Expose your kids to activities that are more compelling than screens. Trust me, once you take a kid go-karting, they aren't going to be as excited playing a video game.
Do cool shit with your kids. Go skiing, camping, fishing, go-karting, flying (small plane tours), drone racing, etc.
I know most of us here are nerds, but the jocks really do have life figured out when it comes to fun stuff.
I realise HN has a disproportionate amount of software engineers, but I know my parents would struggle to afford the likes of skiing, flying, go-karting as regular activities, never mind in sufficient quantities to displace video games and the internet. Even a trip to the bowling alley was a rare treat when I was growing up.
Inexpensive outdoor activities like biking, skateboarding, ball sports, etc, all accomplish the same thing. In purchasing supplies for these activities, you're essentially signing them up for something that will consume their time and energy, leaving little to expend on diving into internet rabbit holes.
It takes a few years before even something as simple as a walk to the park isn't exciting anymore. And I think the thing that's implied in most of the pessimistic responses here is "you have to start early or you lose control".
More precisely, we have an aspirational world government led by the American Empire which is run by a few extremely wealthy and powerful elite families, including the ones you've alluded to. Of course, these powerful families own all the media companies and thus control how they are covered in the mainstream media, which explains their absence and subsequent emphasis on politically inconsequential billionaires like Musk.
The American Empire is run via these families through a distributed influence network of private companies, NGOs, think tanks and PACs [1]. Although made up of many entities, they are funded by the same few individuals. Thus, this is a very difficult system to reform without immense capital expenditure.
The countries which do not submit to this order are the designated public enemies (we have always been at war with Eastasia). Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea being the most prominent of these.
Disclaimer: I am a deeply committed conspiracy theorist who also believes in the Earth being flat, so please take everything I say as the ramblings of a kook (especially any hardworking federal employees perusing HN)!
Every time a car passes you with a massive speed differential, you are gambling with your life. As long as you (and your family) are willing to accept that risk, then all the power to you.
Also, rural roads aren't exactly known for their alert drivers. Drunk driving is far more common due to lack of taxis/ubers.
Came here to say this. Bicycling is absolute madness to me in any location that doesn't have dedicated separate bike paths. You are maximizing all possible sources of risk by riding a bicycle on shared roads.
I've ridden motorcycles since I was 16, and everyone always sees me as the daredevil. Yet, I still think bicycle commuters are the true madmen. Zero protection, can't keep up with traffic, your very presence is a psychological irritant to motorists which causes them to wish you harm, etc.
My only advice to cyclists: put your bike on your car's bike rack, take to a bike path and enjoy. If you want to get on a road on two wheels, buy a motorcycle and wear every piece of protective gear you can afford. You (and your family) can thank me later.
That seems like a lot of advice from somebody who has apparently never tried it.
If you did, one of the things you'd learn is the extent to which serious cyclists minimize the risks, from route choice to gear to behavior. E.g., the first bike tour I did was about 150 miles. I found a mailing list of local riders and people were happy to discuss my route and how to handle safety issues.
In any case, you're wrong on the facts. Motorcyling is more dangerous. Deaths per 100m miles traveled is circa 25 for motorcyclists [1], while it's between 4 and 13 for people on bicycles [2]. Given that recommended touring distances for motorcyclists seem to be around 300 miles per day versus 50 for bicycles, bike touring is going to be much safer. Which only makes sense; if I'm riding at 10 mph vs 50 on a motorcycle, that's 25 times the kinetic energy that needs to get dissipated if something goes wrong.
> one of the things you'd learn is the extent to which serious cyclists minimize the risks
At a social event which happened to include many members of the local bicycle club, I observed: Almost everyone I know who bicycles regularly has been hospitalized due to a bicycle-car accident. Is that true? Yes, they all agreed, that's about right.
IME, they don't minimize risks well. There's no safe way to ride in traffic unless it's moving near bicycle-speed. However, there are side streets, etc., so that risk could be minimized if they wanted to do it; you can cut exposure to cars by 90% easily.
