The problem for Europe is that they have nothing to trade with Russia. They can get better prices elsewhere.
Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.
Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.
Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.
Huh? Even in the US the majority are sympathetic to Ukraine in every survey. Sure we all want no war - but we are not really in favor of no war at any price.
That 'touch grass' phrase is interpreted differently outside of America. It is yet another detestable Americanism. Just saying.
Besides, grass is part of the problem, particularly for the arid South West, where these ecological deserts known as lawns, golf courses and landscaping are grass, which is the only plant that grows when the place is covered with RoundUp.
I digress. However, man has a point. It would be easy to say Trump is a clown without a clue or a plan, however, we as I see it, we are switching over from the empire controlling the world with the petro-dollar, to controlling the world with bombs.
The empire can't blockade China directly as that would be an act of war, and the Chinese would have a right to respond with force, sinking all of Uncle Sam's battle ships with hypersonic missiles before you get to touch your beloved and utterly toxic HOA-approved grass.
However, just blow up the entire Middle East and cut the Chinese off from the oil that is needed for their manufacturing requirements. China has a lot of coal, solar and nuclear going on, plus they are best buddies with Putin, but we have a lot of the Russian shadow fleet going up in flames at the moment.
The grand plan has been going on from PNAC and 9/11. Iran is the last one to be ticked off in the Middle East, so you can see it as the finishing line. Iran just has to be destroyed and it seems that Satan and his little Zionist helper have plenty of experience at that.
The EU has been fully Stockholm Syndromed, so there is a true Iron Curtain between Russia and Europe now, only Hungary are allowed some of the good Russian hydrocarbons, Germany and every other country in Europe now has to pay in dollars for American LNG, or Qatari LNG, but that latter option has just gone.
Yes, the sun will rise again. Americans will be touching grass for the 'gram once again. Everything will be fine in the USA, although it won't be petrodollar dominance giving the exorbitant privilege, instead it will be bombs all the way. Note that Cuba is next, and DJT is going to Chy-naaa soonly and bigly. They should arrest him for war crimes, but you know they won't.
Any objectors or rabble rousers will be Charlie Kirked. It will just be another era of terror. This is the normal state of affairs.
Meanwhile, we have crazies in the WH wanting some Biblical End Times outcome to this. They are serious about Jesus coming back, which is not exactly likely, and, even if he did step foot on planet earth again, do you think he would save a single Zionist? As if!
Anyway, we will see if touching grass works out. I mean, in the UK, during the Blitz, people were touching grass all the time. I think the Andy Groves quote applies, 'only the paranoid survive'.
I am impressed by your solution and I took have at least one bad leg. I have decided against batteries in favour of a basic bike that I can park anywhere and carry up stairs. I want the little and often mobility with a few longer rides over summer. I also have a neighbour in his late seventies that rides 'naturally aspirated' with a buddy that is two years older. His buddy has an ebike and he is giving it a couple of years before he goes electric.
Being younger than him, I feel that I need to stick with 'naturally aspirated'.
I am interested in going the other way to get a dynamo with that switchable between lighting and USB power, for my phone and speakers. There is 3A at 6V to play with.
Ultimately I would want mild hybrid, with regen so all assistance is pedal powered.
I'm 60+ it was either the e-bike, wreck my leg even further or take the car. That was an easy choice :)
Be careful with what you've got... I wish every day that I could do the day I messed up my leg again without making that particular mistake. I rode a low racer recumbent at speed and had a nasty case of leg suck when hitting a (new to me) speedbump.
It is. Life changing event that one. And it is not just trikes, low racer recumbents have the same problem (only worse, because they are much faster, they are probably some of the fastest bikes you can ride). I was literally airborne for a bit after already breaking my leg so this was the worst of all possible combinations other than that my head was not impacted at all due to posture (and wearing a helmet).
You might be interested in the British history of Vitamin D supplementation. It all started with kids in the cities getting rickets because the pollution (smog) was that bad that they never got to see further than a metre or two during the worst of it. The way to get around was by taking the tram as that had rails to guide it through the 'pea soupers'.
So they put the kids on trains and took them off to the seaside.
But then...
The railway also allowed milk to be brought into the cities. So they added vitamin D to milk. That was how the rickets was solved. In time milk became free at school, usually it was warm by morning break, which was when it would get consumed, from mini-milk bottles, that would get reused.
