That’s much more common than one would think. The London tube began operation 160 years ago. The U1 line in Berlin was constructed between 1902 and 1926. The central railway lines are substantially older. The Paris metro began operation in summer 1900.
Bridges in old cities are very often much older than a century.
> The U1 line in Berlin was constructed between 1902 and 1926.
There's also the S1 line, large parts of which date back to 1874[0]
or even 1838[1], depending on how you count: The train back in 1838 established most of the path today's S1 takes through southwestern Berlin. The S1 runs on a second pair of rails, constructed in 1874, that run in parallel to the 1838 line and diverge from it near the city border. The old 1838 line is set to be rebuilt by 2038.
Better (more expensive) Engineering. Different frame geometries, different materials, better quality control on the welding. One of the main reasons for the recall was that babboe did not follow up on reports of frames breaking until a regulator stepped in. And by then, it was too late to contain it to a few batches.
Babboe is a rather budget brand that uses a single round lower tube under the box. Compare that with the frame of an urban arrow or a R&M load that use multiple tubes and a proper stiff platform under the box. Even if an Urban Arrow Frame would crack, it would bend out of shape instead of failing catastrophically like the Babboe did.
Maybe a better alloy? The urban arrow also has an aluminum frame though, which is the normal recipe for snapped frames. Having broken a couple myself, and not being a racer, I always opt for steel now.
There are a couple of advantages of tricycles that go beyond novice/disabled. They don’t need a kickstand, so they’re easy to park when loaded. They don’t need balancing at stops. They generally have better load capacity.
There’s also tricycles which can lean into a corner which makes them similarly agile as two-wheeled bikes. They’re still wider, though.
Trikes are certainly not for long distances and a sporty style, but as a short distance cargo/kids hauler, they’re cheap, reliable and effective. I know quite a few people
Who are happy with them.
You can never control what I do on my device with the message received- I can make screenshots, or, if the app prevents that, take a picture of the screen.
The goal of signal is trusted end-to-end encrypted communication. Device/Message security on either end is not in scope for Signals threat model.
The trust level required with Signal is, "do I trust the people in this chat not to share the specific communications I am sending to them with some other party whom I do not want to have a copy".
There are many many situations where this level of trust applies that "trust" in the general sense does not apply. It is a useful property.
And if you don't have that level of trust, don't put it in writing.
TM SGNL changes the trust required to, "do I also trust this 3rd party not to share the contents of any of my communications, possibly inadvertently due to poor security practices".
This is a categorical and demonstrably material difference in security model. I do not understand why so many are claiming it is not.
>TM SGNL changes the trust required to, "do I also trust this 3rd party not to share the contents of any of my communications, possibly inadvertently due to poor security practices".
That's the same level of trust really. Signal provides a guarantee that message bearer (i.e. Signal) can't see the contents, but end users may do whatever.
You can't really assume that counterparty's device isn't rooted by their company or they are themselves required by law to provide written transcripts to the archive at the end of each day. In fact, it's publicly known and mandated by law to do so for your counterparty that happens to be US government official.
The people who assume that they are talking with one of the government officials and expect records not to be kept are probably doing (borderline) illegal, like talking treason and bribes.
No, this is not a "nothing to hide argument", because those people aren't sending dickpics in their private capacity.
> This is a categorical and demonstrably material difference in security model. I do not understand why so many are claiming it is not.
Because all it takes is one user to decide they trust the third party.
Right now you actually have to do more than trust everyone, you have to trust everyone they trust with their chat history. Which already can include this sort of third party.
There’s also a bit of a different optimization goal in modern archery - the goal is to put as many arrows precisely on a target. More draw weight helps up to a certain extent, but ranges are pre-set and limited and once your draw weight is high enough to comfortably propel the arrow that far, more weight will not improve things. Aiming gets harder at a higher weight. You could shoot a heavier arrow, but the benefits are somewhat limited - it punches a bigger hole which helps a bit, but you’re not trying to kill the target - so the added penetration is not interesting.
In a war setting, higher draw weights increase both distance and penetration, which are desirable.
In Europe this exists with the l6e an l7e class vehicles - which lead to a number of interesting microcar designs, often for 2 people with a top speed of about 90km/h and ranges around 150-200km. Great commuter vehicles.
Speeding is widely accepted, because it seems such a low level offense. 50km/h instead of 30, it’s only 20 more. But the physics are against you - the energy of the vehicle grows quadratic with the speed. At 30, you need about 18 meters to come to a stop. So you can prevent an accident if a person appears about 20 meters from your hood. At 50, you’ll run them over with a remaining speed of more than 30km/h. Speeding kills.
