way too slow. I bet the operation takes a few hundred MB of RAM too.

For anyone that uses this, scale down your images substantially first, or only sample every N pixels. Avoid loading the whole thing into memory if possible, unless this handled serially by a job queue of some sort.

You can operate this kind of algorithm much faster and with less RAM usage on a small thumbnail than you would on a large input image. This makes performance concerns less of an issue. And prevents a whole class of OOM DoS vulnerabilities!

As a defensive step, I'd add something like this https://github.com/iamcalledrob/saferimg/blob/master/asset/p... to your test suite and see what happens.

As for loading into memory at once: I suppose I could integrate with something like libvips and stream strips out of the decoded image without holding the entire bitmap, but that'd require substantially more glue and complexity. The current approach works fine for extracting dominant colours once to save in a database.

You're right that pre-resizing the images makes everything faster, but keep in mind that k-means still requires a pretty nontrivial amount of computation.

[1]: https://crates.io/crates/image

[2]: https://pypi.org/project/pillow/

image = pyvips.Image.new_from_file(filename, access="sequential")

scale = min(200 / image.width, 200 / image.height)

thumbnail = image.colourspace("oklab").resize(scale).extract_bands(0, n=3)

rgbf = thumbnail.write_to_memory()

That'll stream the source image and make a RGBRGBRGB memory buffer of single precision floats. You could perhaps use kernel="linear" and avoid any ringing from lanczos3.

I think I would downsample in a linear light space, like scRGB. Averaging there means averaging photons, which will surely be better than OKLab. Maybe switch to OKLab for clustering. Though of course I've not tested it.

https://gnome.pages.gitlab.gnome.org/glycin/

> Okmain downsamples the image by a power of two until the total number of pixels is below 250,000.

That being said, this is sampling the fixed-size input buffer for the purposes of determining the right colour. You still have to load the bitmap into memory, with all the associated footguns that arise there. The library just isn't making it worse :) I suppose you could memmap it.

Makes me wonder if the sub-sampling is actually a bit of a red herring, as ideally you'd want to be operating on a small input buffer anyway. Or some sort of interface on top of the raw pixel data, so you can load what's needed on-demand.

I think if you were going to "downsample" for the purpose of creating a color set you could just scan through the picture and randomly select 10% (or whatever) of the pixels and apply k-means to that and not do any averaging which costs resources and makes your colors muddy.

I should probably add this nuance to the post itself.

Edit: added a footnote

[0]: https://dgroshev.com/blog/okmain/img/distance_mask.png?hash=...

EDIT: then (when url refreshed) triggered a redir loop culminating in a different error ("problem occurred repeatedly")...

ah, ofc, your intent was to demonstrate a problematic asset.

Got any to share? A self-contained command-line tool to get a good palette from an image is something I’d have a use for.

https://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/dominantcolor/index....

I think I've unintentionally trained myself to notice (and tune out) both AI illustrations and AI writing.

At a deep instinctual level, knowing that someone hasn't spent much time or effort creating the content makes me not want to reciprocate with time or effort.

I've realised that my brain literally tunes out AI illustrations, much as it does with ad banners.

Perhaps since they're easy to generate, I encounter illustration more -- it's no longer a signal of quality.

HOWEVER, due to the open nature of the platform, you can install an extension to clean this up. Now, all my windows have identical corner radii, strokes, shadows etc. My Linux desktop is, surprisingly, more consistent now than macOS in this regard.

https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/7048/rounded-window-c...

  550 5.7.520 Message blocked because it contains content identified as spam. AS(4810)'

Something is rotten in the state of Outlook

So same OS, users, packages, flatpaks etc. And a mostly synced home dir too.

Is NixOS the only viable way to do this? I don't like the path mangling that Nix introduces.

It seems like an immutable distro customized via a Containerfile could work too? Except rebooting/reimagine for every change sounds tedious as hell.

This does cause some interesting tension in the immutability though. /etc in particular is really a mix of things that a sysadmin should really only be setting, and things a regular user may set indirectly. This usage has grown organically over time with the tools involved in the implementation, so it's not at all consistent which are which. The immutable system solutions recognize this by usually handling the whole /etc folder the same way package managers handle package installs that include /etc file: by doing a 3-way merge between the old provided files, the new provided files, and the current existing files to see if the existing are unchanged from the old provided and can just be directly replaced by the new provided or if a merge conflict needs resolving. Additionally, a separate copy of /etc is maintained associated with each available bootable system version so when you roll back you get the old /etc files you had before. Though this does introduce a system-unique variation since you now have new /etc being affected by the state of /etc when it was forked.