Source #2 indicates that "wrong-way" biking is more dangerous, but my intuition is that it's safer: I like being able to see the traffic that is closest to me. I guess whatever advantage that provides is more than offset by the accident being head-on, and having less time for the driver to react (and maybe there's an expectation aspect too).
AFAIK: The most important safety factor is being seen by the automobile drivers, and a disproportionate number of accidents happen at intersections and turns, including driveways. The drivers in those situations have a large cognitive load; they are looking for cars, not bicycles, and will look where they expect traffic to come from. You want to be where they are looking.
Next time you drive a car, notice where you look. Consider where a bicycle would have to be in order to noticed if you are in a hurry, distracted, trying to figure out where you are or where to go, not expecting them, etc.
Think relative speed. Even a bike touring cyclist will regularly travel at speeds around 40 kph (25 mph). If you then have cars travelling at 80 kph (50 mph).
Also, you learn hearing the difference in sound a car makes as it moves over to give room.
In short, I’d wager that < 0.5% of all people that have done any sort of serious biking would prefer to ride against traffic.
Yeah relative speed goes hand-in-hand with head-on collision and less reaction time and expectation that I mentioned. I do bike a fair amount, but not on major roads. I am coming to realize that going with traffic is safer, despite it being hard to see cars coming from behind you. I also didn't realize that it's illegal in most places to bike against traffic https://roadbikebasics.com/ride-with-or-against-traffic/
You can get mirrors on your handlebars or helmet if you lack situational awareness. I did this for my bike and it's a huge help, the Spintech drop bar mirrors are sleek and unobtrusive.
I find that focusing on the mirror, aligning it in a useful way, dealing with other issues (vibrations, etc.), and then interpreting what I see in a small mirror (which might need to be realigned to see what I need) - it all takes too long. I'm much better off just turning my head - it's faster and I have better situational awareness while I'm doing it.
Bicycle mirrors aren't comparable to automobile mirrors: Car mirrors are stable in alignment - your body is in a relatively fixed position in the driver seat and so are the mirrors relative to you and the car. On a bicycle, your handlebars are moving frequently as is your head. The whole bicycle vibrates far more than a car, sometimes making the mirrors unusable. Cars have space for more and bigger mirrors.
(Also, isn't it risky attaching anything to your helmet? In an accident, as far as I know, it can both change the helmet's performance properties and also get jammed into your head.)
I'd add Garmin's Varia radar as a better (yet more expensive) alternative to a mirror. It's a bike light combined with a radar that will track and display cars coming up behind you on your bike computer (doesn't have to be a Garmin unit since the standard is open to everyone). Many cyclists who tired it (including me) won't ride without one.
Could you say a bit more about why you like it? I was thinking about getting back into touring and I just recently learned about them. Previously I was using a mirror that attached to my glasses, which seemed adequate. The radar seemed interesting, but I was concerned that it would more be in the "cute toy" category for me.
A lot of people consider it a cute gadget before they tried it and regard as essential safety tool once they did. It certainly depends on your use case - in busy cities it's useless since you'll be alerted to cars constantly. However in my area I ride on countless long stretches of road with little to moderate traffic. Cars will surprise you on these kind of roads. Sometimes you don't hear or notice them.
With the Varia radar I'm much more aware of my surroundings. I can take up the middle of the road until a car approaches. I won't be surprised by cars I fail to hear due to strong winds or other noise. I know when it's safe to slalom around obstacles on the street. Or when to do a left turn (I'd still look but I'm not sure if the radar ever missed a car - it's very reliable). These days I'd feel almost naked without my radar.
Plus, don't forget that it's also a very good rear light which you can control from your head unit. Don't underestimate the importance of daytime lights in order to be noticed by cars - that is the single most important measure to avoid accidents on a bike.
