> And this is why point-to-point transportation is almost always faster and more convenient
Point-to-point transportation is faster and more convenient because:
1. we don't have bus lanes so buses are forced to sit in the same traffic as cars and
2. buses are often underfunded so have slow/infrequent service.
Point to point transportation is often slower and less convenient if buses and public transit is done right. I can count on my fingers the number of times I used an Uber or drove a car in the 1 month that I stayed in Europe - this was going out every day, in multiple cities, rural and urban, and across different countries.
This is a good thing! If more people use public transit when it's possible, it opens up the roads for the handful of people who actually NEED to use a car.
Bus lanes still seem like the thing people who hate cars propose to intentionally screw over the people who have them. "Hey, we have this road with two or three lanes in each direction but it's fairly congested. Each of the lanes is carrying something like 50 cars per minute during the day! Why don't we impound one of them so we can have a bus carrying 40 people drive on it once every 15 minutes?"
If you have enough density to justify a bus lane, you have enough density to justify a subway.
> If you have enough density to support a bus lane, you have enough density to support a subway.
Not at all. Building a subway in most US cities right now is very expensive. Raising the tax revenue alone is probably a non-starter.
Moreover you're going to have to close the road down anyway to do any form of cut-and-cover or even deep bore construction, which means every business on the corridor and every person who lives on it is going to get angry for as long as the subway is being built.
There's no painless way to do infill public transport. The problem is that nobody in the US is willing to compromise.
> Building a subway in most US cities right now is very expensive.
This is true but seems like a problem worth solving. It's also true of more than subways; we have the same problem with bridges, housing and many other things. Better to get on with fixing it than use it as an excuse for doing something worse.
> Moreover you're going to have to close the road down anyway
That's a one-time cost, and you're not required to close a 500 mile stretch of road for years on end. Dig one block, install the tunnel, cover it, dig the next block.
I agree with you (and importantly you can't make a subway political football the way you can make a bus lane), but my experience doing transit advocacy points otherwise. Americans in dense areas are feeling the HCOL pinch and are not very willing to float extra taxes to fund transit expansion.
IMO it comes back to the fact that Americans are just not willing to accept change of any kind right now. The economy feels too shaky, the electorate too divided (even within states and municipalities), and there's too little faith in government to architect the kind of change you'd need to build subways, underground metros, or even BRT. We need a larger feeling of unity even at a state level to make the changes necessary, which is why municipalities continue to do bare minimum maintenance of roadways and pretty much nothing else. The last big set of constriction in dense urban areas was funded by the Obama stimulus from the GFC which was passed 17 years ago.
It was probably always a good idea to do it the other way around anyway: You don't start with transit, you start by building more housing. Tons of it. Then the cost of living starts to get back under control and the density increases some, which you need in order to make transit work regardless.
> If you have enough density to justify a bus lane, you have enough density to justify a subway.
That assumes a linear city, where everyone lives within a short walking distance of the same street.
In actual cities, bus lines from different neighborhoods converge on main streets. While individual lines may have 10–15 minute intervals, bus traffic on the main streets may be high enough to justify dedicated bus lanes.
Then, as the city grows, it can make sense to replace the bus lanes with light rail and direct bus lines with collector lines connecting to the rail line. Which should be cheap, as a dedicated lane is usually the most expensive part in building light rail.
But you generally want to avoid building subways until you have no other options left. Subway lines tend to be an order of magnitude more expensive than light rail lines. Travel times are also often higher, as the distances between stops are longer and there is more walking involved.
> That assumes a linear city, where everyone lives within a short walking distance of the same street.
Isn't that the assumption you're making? That there is a single primary street that everything converges and then diverges from which is common to every bus route? Meanwhile in practice any given person standing on the You Are Here dot could want to go in any of the eight directions from where they currently are.
A route that goes east-west isn't going to have much in the way of shared route with one that goes northeast-southwest except for the one point where they intersect, and isn't it better to have multiple routes intersecting in multiple places in terms of minimizing trip latency and maximizing coverage?
> Which should be cheap, as a dedicated lane is usually the most expensive part in building light rail.
But that's the thing that makes the bus lane so expensive!
By the time you have an area with enough congestion to be considering a bus lane, the problem is generally that you can't add a lane because the land adjacent to the existing road is already developed and not available, otherwise you would just add an ordinary lane that buses could use too. But converting one of the existing lanes in an area which is already congested makes the traffic exponentially worse than putting the new thing underground.
Essentially, if you can add a lane then you add an ordinary lane and if you can't add a lane but need one then it's time to dig.
Public transit depends on the assumption that some trips are more common than others. If any given person is equally likely to go to any direction, public transit becomes too expensive to build. And it becomes impossible to make the city dense without turning the traffic into a nightmare.