I am only piecing together this history, no definitive source, unless you include my elderly neighbour. However, food history is fascinating, once you get away from celebrated brands to the unsung heroes of the vegetable aisle.
What I can't work out is why the children were so vulnerable to rickets when the adults weren't. Workers weren't being sent out to the countryside or beach to get some sun, just the kids. Rickets doesn't affect adults with grown bones, in theory, the adults should have had really painful joints and osteoporosis, but maybe this was not understood at the time.
In time the clean air zones were setup and the smog was banished to a certain extent, by which time it became uncommon to fortify milk with vitamin D. Finally we had Margaret Thatcher, famously the 'milk snatcher', for stopping free school milk.
In the UK we do get vitamin D randomly added to processed foods (what else?) and this is a scattergun approach to fortifying the population. If you don't eat processed foods then you are not going to get any of that processed food fortification goodness.
Then there are the animal corpse sources, as in oily fish and whatnot. If you eat any diet except for whole-food-plant-based vegan, then you are going to get vitamin D either through dead animal or fortification. Vegetarians just have to eat maaassivve blocks of cheese, which they will, with a few eggs and some breakfast cereal to get their vitamin D needs roughly covered. Junk-food vegans should get some vitamin D goodness from fortifications too, particularly if they consume things like 'oat milk' (as if oats have mammary glands). Pure junk food, a.k.a. 'Standard American Diet', should also be pretty good for vitamin D.
So this only really leaves the whole-food, plant-based, everything-cooked-from-scratch vegan diet as lacking, at least as far as the winter months is concerned. Was this a problem historically? I don't think so. Since people used to work the fields, they had plenty of vitamin D to carry over for winter.
Before we had 'modern day racism' in the UK, we had a situation where the aristocracy had white skin and everyone else had leathery brown skin, from working outside. White skin was proof that you didn't have to work the fields and therefore, you were higher status. Racism pre-dated racism, if you get my drift, it was mere class-based xenophobia back then. To be 'truly white' you had to have no tan.
Since meat was hard to come by, peasants were 95% vegan by default, yet working the fields, so vitamin D deficiency was not a problem, for the 1% aristocracy (since they had their oily fish, red meat and dairy) or for the 99% that had to spend lots of time outdoors.
I am not sure where you are coming from regarding the Gulf Stream and cereals. The Fertile Crescent was where farming began for Europe, with wheat not actually growing in the UK and other grains (barley) being the chosen grain. It was only with the Norman Conquest that wheat made it to the UK.
When the Romans made it to the UK they were perplexed at what they found. There were two tribes, the nomadic cattle types and the hill fort living grain growers that were not nomadic. The hill forts got in the way of the migration routes between pastures. The Romans were disgusted by the milk drinking since nobody would do that in Rome, where everyone was lactose intolerant, unlike the Celts.
> What I can't work out is why the children were so vulnerable to rickets when the adults weren't
Presumably, children need regular and consistent amounts due to bone growth. Once past puberty, less mineralization of calcium and phosphate happens, which is one of the processes in the body that requires vitamin D.
I like Arxiv and what they are doing, however, do the auto-generated HTML files contain nothing more than a sea of divs dressed with a billion classes?
I would be delighted if they could do better than that, with figcaptions as well as figures, and sections 'scoped' with just one <h2-6> heading per section. They could specify how it really should be done, the HTML way, with a well defined way of doing the abstract and getting the cited sources to be in semantic markup yet not in some massive footer at the back.
There should also be a print stylesheet so that the paper prints out elegantly on A4 paper. Yes, I know you can 'print to PDF' but you can get all the typesetting needed in modern CSS stylesheets.
Furthermore, they need to write a whole new HTML editor that discards WYSIWYG in favour of semantic markup. WYSIWYG has held us back by decades as it is useless for creating a semantic document. We haven't moved on from typewriters and the conventions needed to get those antiques to work, with word processors just emulating what people were used to at the time. What we really need is a means to evolve the written word, so that our thinking is 'semantic' when we come to put together documents, with a 'document structure first' approach.