The problem is drivers seeing you. If you are in a serious crash it is probably going to be because they hit you, not from you hitting them. Motorists look for other road users they may be overtaking, but usually don’t expect to see oncoming traffic in their lane
> Came here to say this. Bicycling is absolute madness to me in any location that doesn't have dedicated separate bike paths. You are maximizing all possible sources of risk by riding a bicycle on shared roads.
> I've ridden motorcycles since I was 16, and everyone always sees me as the daredevil. Yet, I still think bicycle commuters are the true madmen. Zero protection, can't keep up with traffic, your very presence is a psychological irritant to motorists which causes them to wish you harm, etc.
Whatever one might think about the general premise, but this video is absolute rubbish. All the little example videos he puts in is of people riding on crazy tuned e-bikes or downhill bikes etc.. On the other hand the few instances of motorcycling videos show him just riding along in traffic, a bit disingenuous.
> My only advice to cyclists: put your bike on your car's bike rack, take to a bike path and enjoy. If you want to get on a road on two wheels, buy a motorcycle and wear every piece of protective gear you can afford. You (and your family) can thank me later.
Considering that the article points to bike paths off general roads your post is a bit redundant.
I would still question your premise. You ride a motorbike beside the fact that motorcycle deaths and serious injuries outstrip cycling ones by quite a margin (it's right there in the video you posted). So I guess safety is not your main priority. Moreover, if we consider overall health benefits you will live longer if you commute by bike, so if health is your priority you should absolute bike.
The comment more sums up what is wrong with current society than with biking: people in 2T metal boxes feel entitled to own the road, plus get totally stressed out if they see anything that prevents them from doing it and perform risky maneuvers.
The answer to that problem should not be pushing weaker participants off the road.
The Highway and Automobile culture are symbols of totalitarian cultures which deny people more sustainable and equitable alternatives for mobility and transport. - Vandana Shiva (2004)
The perception from driving is not true to reality. For example, most busy roadw are completely empty about 70 to 95% of the time. To explain, off-peak, most roads are just quiet. Further, there are a lot of roads, plenty of ways to go from a connector to something less used (arguably too many roads). Then, most traffic are in convoys created by stop lights. This I wan tg to emphasize, the person in a convoy with 2 cars on each side of them feel like they are on a congested street. They do not realize they are the first cars for 3 minutes on that specific vacant stretch of road, and they will leave that stretch of road vacant moments later. There are lots more examples of how it really is a different experience compared to what people think it would be from just looking out a car window.
Seemingly, car traffic is just straight up dangerous in the US (to everyone). It's normalized how dangerous car traffic is, there are plenty of car crashes every day that kill and maim, yet we feel so comfortable driving we hardly pay diligent attention and have very absurdly low standards for who can get and keep a drivers license.
As a counterpoint, I bought my first iPhone (first ever Apple product) this week, and it was specifically because it seems like Apple is finally designing products with usability and functionality as their top priority.
Ive was great, but he was way too much of an artist to understand that computers are mostly tools. Ive was more interested in folding katanas and the process of creation than the mundane design of a productivity tool.
As an example, I remember being utterly bemused by the relentless port-pruning on the Macbook Pro. It just didn't make sense to me to remove ports on a machine designed primarily for productivity. But Ive didn't like ports, because katanas don't have ports. So the MBP didn't have ports.
I think he understood perfectly that computers were tools.
The PowerBook/MacBook Pro designs up through 2016, the MacBook Air from 2010 onwards, the Power Macs G3-G5/Macs Pro through 2013 and the 2019 Mac Pro, the iBook/MacBook line through 2011, and the entirety of the iMac’s history all reflect a recognition that computers are fundamentally tools. They just held the conceit that tools can also be beautiful.
But yes, sometime between Job’s death and 2017, the wheels just completely fell off when they introduced new Mac designs, and they spent the better part of the last 5 years putting them back on after Ive was promoted into the sky and left the company.