Road conditions change. Sometimes it’s the middle of the night and nobody is on the county road, so you can run your brights. Sometimes a particular section of road has high visibility that makes a higher speed safer, while other sections are best taken under the limit. Some vehicles have better headlights than others, different stopping distances. Your logic only says “lower is safer,” it provides no means by which to draw the line on what level of risk is acceptable and, make no mistake, any amount of driving always implies risk. We balance the risk against its reward, that’s the function of traffic law.
For speed limits, the conditions are so variable that we compromise and set a number that’s reasonable-ish, most likely calibrated to the least safe conditions the road regularly experiences, and leave it at that. It’s still entirely possible, however, that a particular driver can have a much greater understanding of the risks implicit in going 10 over given their conditions, and thus increase the risk only a slight bit to save a large amount of time. This isn’t intrinsically some horrific moral crime; if you think it is then it sounds like law for the law’s sake type shit.
You’re trying to apply the “I am a good driver and my judgment is better than other people’s” argument - but the majority of people believe they’re an above average driver. That’s a dangerous fallacy. Now, you might truly be, but your argument paves the way for everyone else to say the same. After all, nothing happened so far. And that other driver might be the one that misjudges and crashes into you.
On country roads and highways, physics work even worse against you. Most People have good feeling for how long stopping distances are and how fast they increase at higher speeds. Increasing you speed from 100km/h to 110 increases your stopping distance by about 25 meters from 130 to 155. That puts it well above the outer limits for your brights - meaning by the time you could see any potential obstacle, you can’t stop any more. At highway speeds, in daylight conditions, high speeds can put an obstacle beyond the arc of a bend. At the same time, time savings are diminishing. Running 110 saves you 5.5 minutes on the hour compared to 100 with diminishing returns the faster you go.
Yet the German autobahn suggests that the fallacy is the reasoning that highways even need speed limits. The autobahn is safer without speed limits than every single innovation we have had in setting speed limits. Perhaps it is time to stop blaming drivers and blame highway speed limits for causing safety issues.
The german autobahn demonstrates exactly the opposite. Everywhere that speed limits are introduced, the number of accidents drop. Less injured people, less fatalities. One example is the A24 https://www.geo.de/wissen/vergleich-auf-a24-weniger-verletzt... where the number of fatal accidents dropped by 50%.
This is a relative matter. The autobahn, without speed limits, is safer than US high ways with speed limits. The speed limit being suggested there is also a higher speed than the speeds reached on most US highways, which were a clone of the autobahn. Research into this matter has long suggested that there is an optimal limit at the 85th percentile and setting a speed limit above or below it harms safety. The autobahn demonstrates the optimal limit is well above the limits that are used in the U.S., which coincidentally are well below the 85th percentile.
The autobahn with speed limits is demonstated to be safer than the autobahn without - there's no need to compare to US highways. You could compare the autobahn with germanies european neighbors, but the better comparison is the article that I posted in my previous comment. The same 62km long segment of autobahn, no infrastructure changes, compared with and without speed limit. The posted speed limit of 130km/h is also largely in line with US speed limits.
This all seems like a moot point to me until there is actual consequences for people who ACTUALLY cause accidents. We all know someone (maybe ourselves) who had their car totaled, seriously damaged, or been harmed by people that hit and run, had no financially responsibility for their damage, intoxicated, etc. And jack shit happened to them.
When an illegal hit my car and totalled my car (and then ran off), the police told me to fuck off and would not even write a report.
I don't give a single shit about speeding limit enforcement because the yield seems just so incredibly low compared to the yield of the same effort actually going after people who generate real victims rather than hypothetical ones.
My car was damaged by a guy who drove into my rear quarter panel in bumper to bumper traffic and convinced the officer and insurance that it was my fault by fabricating a story that I cut him off. He was trying to merge into my lane after I had been fully merged. He had stopped inches from the center of my car, and the moment he saw me move forward, he pressed the accelerator, going into my car. I suggested we move to the side of the road so that we would not block two lanes of traffic, which had worked against me because it made things look consistent with his story versus having stayed in place and blocking traffic. When I called 911 to have an officer come, the guy started yelling in my ear so much that I was deeply shaken and could not even speak to the officer well to describe what had happened.
Getting consequences for people who cause accidents sounds great, but we need actual ways of achieving it. In my case, I believe retrofitting my car with a traffic camera would achieve this. I also am not going to ever move my car following an accident in such conditions until police arrive either again.