If you want all your home folder and system config to be identical, nix or guix really are your primary way to go, that extra lockdown of the user and system config is exactly what most people don't want for usability reasons.

I personally use nix home-manager on top of Aurora DX from Universal Blue. I have my nix home-manager config setup to manage only the things I want to be locked down in my home config, and to provide some extra tools that are easier to manage/supply via Nix than a system package manager (where I would need to do a whole system update to get the new version). My IDE for example is installed on a specific version via Nix, but I don't have Nix manage the settings of it so I can separately tweak as needed without need a home-manager rebuild.

EDIT: typo

You can do this today with Aurora, Bazzite, Bluefin, and other bootc systems. The system updates by default are weekly and require a reboot but when you move most of the stuff into the userspace most of that stuff updates independently anyway.

Luckily UniversalBlue makes it incredibly easy, they have a template repo you can use that has all the GitHub action setup included to auto-bills on every change, and directions for how to set it up. It took me about 10 minutes

Even factoring in parking, traffic, and bus lanes, it's much faster to drive within SF than take the bus. Stopping every 2 blocks and missing every other green light kills throughput.

My local bus stop to connect to BART supposedly had service every 20 mins, but often a bus would be out of service and the wait would be 30-40 minutes. Unless a bus was right there, it was faster to walk.

But yeah the fact that it's often faster to walk (and definitely faster to take a bike/scooter) is also an issue.

Because of Muni's inability to stick to schedule, [0] the Nextbus displays are absolutely essential for making the "Do I walk, or do I wait?" decision. I hate stops that don't have them.

It's a damn shame that the city didn't build many more subway lines during the boom times.

[0] Granted, it's not entirely their fault; they have to contend with SF traffic, too.

Everyone can form their own opinion on the acceptable number of visibly intoxicated people they’d like to encounter. That said, my understanding of the law is that the correct number is zero. So seeing more than zero is an indication that laws are not being enforced.

People can debate whether particular laws regarding drug use are justified. However, if enforcement itself is optional, one might reasonably question whether that applies to other, less controversial laws as well.

As many as you'd expect to meet given how many choose to use the bus to go somewhere.

Retorts:

"Buses shouldn't be mobile homeless shelters." Sure, I agree. But I also agree that someone who has paid their fare and isn't disrupting the safe operation of the bus is entitled to ride the bus. If I want to purchase a ticket and sit my ass down for an hour and a half [0] to watch the city go by, then -assuming there's a seat available for my ass- I'm entitled to do that.

"I shouldn't have to sit next to smelly people." It's not just the poor or crazy that can be smelly. Your diet influences your odor, and some diets make you smell very strongly. Some folks just douse on the perfumes and that sort of thing triggers the migraine headaches of some other folks. As you age, you may lose reliable control of your bladder and bowels. ("Adult undergarments" are a thing people buy for a reason, after all.)

"I shouldn't feel uncomfortable in public." I'm sympathetic, but it's simply a fact of life that you will sometimes feel uncomfortable when around other people.

[0] Last I checked, Muni tickets offer gratis transfers to any other bus or train for 90 minutes after the time of purchase. OTOH, operators rarely check the validity of the tickets of riders, so -IMO- sitting on transit all damn day is fine by me... just so long as you get another ticket if yours is expired and the operator requests that you do so.

In the US, buses (and public transport in general), are thought of as social programmes. Anyone can use them, but they are really for people who can't drive or are too poor to own a car.

The rider makeup then looks like that. The elderly and the poor, sadly. Services run at a huge loss and are dependent on massive and unpopular government subsidies. Quality of service is bad. There's a stigma to using it. You end up with long, slow bus lines because this allows as many of the current demographic (elderly, poor) to take the bus. And there are always bailouts or brutal cuts on the horizon. You end up at a sort-of local maxima of inadequacy.

In an alternate universe, public transport is run to compete with the car, and attracts all demographics. Day-to-day operations are un-subsidised, and therefore relatively expensive. It competes on value. People use it because it's a better experience than driving.

This alternate universe is a city like London. Transport for London has a balanced budget, and despite what grumpy Brits like to say, quality of service is on an ever-upwards trajectory.

In my opinion, operating transport as transportation programme, not a social programme, is how you get more adoption in the long term. You make public transport attractive to more demographics.

These means the trains constantly improve and there's no poltitians trying to cut funding or under budgetting. The 10 companies in Tokyo I can name are JR East, Eiden, Toei, Tokyu, Seibu, Tobu, Odakyu, Keio, Keikyu, Keisei. There are actually more but they generally run 1 line each, at least at the moment.