A typical direct bus line starts from somewhere, goes through a number of neighborhoods, reaches a major street, and follows it to a central location. The number of directions that need a bus line is typically much higher than the number of streets reaching the central location. (For example, you need ~10-degree intervals at 10 km from the center to guarantee a reasonable walking distance to the nearest bus stop.) Hence the bus lines eventually converge.
Once you have enough bus traffic that a dedicated lane makes sense, transforming an ordinary lane into a bus lane will make the traffic faster for the average person. It's not a Pareto improvement, as the traffic will become worse for those who drive on that route. But it's not a huge loss for them either. If you already have 20+ buses/hour making frequent stops during the rush hour, the throughput for that lane will already be much lower than for the other lanes.
> Public transit depends on the assumption that some trips are more common than others.
Public transit depends on the assumption that there is enough density along a given route to justify its existence. Take a look at the NYC subway map. In the highest density boroughs (Manhattan and Brooklyn) the routes basically go from everywhere to everywhere. Even more so for the Manhattan bus map. That's what you want in a large dense city.
In smaller cities, the "build a high density core surrounded by lower density areas" model is the thing that causes more congestion, because then the core ends up as a bottleneck but people don't want to take transit to get there because it doesn't have frequent service to the areas outside the core at one of the traveler's endpoints. For those cities it's better to have medium density everywhere than try to make transit work in a city where a large proportion of the population is coming from an area with density too low to make it viable.
And if the whole "city" is low density, i.e. it's a rural small town, then it's not likely you're going to make public transit work there whatsoever. The best option there is to use mixed zoning so people so inclined can live within walking distance of shops.
> It's not a Pareto improvement, as the traffic will become worse for those who drive on that route. But it's not a huge loss for them either.
It is though? The premise to begin with is that road is already too congested and is slowing down the buses. Removing a third to half of its capacity is going to make it dramatically worse. That's what many of the proponents of bus lanes are after -- they want to force people onto the bus by snarling the cars.
They refer to this as "induced demand" by inverting the sign when what they really mean is to suppress demand for driving by making it more miserable, but don't want to call it that because it would be unpopular.
High density over a large area is a rare exception. Public transit is mostly used in regions that are locally dense but have low-to-moderate population density over the entire region.
Consider a low-density urban area with 1500 people / square km (~4000 people / square mile). You could achieve that with a uniform sprawl of single-family homes on half-acre lots, or with a network of towns / villages / neighborhoods surrounding the city center. The former generates more car traffic, while the latter makes public transit useful for a large fraction of trips. And the latter also makes local services viable, as there will be enough population within a walking distance.
And if you have a 2+2 lane street with enough bus traffic to justify bus lanes, most of the capacity is in the inner lanes not used by the buses. Urban buses stop frequently, making the traffic flow much worse than in lanes without buses.
Heavy rail and light rail costs are very comparable unless you want to bury them. But it doesn't matter which you bury, they still cost about the same.
We did that with computer networks. We had this high-quality voice call service, and then someone thought it should be switched to transmit data instead, of which voice calls were just one type. Now you have a minimum voice latency of a few hundred ms because voice traffic is competing with data traffic, and you didn't actually get much more data throughput because it was only one wire pair.
> Point to point transportation is often slower and less convenient if buses and public transit is done right.
Only if you're also intentionally making point-to-point worse.
Note that I'm not comparing to "get in your own car and drive", which has the disadvantage of having to park. I'm comparing the ideal taxi-shaped thing to the ideal bus-and-tram-and-train-shaped thing.
> Only if you're also intentionally making point-to-point worse
I feel like you missed my last paragraph. If public transit is better then more people would use it and there would be fewer cars on the road. Can you imagine how terrible point-to-point traffic in SF would be if everyone was driving to work instead of relying on Caltrain or BART?
No, I didn't miss it. I'm saying that public transit can be better than it currently is, but it would take much more to make it better than point-to-point transit.
I'm not a copyright expert and if you told me that Harry Potter was common domain then I'd probably be a bit surprised but wouldn't think it's crazy. The first book came out 30 years ago after all. On further research the copyright laws are way more aggressive than that (a bit too much if you ask me) but 30 years doesn't seem quick. Patents expire after 20 years.
I find this fascinating, as I keep observing that there are pretty widespread differences between what people believe copyright does and what the law actually says.
The Berne Convention (author's life + 50 years) is the baseline for the copyright laws in most countries. Many countries have a longer copyright period than Berne.
I think even people who don't care about how broken the copyright system is understand intuitively that huge commercial properties that are contemporaneous with themselves are protected. They don't need to know any details to know that these properties belong to massive companies and aren't free for the taking.