LaTeX is great, however, last time I used it was many decades ago, when the tools were 'vi' (so not even vim) and GhostScript, running on a Sun workstation with mono screen. Since then I have done a few different jobs and never have I had the need to do anything in LaTex or even open a LaTeX file. In the wild, LaTeX is rarer than hen's teeth. Yet we all read scientific papers from time to time, and Arxiv was founded on the availability of Tex files.
The lack of widespread adoption of semantic markup has been a huge bonus to Google and other gatekeepers that have the money to develop their own heuristics to make sense of 'seas of divs'. As it happens, Google have also been somewhat helpful with Chrome and advancing the web, even if it is for their gatekeeping purposes.
The whole world of gatekeeping is also atrocious in academia. Knowledge wants to be free, but it is also big business to the likes of Springer, who are already losing badly to open publishing.
As you say, in this instance, accessibility means screen readers, however, I hope that we can do better than that, to get back to the OG Tim Berners Lee vision of what the web should be like, as far as structuring information is concerned.
If only you could see it. In the big cities the air quality has improved, however, I am not sure if it really has, or if we are now just burning hydrocarbons more efficiently so that the particle sizes have become invisible.
Put it this way, although cars are allegedly better than they were, fuel consumption hasn't dropped considerably. The cars are more numerous than ever, and, although there are EVs, there are still more ICE cars than there were in the good old days when petrol came with lead in it.
I am not sure that most people in urban areas even know what good air tastes and smells like. I take a canal path through lush countryside, far from any cars for most of the way. This canal has an aqueduct (or is it a viaduct?) over a motorway and the contrast is incredible. You go from basically smelling flowers to air pollution and back to clean air again quite quickly, so the filth is totally noticeable. Note the cars on the motorway are going at speed, so they should be working efficiently (until a few decades ago 56 mph was what engines were optimised for regarding efficiency in the UK).
If just living in a major city then you don't get this instant switch from bad to good air. So you just don't notice it. If you could see the filth, you would prefer a swimming pool that was pissed in, it is that toxic.
If you do have to live in a city, my top tip is to find out if there are any meteorologists in town. If there are, buy a house next to where they are living. Anecdotal, however, I used to work with meteorologists and they would always live to the West of the city centre, to get cleaner air than those living in the east of the city, or further downwind.
Again anecdotal, however, due to the canal and motorway experience described above, in post-industrial countries such as the UK, it is definitely the vehicles rather than any other source. Given the choice of microparticles that just get in your blood or clumps of big particles that you can eventually cough up and spit out, I would much prefer the latter. My hunch is that the legislation to improve vehicle emissions has optimised the exhaust for nanoparticles. Please prove me wrong!
Sure thing, here's a report from the Greater London Authority tracking the history of air quality in the city since the "Great Smog" event 1952, which caused an estimated 4000 deaths.
The main takeaway is that yes, urban air quality (including fine particulate matter) has improved massively over time, but most of it had little to do with road traffic, as for decades it wasn't a significant contributor to the overall mix. The important change was the move away from burning solid fuels like coal for household heating and in power stations within cities, to using gas and electricity with larger, out-of-town power stations.
As other sources have declined, road traffic has indeed become the largest contribution to urban air pollution, but even here there has been progress. Fine particulate emissions have continued to decline as car manufacturers have adapted to more stringent regulation (cheating scandals notwithstanding). A bigger problem now is higher non-exhaust emissions caused by larger and heavier vehicles. This is something else that will need to be solved via regulation. Other policies like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods can also help to restrict the worst pollution to major roads and away from where most people live.
Urban air quality is never going to be as good as that in the countryside, but it's not true to believe that no progress has been made, and that it's simply been a switch in the type of pollution.
> I am not sure that most people in urban areas even know what good air tastes and smells like.
I run air filters in my apartment throughout winter months, which tend to be the worst in terms of air quality here.
When I go outside in the morning I can really smell the stuff in the air, for a brief moment, until I get used to it. But you definitely notice the difference!
> Anecdotal, however, I used to work with meteorologists and they would always live to the West of the city centre, to get cleaner air than those living in the east of the city, or further downwind.
The industrial-revolution era mill owners were very aware of this too. Posh area of Manchester is to the south (westerly winds;) Leeds to the north (mix of northerly and westerly winds I believe).
Also, anecdotally, smaller towns and villages can have poor air quality too due to log burners. They're an absolute pain. You can tell when an area has become gentrified when shiny new chimneys start popping up or a log burner shop opens up!