Of those, only Toei (4 lines) are run by the government. Eiden (the Tokyo Subway) is private but gets some goverment backing. The others are all private. JR East was public in the 70s. The other 7 have always been private.

Unsurprisingly, only Toei, the government run one, is not setup with all of the positive feedback loops that keep the others going.

Note that it's similar in the Osaka/Kyoto/Kobe area. JR West and 5 other big companies, 3 subway companies, a bunch of other 1/2 line companies.

Another thing to note is, AFAICT, the population density of Kyoto is generally less than Los Angeles but they have great transporation from these private companies.

Conversely, the London Underground has had notorious underfunding issues.

1. Where the Government wants to subsidize some group (e.g. help the disadvantaged by giving them discounts) they should pay the fair price to the transit agency out of the budget of Welfare, not drag on the financials of the transport agency. In other words, it shouldn't be possible that the transport agency is insolvent only because most of their customers are paying next to nothing. Discussions about whether we should spend a certain sum on subsidizing the poor to ride the bus/train/etc are purely welfare budget discussions.

2. The Government should move additional money into the system when they realize an expansion of transport helps further societal goals: e.g. congestion pricing funds should help to expand transit, or the government pays part of the cost to build new rail service to reduce congestion on the roads.

Instead of TfL being forced to take the loss, they are reimbursed by local government cost of the transport.

As an aside, I also take some issue with this pass being completely free to use. In my experience, people end up using it to go a single stop just because it's free, so why not -- which slows bus service for everyone else. I think it should be 20p per journey or something like that.

Another counterpoint: if the bus isn't overloaded, taking an additional passenger costs next to nothing, while delivering significant value to the passenger. Don't we want to create as much value as possible?

The bus has to stop, let the passenger on, and later let them off.

This affects everyone else on the bus and reduces the quality of service.

You can see that a long-distance train has doors only at the end of carriages, and stops for several minutes, but a subway has doors about every 10 seats, and stops for 20 seconds.

To liken this back to the old days - the difference in time between flashing a valid transfer slip (of paper) and having to drop change into the automated till.

Elderly will have to do that, too, because a) I expect they still want to track usage, and b) allowing some passengers to hop on a bus without checking in makes it too easy for those ineligible to do that (e.g. elderly who do not live in London) to try and do that, too.

Unfortunately the bus passes and freedom passes are not interchangeable and sometimes have to be manually checked if not in the local region,

The usual pattern is when a bus only lane is proposed, drivers complain because they view the bus as a social program. Local legislators often take the drivers' side because they also view the bus as a social program. Even if you get the political capital to push a bus only lane, traffic enforcement will routinely ignore bus lane violations. LA is making waves on the latter problem by attaching cameras to buses which automatically write tickets for cars blocking the bus lane.

Ultimately it's a politics problem. If nobody wants to spend political capital on running a bus system as a transport program, it ends up as a social program.

The problem with this in the US is that it's nearly impossible for the bus to be faster than a car without making the car slower on purpose, and the latter is the thing which is going to create the most opposition, because you're essentially screwing people over during the transition period -- which would take years if not decades.

In the meantime people still can't take the bus because the higher density housing that makes mass transit viable where they live hasn't been built yet etc., and as long as they're stuck in a car they're going to fight you hard if you try to make being stuck in a car even worse.

Meanwhile, cars are expensive. ~$500/mo for a typical car payment, another $100+ for insurance, another $100+ for gas, you're already at $8400+/year per vehicle before adding repairs and maintenance etc. For a two-car household that's more than 20% of the median household income. Make mass transit completely free and people start preferring the housing where mass transit is viable, which means more of it gets built, which is the thing you need to actually make it work.

Switching a car lane to a bus lane actually makes the cars in the remaining lanes move faster.

But it's especially rubbish when converting an existing lane, because the existing lane will have already allowed the demand to be high, e.g. people already built houses outside the range of mass transit and those residents are now locked in to using that road in cars, and you then remove the lane even though the demand is sticky.

LA average vehicle speed during rush hour is 27.6km/h (17 mph) according to Tom Tom [1]. So a 10 mph bus would turn that 27 minute journey into 46 minutes which I'll admit is more than desirable, hardly catastrophic though.

But remember that each bus can carry about fifty people which would remove close to fifty cars from the road resulting in less congestion and faster buses. Fifty cars need 400 m of road, one bus needs only 20 m.

