Mossy Feathers (They/Them)

Fwiw, feeder lanes probably shouldn’t be counted in Texas because they’re basically glorified city streets. Businesses can have entrances and exits on frontage roads, so there’s not really anything special about them except that they have a slightly higher speed limit (50~60mph vs 40~45mph) and they have immediate access to the highway.

An interesting article to go along with this.

The picture of the “Chinese 50 lane road” was an internet hoax. It wasn’t a road. It is a toll gate, and it also only has 25 lanes.

If you’re counting feeder roads, shouldn’t toll gates get counted too? Even so, while looking up the widest road in Brazil that you mention later, I came across an article that explained that OP is actually wrong and that the Katy freeway maxes out at 13 lanes. The only way you get close to 26 lanes is if you also count the feeder/access/frontage roads. So the Chinese highway is still wider even if you don’t count the toll gate (assuming you aren’t counting access roads, though it might still be wider even if you count access roads).

The Katy freeway that OP posted has 26 lanes and is considered the “largest” road. The picture doesn’t really show it that well, and I’m also not sure if the feeder roads ought to count. It “only” has 6 ordinary lanes in both directions but a lot of entryways, exits and other designated lanes.

I live in Texas and have been on the Katy freeway before. It’s honestly extremely wide and makes you feel like you’re surrounded by pavement.

Personally, I think access roads shouldn’t be counted because iirc they’re required by law (Texas law supposedly states that anyone with land immediately next to a highway must be able to access said highway) and treated like normal streets.

Like, on the one hand, Texas highways almost always have a road with at least one or two lanes running parallel on both sides that on/off-ramps connect to, so they should be counted as part of the highway, right?

On the other hand, they’re treated as normal city streets, have a lower speed limit, can have traffic lights, have parking lot entrances/exits, and so forth; so they’re not really part of the highway. It’s not like you could bulldoze the access roads without potentially making a lot of homes and/or businesses completely inaccessible.

I didn’t bring that up though, because I didn’t want to risk someone getting mad because I was “minimizing the fuck cars energy” or something.

According to Guinness Book of Records, the widest road is in Brazil and is 250 meters wide. However this is also just a technicality, because it is also a 6 lane road with a really really wide median strip.

That makes me wonder if we should be counting lanes, actual width, or a ratio between the two. Imo a 250m wide, 6 lane road is significantly worse than a 169m wide, 26 lane road (Google says the Katy freeway is 169m wide at its widest). Technically the 6 lane road is greener because there’s probably not as much vehicle pollution, but that’s a fuckton of wasted space.

I feel like inefficiency should be the real target, but that doesn’t make for good headlines or thread titles. Imagine titling a thread, “the Katy freeway is the world’s least space efficient highway due to being X-wide with an A:B width:lane ratio” vs “the Katy freeway is the world’s widest highway with 26 lanes”. The latter is a lot easier to visualize than the former.

It’s absurdly wide, but I’m calling bullshit on the widest highway in the world. Didn’t China have a 50-lane highway?

It’s too bad the straddle buses they were considering in China were infeasible. It was the kinda thing you could see from a mile away but you wanted to pretend it would work anyway, because they were too cool.

Edit: OP is misleading or even wrong, depending on how you count access/feeder/frontage roads. The short of it is that the Katy freeway maxes out at 13 lanes, not counting the access/frontage/feeder roads; which, as mentioned in a later reply, probably shouldn’t be counted as part of the highway due to Texas’ regulation around highways and frontage roads which causes frontage roads to be glorified city streets.

Are you talking about game dev tycoon? Ironic since the game is basically a copy of Kairosoft’s “Game Dev Story” with different art assets. The devs even admitted that they were heavily “”“inspired by”“” Kairosoft’s game, but the game is nearly 1:1.

Thanks, I knew Japanese pay was bad compared to the US, but I figured it was probably in line with the cost of living in japan. I forget that the US’ draconian taxes restrict where someone can reasonably immigrate due to double-taxation though (and potentially 3x~4x or more if you’re a freelancer, since companies have to pay half your taxes from their own pockets in the US and you have to make up the difference as a freelancer).

Edit: also the drug/ADHD thing. I’m ADHD and you’ve basically told me I’m illegal in Japan since I can’t function without my medication. Though it looks like my specific medication is legal, albeit with a bunch of hoops to jump through. Apparently Adderall is illegal though, which is strange because it’s been around a lot longer than my medication has.

Yeah, it’d potentially be pretty cool. I kinda imagine what’d happen is that you’d end up with a very westernized city where most of the dev studios are, while the rest of Japan would likely continue to conform to current Japanese culture. Kinda like how I’ve heard Osaka is, but more weeb-y and less military grunt-y.

I imagine most westerners who’d immigrate would be more aware of Japanese culture though, so it might not cause as much of a culture clash as you might expect.

With the protections that Japan’s game industry employees have, it makes me wonder if Japan’s ideal solution to their population decline would be to open visas specifically to people with experience in the game industry. They could potentially steal a lot of developers from other countries and become the country that the best games come from.

Nope, CPU-Z says it’s a Snapdragon 8. It’s a factory-unlocked US model on verizon, and I doubt a EU/ROW phone would support Verizon frequencies (it used to be that phones in the US had to be made for carrier-specific bands, but that might have changed with LTE), but I used CPU-Z just to double check.

I dunno, didn’t work for me.

I gave it all the permissions it said it needed.

I used the nodpi version on apkmirror. It’s not that the app doesn’t run, it launches just fine. It’s that it doesn’t appear to be able to access the cameras, it’s just a black screen and if I try to record then it crashes.

