Reorte

The problem with anthracite is that as far as I can tell it would do a better job as an asbestos replacement than as a fuel... Maybe I'm just not good at lighting fires.

A very sad day indeed, a true pleasure being kicked as a token gesture, nothing more. Pointing out past smog conditions isn't at all relevant - the issues with everyone having coal fires was sorted out years ago, what's left now is too small to have any sort of significance, so it's hardly a valid comparison. Another example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, or a least with gesture politics. Funny how the environmentalists love to pick on things like this but conveniently ignore some much larger issues like cement and concrete production... Burning unseasoned wood is plain stupid anyway (just asking for a chimney fire), so no-one should be doing that. If the number burning properly seasoned wood is high then perhaps there's a case to remove the smokeless zone exemptions that permit it in smokeless zones.

This is very nice - after being built purely as a demonstrator for a few flights NASA says they're going to carry on using Ingenuity rather than leave it sitting around, using it to scout ahead for the rover. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56951752 If this was never originally on the cards (it might've been an unofficial hopeful goal for all I know) the Ingenuity team must be thrilled.

Still had desks with inkwells when I was at school in the 80s and some classrooms still had them in to the 90s, but they certainly weren't used by then, we all thought the desks must've been ancient because of them.

Must've been bad if they were throwing the entire board at your head instead of just the chalk!

Well that makes me wonder what the book visible in the window "The Meadow Girls" is all about.

If only others would learn from it, but to them it's "Yeah, well, he clearly wasn't any good at driving fast, I'm much better than that so that wouldn't happen to me."

My car came with one built in. Can't say I would've chosen the option though (it was second hand anyway). Although I don't have a mobile phone either, so I'd just make do with paper maps.

Not so sure about that. Historically machines have been confined to fairly straightforward, simple tasks where they operate in a very different way to people. Moving on to this sort of application I'd put my money on them making different mistakes. Overall fewer ones, maybe (relatively easy to be better than the worst humans who cause most of the problems), but I think the sort of perception and understanding of a situation that a human being is capable of is still in the science fiction regime when it comes to machines. They can do a lot without requiring that level of comprehension, but there will be cases of them doing things wrong that would be obvious to a person.

Well that's a lurch one way then the other then back. On the old Covid map at the most local level it was white two weeks ago then shot up in to the blue, with 14 cases. This week back to white again. I interpret that as most likely being a self-contained outbreak somewhere in the area (don't know where) that was contained and didn't get out into the community at large.

I think we might be talking cross-purposes on that point. I'm certainly not trying to claim that near misses by stupidly close passes aren't an issue, not at all, just that I can't ever see a situation where a car isn't safer than a bike, no matter how good the car is, even if it poses zero risk to a bike. I am no more impressed with people brushing past with their wing mirror almost touching than you are, I'd like to see it treated the same way as racing past a school flat out when children are leaving.

The intention was to illustrate the contradiction rather than tell people to get off their bikes. That just seems to be saying that it's impossible to say anything. It's certainly true that some serious injuries happen under those circumstances, even if it's only a small proportion of the total, it's hard to see how cycling could ever be safer in any world. But that's not really the question, it's could it be safe enough? I could say that sounds like a very absolute statement too... But it doesn't sound implausible.

That's presumably the time actually alongside it, it needs more than that for a safe overtake and not cutting up the artic afterwards.

I've still not got the hang of USB - I can't figure out how this could've been achieved but I'm certain it's somehow been designed so that the first attempt at plugging something in is the wrong way around far more than 50% of the time.

On very busy motorways quite possibly - I believe that's the reason for variable speed limits.

I'm not telling people to stay off bikes because cycling's unsafe. I'm pointing out the problems and contradictions that start appearing if you get too black and white about safety. That also means I'm not saying "everything's fine now, don't bother trying to do more" by the way. Cycling could and should be safer than it is. But it'll always pose more danger than travelling by car, whatever sorts of cars we've got.

That doesn't start of at all sounding balanced - "we believe no injury or death on Britain’s roads should be tolerated." The only way you can have that is to have no traffic at all. Any time anyone says "the risk should be zero" - sure, would be nice, but the world will never be that ideal - I have my doubts about their ability to have a balanced picture and get the impression of someone who looks at the world in black and white extremes.

Similarly just how widespread amongst different drivers are the ones who cause serious accidents? No-one's perfect so there's always a chance anyone might be responsible for one, but the idea that things should change for everyone due to the behaviour of a very, very much worse than average small group is something I find disturbing.

Being knocked off by a motorist isn't the only way you can get hurt cycling - "About 16% of fatal or serious reported bike accidents do not involve a collision with another vehicle." (ROSPA) And some of the ones that do will be the fault of the cyclist and unavoidable even with the most effective automatic vehicle, even if most aren't.

If it's safety you're worried about then you shouldn't be on your bike.

You assume you'll be allowed, that they won't be removed...

Sad that it's become used as a derogatory label, at any rate we need an equivalent derogatory term for people who leap on anything new and religiously claim it to be our saviour (Muskites?)

To be fair I'm sure he had plenty to do and whilst the reality is that he was in terms of distance in reality would it have been much different from being on a quiet drive? He wasn't cut off for that long; the entire orbit was only about two hours.

Well at least they're already in sign language, by definition!

It's possible that they'll understand a bit of English but subconciously misinterpret a "no", particularly if they're not fluent.