And on your way home you can doze in your seat without causing an accident.

[1] https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/city/los-angeles-ca

There is another interesting US-centric perspective here. For some reason, US consumers feel the need to drive new or nearly-new cars.

$5000 can get you a reliable but unsexy used car. I think there is a sort of "Parkinson's law" of consumer spending at play, where financial outgoings will expand to match disposable income.

I also think there's a problem with fixed spend (e.g. car payment, insurance) vs per-trip spend. Per-trip costs are felt more.

A reason that public transport is often more popular in European cities because driving isn't even an option. There's literally nowhere to park. Even the rich need to get around, and this creates pressure to improve non-car transport from all sides.

$5000 can get you a 10+ year old used car with 100,000+ miles on it and no warranty. That's fine if you know how to do repairs and maintenance yourself, because then you're buying a part from the internet with a low markup and installing it yourself instead of paying four times as much for someone else to do it. But not every knows how to do that, or has time, or knows how to tell if a used car with no warranty will be reliable before buying it. And if you plop $5000 down on something with no warranty and then have to scrap it after the first year because your $5000 car needs a $5500 new engine, you're not saving money.

There is also the matter of where used cars come from. You can get one for $5000 because someone paid $30,000 to buy it new ten years ago. If more people did that, fewer new cars are sold and then fewer enter the used market and used car prices go up. So you can buy a used car for $5000, but it's not possible for "most people" to do that because if they tried to, they would no longer be available for $5000.

> I also think there's a problem with fixed spend (e.g. car payment, insurance) vs per-trip spend. Per-trip costs are felt more.

Which is the problem with mass transit. You get in your car and it feels like it costs nothing, the only thing that changed is the gas gauge went down by half a tank and the odometer went up. Meanwhile the amortized cost was actually over $100. Then you go to get on the train and you immediately have to swipe your card and get a bill for $40, which feels like a lot for one trip.

Worse, the car is $100+ per trip only if you're amortizing the fixed costs, i.e. comparing to the alternative of not having a car at all. If the fixed costs of having the car are sunk, the incremental cost of the trip is maybe $15, and then when the train is $40, nobody with a car is saving money to take the train when they can.

Whereas if the train is $0, then it's "hey that goes right where I'm going this time and I don't have to buy gas". Which, if it happens often enough, means more people don't need a car to begin with.

> A reason that public transport is often more popular in European cities because driving isn't even an option.

Obviously if you make something unavailable then people use alternatives. But in the US it's the other way around -- half the population lives in the suburbs where there is no public transport, nor can there be because the density is too low.

So then you need to find ways to make public transit more attractive (like eliminating the fares) rather than making cars less attractive, because making cars less attractive is going to encounter major opposition from the people who have no available option other than to use cars.

I can't make any excuses for the social and class implications, but if it got more people on the bus, it might only need to be a temporary measure.

At least that’s what I think. But if you’re right, and there’s a version of bus transport that’s viable without subsidy, then there should be a market opportunity for a private business to provide that type of bus transport. This actually exists for long range intercity buses already, but you’d think it should be possible inside of some cities. I haven’t looked into this in a lot of detail but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was effectively impossible to try and start a private bus service in most cities, specifically because that would reduce ridership of city transit and threaten all of the unionized public sector jobs in that system. In which case the bus system isn’t really even for the poor and elderly anymore; it’s for the transit workers union, which undoubtedly is a player in city politics.

Of course, there's still plenty of drivers, but the nice thing is that you have options here. Why would I want to drive if I can just take the metro, or tram, or train, or hell just cycle? Within Dutch cities cycling is often much faster than any other mode of transport, and the great thing is that everyone uses the cycling infra, young or old, rich or poor, able bodied and otherwise.

(Even then, it depends on the destination - if it's to another city then the intercity trains are still better but for 2+ people it ends up being the premium/expensive option and the car is cheaper.)

The city heavily discourages car use for commuting.

Offices have no parking spaces.

Any parking you do find in central London will be paid at an extreme rate.

To drive into the city costs around $20 per day, increasing much further if you have an older, polluting vehicle.

There is so much congestion that it is usually faster to walk than drive.

It’s a large percentage of total bus revenue by design, and a significant expense for some local governments. But the number only look large because of how we split the vast majority of government spending into federal and state budgets with local budgets being relatively anemic by comparison.

Perhaps the tiny subsidies (in absolute terms) are because the bus systems are just so small?

SFMTA's farebox recovery is around 25%. London Underground is about 130%. Osaka Subway is 209%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Busses are light compared to 18 wheelers and other heavy equipment, they also replace many cars and SUV’s which keep getting heavier.