No, he's not. But that's never stopped anyone from lobbing a strawman. He's saying that limits are set based on a low-ish common denominator and wind up being way below the typical common denominator and then they get ignored a bunch of the time hence why nobody takes ignoring them as a serious violation.
You strawmanned the shit out of the headlight example because it was a foot in the door (he should have known better). The point was that vehicles and equipment vary so safe speeds vary. 90s headlights vs the best you can get today. Work van handling vs sports car handling. Etc. etc.
If a person appears 20 meters from my hood while I'm on the interstate, they're toast, whether I'm going 100 km/h or 150. Surely the unpredictable can happen at any moment with other cars, but I find follow distance more important than speed. If you're bumper to bumper at 100 km/h, you're going to have a worse time than if you give 10 cars space at 150 km/h.
It depends both on the lights and the dynamo. Incandescent lights used substantial chunks of your pedaling power. LED lights need maybe 5W or so. Hub dynamos are pretty efficient. For an untrained person your average power output is around 100W. That means powering the light would be around 5% of your power if you’re using an efficient hub dynamo. That’s in the ballpark of “bad chain maintenance costs more energy”
100W is pretty high for an untrained person. Back when I was cycling regularly I could hit those numbers but not every time. I took my first ride of the season and averaged a whooping 63 watts. Stealing 5 watts from that it taking away 8% of my energy. If you account for efficiency loss in the dynamic it's probably closer to 16% of my output. That's a huge chunk
You need to take you into account that the required power output scales quadratic with the speed. Power in itself means nothing, speed is what matters in the end. If you run the math (and various cycling blogs and magazines have done so), you end up with speed reductions in the order of less than 1% or fractions of a minute per hour cycled. You’d likely gain more by wearing clothing that has less drag.
8% less power would imply between 0.92 and towards 0.92^0.5 times lower speed depending on if you are in the mainly linear or mainly quadratic region of resistance.
Older dynamos with a bulb connected were quite tiresome to propell.
The 8% are at the top of the power output - at the bottom end, the fraction doesn't matter. You'll be able to provide 5W more if you're only pedaling at 50W.
The old dynamos were a chore. But their efficiency pales in comparison to a solid hub dynamo :)
A 63 watt average must have been taking into account all the time you weren't pedalling, that's extremely low - you would struggle to ride into a slight breeze.
It's certainly possible for a leisure ride - 100W give you ballpark 20-25km/hour. The drag scales quadratic, so if you go below 20km/h, you'll end up somewhere in the region of 63W average. Peak output would still exceed 100W.
The dynamo wouldn't necessarily need to provide full power. Say your commute is 1 hour. The dynamo can provide 3W and the light draws 5W. Your morning commute would provide 3Wh to the battery. You don't use the light so all power charges the battery. During the evening, you now have at least 3Wh of battery alongside 3Wh of pedal power so you'd have 1Wh of battery left by the time you get home. A large enough battery could store hours of surplus light just based on your normal daily commute. If not battery power is available and it's night time, the light could be dimmed or you could charge the battery from USB. If the light is off, then load on your muscles from the dynamo would decrease as the battery charges to full.
hub dynamos are not particularly efficient. it's very difficult to make an electric machine that is efficient at the (very low speeds, relatively) that a bike wheel turns at. 60% sounds about right. However, safety lights use much less than 5W, and a modest but very useable headlight about 3W, so your figures are otherwise pretty close.
> Incandescent lights used substantial chunks of your pedaling power.
Not solely caused by the lights as they are about ~5W anyway (edit: the old one in my box of bike parts says 6V/3W on the metal). The wheel dynamo's are insanely inefficient and get hot everywhere which were the primary ones used with most incandecant lights.
Rust also provides guarantees that goe beyond mere memory safety. You get data-race safety as well, which avoids certain kinds of concurrency issues. You also get type-safety which is a step up when it comes to parsing untrusted input, at least compared to C for example. If untrusted inout can be parsed into your expected type system, it's more likely to not cause harm by confusing the program about what's in the variables. Rust doesn't straight up eliminate all source of error, but it makes major strides forward in areas that go beying mere memory safety.
Bridges in old cities are very often much older than a century.
The ship lift in Niederfinow that connects the Oder-Havel Canal to the Oder river went into operation in 1936 - the canal that it serves dates back to 1743. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiffshebewerk_Niederfinow
The Hoover hydroelectric dam is now 90 years old.
reply