Most popular languages were designed with human writability in mind. I’m wondering how languages will evolve if that becomes less of a factor going forward. Of course, for the time being, we need a middle ground to satisfy both humans and LLMs writing code.

Edit: tweaked the title slightly

I see human readability as being a key criterion moving forward since humans will be reviewing the code for the foreseeable future.

I also see functional and pure functional languages gaining in popularity because they're easier for LLMs to reason about, and they're easier to apply automated verification rules.

This is in the application space. It'll be interesting to see if any significant changes happen in the systems development space. Will LLMs drive the further adoption of Rust into the systems space?

It won't work out for riders initially since wait times for women drivers will be egregious so people will just switch back to no preference.

But I'm curious how many women would now feel safe enough to sign up as drivers given this option.

If it does take off, male drivers won't get as many riders but that's ok since their demand was inflated by lack of choice anyway.

Are drivers required to provide sex assigned at birth? If not, we might see male drivers conveniently identifying as women to circumvent this (presumably to minimize wait times between rides). Although I guess they'd get canceled on a lot.

This is interesting, it made me think of trans genders and other minorities.

It would be nice to select LGBTQ friendly rides for example.

I also wonder if you transition, can you change your "sex" on Uber? how would that work and how would they prevent abuse?

I think the attack vector is traditionally opportunistic. Horny driver suddenly has a vulnerable woman in his car and they're in a secluded area, boom there's an assault.

Any driver who is so premeditated about his assault plans that he would sign up to Uber pretending to be a woman probably has easier and more direct ways to access victims that are less likely to blow up in his face.

The premise here is not that men would "pretend to be women" (and sooner or later, a trans activist will decide that this charge has been levied at the wrong target) as part of a "premeditated assault plan".

The premise is that men would do it either in order to protest the policy, or in order to retain access to business that they had before.

This has been the case for a while with search engines. I'm convinced our brains have evolved (atrophied?) to avoid having to remember things that you can simply look up on your phone in a matter of seconds.

I'm assuming fuel being cut off is salvageable if not in the middle of a densely populated city, especially if above a plain or water. So it could be the favorable option in case of an engine fire.

Also, such complexity would introduce additional points of failure - as a sister comment mentions, a faulty altimeter (or whatever sensor) could prevent you from cutting off fuel when you need to.

> if not in the middle of a densely populated city, especially if above a plain or water

What is on the ground below does not matter at that point - how far above that ground you are is what is important. More altitude is more time.

This flight was less than 200 meters up in the air. Sully's flight that you probably remember, that made a successful emergency landing on the river, was about 860 meters high, giving them much more time - about 3.5 minutes of glide time, vs. 32 seconds in the air, total, for the Air India flight.

Okay, maybe there is little hope of making an ideal landing. But the likelihood of it being a fatal accident is significantly reduced without the building in the equation, no?

Given the amount of fuel on board the answer is probably “not by much”.

Nope, the odds are pretty much the same, even on water. It helps to reduce the body count on the ground though.

> how would this deter predators?

Maybe the predator's carcass next to a half eaten garter snake is meant to serve as a lesson to other potential predators.

Or perhaps the aim is not to deter but to simply take one natural predator down with them for the good of their species.

Now waiting for this website to get pwned for its search history so hackers can identify targets worth pursuing.

I too learned that the hard way when dropping a family member off. I naively assumed it wouldn't charge me if I tapped out at the same station 10 minutes later.

London Underground has nice clear policies around this, both about what you'll be charged

https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/how-to-pay-and-where-to-buy-tickets...

And about refunds (typically you'd get an automatic refund for a one-off event)

https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/refunds-and-replacements/touched-in...

I always have high levels of respect for companies with such clarity

In The Netherlands you get a full refund if you tap out at the same station within 20 minutes. If you travel with NS (National Railways), you even have 60 minutes to tap out.

Having someone pay just to wave off someone is incredibly customer-hostile. Besides, how many people are even committing fraud like that?

A parallel comment suggests it might be an “excursion fair.” Although it is not really the intended use of a train, some reasons an individual might ride the train might be sight-seeing, or because they are homeless and want somewhere warm to hang out. In that case, IMO it isn’t really a fraud attempt to get off on the same stop you got in, it is just unexpected use of the system.

> sad to see continued failures of BART

I think this is overstated, at least from an operations point of view. My mom has been using BART to commute to work for over a year and I can't recall many incidents like this.

Surely the people with these knee-jerk reactions lead lives that would hold up under similar scrutiny :)