Finally that rule of thumb isn’t really that accurate, “A 1988 report by the Australian Road Research Board stated that the rule is a good approximation for rutting damage, but an exponent of 2 (rather than 4) is more appropriate to estimate fatigue cracking.” Rutting really isn’t that significant in most cases, but can instantly destroy road surfaces when fully loaded construction vehicles etc drive over something once.

Your former doesn't imply the latter. Here in Seattle we even still have cobblestone roads without heavy traffic and they spend very little money on them.

We have extensive rutting damage on the lanes use by busses and requires more expensive, deeper road base when they get replaced. This cost is due to the heavy traffic.

Even if squared, the buses are still 22 tons instead of 2-3 tons. 49 times more damage isn't good.

Also that visible ware is noticeable because it hasn’t been replaced. Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.

We also have many concrete roads and closely-spaced axles, if they had them, would not help.

> Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.

I addressed this: they have to dig much deeper and replace with much thicker road. Much more expensive. It's not "looking worse", it's actively dangerous to cyclists and other road users, so the surface must be replaced more often too.

But this is where you need to do a deeper analysis than just a simple rule of thumb. Even adding extra wheels to the same axle makes a big difference to road surfaces.

> so the surface must be replaced more often too.

Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.

However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance. If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.

I guess you don't know how the USA works, and Seattle in particular. We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing. We had a major bridge nearly collapse and was out of commission for years. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-dep...

Many of our roads are not what we call acceptable.

> However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance.

Hahaha nope. We have so many different organizations with their own funding sources. Roads come from State and local funds. Metro is primarily funded with dedicated sales tax.

> If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.

Sorry, but this is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard.

I can’t help but chuckle at the idea you actually believe that. Stop reading headlines and do some actual research into what’s actually going on.

If the US was utterly failing in maintenance you’d see ~6,000 random bridge failures per year based on the number of bridges in existence instead they are incredibly rare showing that we are actually doing a great job overall.

They don’t replace nearly enough cars and SUV’s to make up for the difference in fourth power of axle weight. But yes, 18 wheelers are worse.

A modest bus holds 40-50 people. Most commuter traffic is single driver, single vehicle. I don't know to which power the difference in axle weight would have to be to surpass the efficiency gains of replacing 40 to 50 American sized SUVs with a city bus, but I suspect it's more than four.

(I don't really understand how the fourth power of axel weight thing can possibly be true, though. Why would joining two vehicles together into a mega vehicle with double the weight and double the wheel count suddenly cause the combined vehicle to inflict 16x more wear than before you joined the two together? It makes no sense.)

A Ford F-150 weighs about 2 tons and has two axles, for an axle weight of 1 ton. 1^4=1.

A garbage truck weighs maybe 30 tons and has three axles, for an axle weight of 10 tons. 10^4=10,000.

So if you drive an F-150, you’re doing as much road damage driving down the street 10,000 times as the garbage truck does once. Rural areas that don’t have garbage trucks and just expect everyone to haul their garbage to the dump in the back of their pickups are onto something.

So, scenario A:

    4 ton vehicle, 2 axles
    load per axle is 2 tonnes.
    2^4 is 16
    2 axles - so load is 32.
    Another vehicle the same - also loading 32
    Total: 64

    8 ton vehicle, 4 axles
    load per axle is 2 tonnes
    2^4 is 16
    4 axles - load load is 64
    Total: 64

Doubling the weight and doubling the wheel count leaves the axle weight unchanged.

In Europe, the numbers differ even more. Lighter weight cars typically 1.5-2 tons, a new London bus can be upto 18 tons when loaded - that's ~5-16 units of wear for the car to 104,976 units for the bus...

But this is all supposing we're optimising for road wear, which isn't really the point of a bus system.

Here in Seattle, the busy roads with older lanes used for buses are obvious, because they have two deep canyons while the lane next to them is fine. In fact King County Metro has to pay millions in fines to the state because the buses are excessively heavy.

No roads without bus traffic have the same type of damage.

Which is part of the reason to know that axle weight alone isn't a sufficient scale. If you connect 2 cars axle to axle, they won't start doing 8x as much damage. What matters is axle weight divided by tire width.

I wish you did a little more studying before talking so authoritatively.

Yesterday I came across a couple articles that encapsulate this thought.

https://jacobin.com/2026/02/zohran-mamdani-efficiency-nyc-bu...

And

https://coreyrobin.com/2025/11/15/excellence-over-mediocrity...