IDK. Doggedly sticking to a single button mouse. Putting charging port on the bottom of a mouse because designers know best. Calculators that produce wrong answers if one types before the beautiful animations finish. Keyboards so thin and heavily integrated dust can break them, and cannot be repaired without accessing main board.
Evidence suggests to me that Apple's record on utility is mixed.
I personally like the single button mouse. It is the only mouse I got so far that on MacOS let me scroll webpages up and down, left and right without any effort.
I really like that the almost the whole surface is active and have gestures.
I agree that for video games not having dedicated buttons is not ok. I dont play those so for me this is the perfect mouse.
Being using them from the first generation I think 2010-2011 and it is hard for me to go back to normal mouse.
Loads and loads of mice can do horizontal scrolling while having two mice buttons, e.g. Logitech MX Master, Razer Naga, etc. It's not uncommon for high end mice to have a mouse wheel you can tilt left or right to scroll left or right or some other system.
The Magic and Mighty mice support horizontal scrolling in spite of being one button mice and not because they are one button mice. Apple laptops kept with the whole one button thing even into 2000s where it was pretty painful as there was no scroll mechanism at all, no right click mechanism at all besides a key combo.
Let’s be fair: Apple has had sufficient time to revise all of these post-Jobs Ive-era designs. Ive himself was still in charge when the trash can hit the bin, and they’ve more or less fixed the port situation on most of their models (I still have disagreements with some of their choices but we can at least say they’re debatable now).
But they just released a revision of the 13” MacBook Pro with the touchbar. And while I know they have a hard time course-correcting bad design choices on their biggest product lines, there’s no excuse for not having revised the Magic Mouse 2 by this point.
Also while this discussion has been mostly focused on hardware, let’s not forget that Apple is selling 6K displays while displaying all the signs and symptoms of an organization absolutely allergic to on-screen chrome in every release of Mac OS X for the past few years as well as the next major revision they just announced.
I’ll put a lot at Ive’s feet, but only for the time he was actually there and in charge of design.
Window or user interface chrome, which incidentally is where Google Chrome gets its name (as the “chrome” for the web) which is probably infesting your results. Going to Wikipedia’s “Chrome” disambiguation would get you a one-line description too but the page-link would just direct you to graphical user interfaces.
Chrome is all the stuff that’s not the content area in a GUI. So the user-agent you’re reading this in has a content area loading the page this thread is on (most likely a web browser but maybe you’re using an HN-specific app), and then a toolbar where the location bar lives, maybe a favorites bar and the window controls like close and minimize unless you’re on a phone. Basically chrome is all the overhead GUI like menus, toolbars, sidebars, pop-overs and controls around the stuff you’re focused in on.
I on the other hand am happy to have the last of the laptops without extra dust-collecting holes (a hub has more than a laptop could ever offer) and with touchbar (I'd hate having to switch to adjusting sound volume/screen brightness the old way).
I've asked very young students what they think a computer is and how it works. There's always at least one student who correctly replies: "It's a machine that does what someone told it to do".
Of course modern computing devices are absurdly complex and intricate machines all the way from silicon to software, but the basic mechanism is easily grasped by children. For all their complexity, computers are still just programmable calculators.
This doesn't mean that the opinions of powerful people do not affect you, however.
The Civil Rights Act and its consequences have meant that America will forever be politicized along every fault line of human identity. Whether it can withstand this burden and remain a functional civilization remains to be seen.
Life on Earth has survived much, much worse than the burning of fossil fuels. For example, the K-Pg extinction event.
It's all a matter of perspective. But humans are irrationally social creatures susceptible to memetics, so no amount of empirical evidence will alter socially beneficial memeplexes.
Do cool shit with your kids. Go skiing, camping, fishing, go-karting, flying (small plane tours), drone racing, etc.
I know most of us here are nerds, but the jocks really do have life figured out when it comes to fun stuff.