How many people think they can rip off Disney characters even if they don't know how much Disney lobbied to extend their ownership? People can observe that no one but Disney gets to use them and understand, even if not consciously, that those are Disney's to use.
^ Probably poorly written without time to proof cause time constraint.
I think this can be fixed more generally by biasing towards newer data in model outputs and putting more weight on authoritative sources rather than treating all data the same. So no one needs to go in and specifically single out Go code but will instead look at new examples which use features like generics from sources like Google who would follow best/better practices than the rest of the codebase.
Except that as a developer you have access to the original source code where things are well structured. It only turns into div soup after the React/Vue code gets compiled down to HTML+CSS+JS that can run on any browser.
Magnus' longevity has more to do with his willingness to continue competing than his actual skill. He's been pretty vocal about his issues with FIDE so I can see a world where he stops participating in FIDE events to focus on non-FIDE events that he enjoys more. He's already withdrawn from the Candidates which qualifies you for the World Championship.
Magnus not participating in FIDE events seems to have absolutely nothing to do with his longevity, it just means that FIDE is no longer meaningfully hosting THE world championship because they failed to attract the talent.
Yeah if FIDE crowns some other champ without Magnus people wont think oh wow Magnus lost the spot, people will think oh wow FIDE lost the spot of being the kingmaker. chess.com is probably the more credible org for global rankings anyway
Magnus obviously has the will to compete, he competes all the time.
Elite sporting events are absolutely obliged to chase talent, just like any other business is. If they don't, they quickly stop being the elite sporting event. There's a reason why athletes are paid so well...
You know that he already has stopped participating in the world championship organized by FIDE, right? The current 'world champion' is Gukesh Dommaraju, who took it from Ding Liren the year before, but of course Magnus would probably still be the world champion if he kept competing for it.
I think the point the poster was making, is that there is an asterisk beside Gukesh and Liren's world champ status. Nobody really thinks they're the actual world-champ, regardless of what FIDE says. FIDE failed to attract the best player, to even play.
By the same logic, why would anyone expect that the best player in the world for any given sport happens to compete in the olympics? The issue here is the semantics. FIDE titling someone "world champion" is at the end of the day no different than a burger joint claiming to be the best in the country after winning some competition or another.
To be clear, I don't mean to take issue with the competitions themselves.
To give you an idea of the scale, OpenClaw is probably one of the biggest developments in open source AI tools in the last couple of months. And given the pace of AI, that's a big deal.
In what context are you using the word "development?"
Letta (MemGPT) has been around for years and frameworks like Mastra have been getting serious Enterprise attention for most of 2025. Memory + Tasks is not novel or new.
Is it out of the box nature that's the 'biggest' development? Am I missing something else?
Not OP, but it was revolutionary in the same way that ChatGPT and Deepseek the app+webapp was because it packaged capabilities in a fairly easy-to-use manner that could be used by both technical and non-technical decisionmakers.
If you can provide any sort of tool that can reduce mundane work for a decisionmaker with a title of Director and above, it can be extremely powerful.
> removing the suggestions form entirely, because it results in exactly this level of expectation
I think the expectation is less about the suggestions form and more because of the tagline "a place to find good blogs that interest you". If the tagline was clearer that these were hand curated, then I think no one would care about the process you currently have.
There's always some friction between implicit assumptions of reader and writer. I assumed they were hand curated. I've never seen algorithmic selection produce the kind of variety I see on there.
Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.
In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.
Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.
If you're going to say "other than the US" then you've got to say at a minimum "other than the US and China", but really "other than the US and China and Japan and Korea and Taiwan and Thailand and Russia and most of Central Asia".
Only mentioning the US is wildly americentric even by HN standards.
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.
No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.
Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.
Then wouldn't open source models running on commodity hardware be the best way to get around that? I think one of the greatest wins of the 21st century is that almost every human today has more computing power than the entire US government in the 1950s. More computer power has democratized access and ability to disperse information. There are tons of downsides to that which we're dealing with but on the net, I think it's positive.
Not sure where you're getting this from, but the latest MacOS works on devices from 2019 so it's at least 6 years of support. And homebrew supports versions from macOS 14 fully (and some support up to 10.15) which means full support for 2018 devices and potentially even devices from 2012 will work.
Point-to-point transportation is faster and more convenient because:
1. we don't have bus lanes so buses are forced to sit in the same traffic as cars and 2. buses are often underfunded so have slow/infrequent service.
Point to point transportation is often slower and less convenient if buses and public transit is done right. I can count on my fingers the number of times I used an Uber or drove a car in the 1 month that I stayed in Europe - this was going out every day, in multiple cities, rural and urban, and across different countries.
This is a good thing! If more people use public transit when it's possible, it opens up the roads for the handful of people who actually NEED to use a car.
reply