Also, I just tested it with the apkm via SAI from f-droid to make sure it wasn’t an issue with the nodpi version; and I got the same result. The UI and everything loads fine, there just isn’t a camera preview and it crashes if I press the record button.

but you should be able to sideload from apkmirror and get it to run with some limitations depending on your phone hardware.

S22 ultra here, app runs but none of the cameras work.

Probably icbm tech or something, it’s pretty much all they have left.

This. If I’m not mistaken, the system was meant to operate like a hybrid between patents and trademarks. Iirc, things weren’t originally under copyright by default and you had to regularly renew your copyright in order to keep it. Most of the media in the public domain is a result of companies failing to properly claim or renew copyright before the laws were changed. My understanding is that the reason for this was because the intent was to protect you from having your IP stolen while it was profitable to you, but then release said IP into the public domain once it was no longer profitable (aka wasn’t worth renewing copyright on).

Then corpos spent a lot of money rewriting the system and now practically everything even remotely creative is under copyright that’s effectively indefinite.

In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”

You of all groups should know that the last part of your statement is a common right-wing dog whistle that gets used when someone doubles down after their “facts” get rejected for bigotry and/or inaccuracy. By using that phrase, you’ve automatically cast doubt on the legitimacy of your actions and statements. At best you’re ignorant of a common dog whistle, which is embarrassing for an organization who should be well-versed in this kind of thing; at worst you’ve signaled to everyone that you’re potentially peddling “alternative facts”, which casts doubt on everything you’ve done in the past. Either way, you’re ultimately hurting the Jewish people by making that kind of statement.

Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.

“This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.

They really do, and I feel bad for them. The places that should be defending them seem more than happy to ignore them or even throw them under the bus in the name of Zionism.

Like, okay, personal beliefs on Zionism aside, if your organization is tasked with defending a group of people, you should ensure your actions aren’t going to endanger, delegitimize or otherwise encourage bigotry against said group. That means that even if you’re a Zionist Jewish organization, if your task is to fight against bigotry towards Jews, you shouldn’t be ignoring non-Zionist Jews nor should you be dismissing their views. Instead, you should be listening to what they have to say, condensing it and releasing it in an manner easy for non-jews to understand (which means providing political, historical and religious context, because many people, myself included, don’t understand as much as they think they do about Judaism).

In the current context, you should be giving people statements from Zionist and non-Zionist Jews about Palestine, and attempt to include non-biased historical, religious and political backgrounds for events that are occurring.

I think ethnically Jewish people could make an honest argument that they should have some portion of Palestine based on historical origins (I think it’s a weak arguement, but I think you could argue for it). However, that doesn’t excuse the way that the IDF and Israeli government have treated Gaza and the West Bank.

You can criticize the Israeli government while also believing that ethnically Jewish people should be able to have a country they have control over. Other countries do this all the time (get criticized for poor treatment of the “outside” ethnic group(s)), why is this somehow different for Israel? Why aren’t we allowed to criticize Israel? I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot; I should be able to talk about Israel the same way.

e;

deleted by creator

The alternative explanation is that the employers have investments in corporate real estate and don’t want their investments to lose value. Personally, I think that the the people at the top probably have investments in corporate real estate, while middle managers are the way you describe.

I don’t think the people at the top usually care what the employees are doing so long as they’re making money, and being in the office means they’re keeping corporate real estate prices afloat. As such, being in office makes money for the executives, even if that money isn’t made directly through the company.

Middle managers on the other hand, likely don’t have any significant corporate real estate investments, nor are they as likely get significant bonuses for company productivity. As such, it makes more sense for their motive to be more about control than it is money.

That said, I do know some executives do indeed see employees the way you’ve described them; an infamous example comes to mind about the Australian real estate executive talking about how they needed to bring workers to heel and crash the economy to remind workers that they work for the company and not the other way around. I’m just not sure that many executives actually think about their workers in that much depth. I think if they did then we’d see a stark contrast of very ethical companies and highly abusive companies instead of the mix of workplace cultures we have now; because some ceos would come to the conclusion that a happy worker is a good worker, while others would become complete control freaks.

I’m… honestly kinda okay with it crashing. It’d suck because AI has a lot of potential outside of generative tasks; like science and medicine. However, we don’t really have the corporate ethics or morals for it, nor do we have the economic structure for it.

AI at our current stage is guaranteed to cause problems even when used responsibly, because its entire goal is to do human tasks better than a human can. No matter how hard you try to avoid it, even if you do your best to think carefully and hire humans whenever possible, AI will end up replacing human jobs. What’s the point in hiring a bunch of people with a hyper-specialized understanding of a specific scientific field if an AI can do their work faster and better? If I’m not mistaken, normally having some form of hyper-specialization would be advantageous for the scientist because it means they can demand more for their expertise (so long as it’s paired with a general understanding of other fields).

However, if you have to choose between 5 hyper-specialized and potentially expensive human scientists, or an AI designed to do the hyper-specialized task with 2~3 human generalists to design the input and interpret the output, which do you go with?

So long as the output is the same or similar, the no-brainer would be to go with the 2~3 generalists and AI; it would require less funding and possibly less equipment - and that’s ignoring that, from what I’ve seen, AI tends to be better than human scientists in hyper-specialized tasks (though you still need scientists to design the input and parse the output). As such, you’re basically guaranteed to replace humans with AI.

We just don’t have the society for that. We should be moving in that direction, but we’re not even close to being there yet. So, again, as much potential as AI has, I’m kinda okay if it crashes. There aren’t enough people who possess a brain capable of handling an AI-dominated world yet. There are too many people who see things like money, government, economics, etc as some kind of magical force of nature and not as human-made systems which only exist because we let them.

Oh my god, wallet chains are going to make a comeback, but for phones this time.