Lots of particles cars emit are from tires and break pads. I think someone was measuring that but I don’t have sources but most likely I read that somewhere in the comments of HN.
One good thing about electric vehicles is that regenerative breaking effectively eradicates brake pad use and pollution. Only tire dust remains significant.
If we could incentivize small, lightweight electric vehicles over the current trend of large (heavy) luxury vehicles, there would be a lot of benefits. I’d like a trend towards “easy and safe motorcycle” instead of our current “living room that moves itself.”
The 'no AI used' disclaimer is a nice idea, however, how long is that going to last?
We could all have disclaimers or identifiable 'stickers' such as what we had in the olden days of IE6, to send people over to Firefox/Chrome/whatever.
However, next time the tech bros scrape the web, their AI beasts could learn the trick, to decorate their piffling output with similar disclaimers.
In the olden days, 'the camera never lied', however, nowadays, 'the camera always lies'. Even if it is not AI, you know it has been staged and Photoshopped to within an inch of its pixels.
So, what to do?
One way would be to have 'guilds'. Maybe tie it into academic institutions, where teaching staff are at the sharp end of AI use and exacting penalties for AI abuse. Imagine if there was a 'guild of human writers' and being in it meant better SEO with the consequence of abusing AI meaning getting kicked out of the guild.
Ultimately though, without any 'guild system', it all comes down to quality content.
I am not sure that London is the example needed for the topic, in part due to what happened in 1666, which was when the 'great fire' decimated the city, leading to some reforms such as requiring buildings to be built from anything but wood and for them to have parapets to prevent a burning roof setting fire to an adjacent building. Coupled with this was a height restriction, for the Fire Brigade, not to 'preserve views of St Pauls'.
In America, if the city burns to the ground, they just get on with it, they aren't 'institutionally traumatised' for centuries, but the Great Fire cast a long shadow over history and building codes, which restricted the density of the housing.
Also important but not discussed in the article, is the matter of building materials. When Sir Christopher Wren was redesigning London after the fire, he could not specify glass and steel since that wasn't around back then (well, glass existed but the Pilkington process to make flat glass hadn't been devised yet).
Most British towns can be dated by their building materials, starting with the original buildings built from stone from the local quarry. The type of stone found locally determines what these buildings are like, so you might have limestone, as in Cotswold stone, with a creamy colour, or, you might have nice red stone, for example, in the Welsh Borderlands.
Next came the canals, and with it things like Welsh slate and iron. Then the trains came along, bringing bricks and steel with it. Then there are modern times when you can have marble from Italy and whatever else flaunts wealth (or is cheapest).
Putting it all together, familiarity with the materials and where they are from enables the relative age of parts of a British town to be identified.
Needless to say, all roads lead to somewhere, in the UK it is London, where so much has changed that it is not so easy to see the 'onion layers' of materials used in the city as it has grown, mostly because London is more like hundreds of villages that merged together as they all grew. Plus, London is always under constant redevelopment.
The green belt is a relatively recent development, dating back only a century ago, when the smog situation in London meant that kids had rickets due to lack of sun. Pea-soupers made it necessary for there to be some escape to the countryside. Interestingly, trams were what you needed to get around in that era because smog was like the worst fog imaginable, making it impossible to get from A to B on a vehicle that was not on rails.
Also not in the article is how the railways had a sideline in building towns for their railways to serve. The low density suburbs were once far from London, therefore requiring the train, and the dream was to escape the city with the smog for these new 'garden cities'. Had they built vast sky scrapers in (say) Hemel Hempstead, instead of actual houses then you would not have the same appeal.
If you are in the UK and interested in seeing development patterns, one gem is the Lever estate on the Wirral, built to serve Liverpool's industry on the Mersey River, which was where the Lever Brothers operated. They were Quaker types and, on their worker estates, they built wonderful parks, libraries and art galleries. The Lever estate has this amazing art gallery in the middle of it, with artwork far better than anything you would expect to find anywhere outside the big European capitals.
The whole thing with the Quakers was a 'war on slavery' that was won in 1807 and 1833-1838, with the idea being that machines would replace slaves. They wanted their workers to be anything but slaves. Despite being few in number, they had many sectors of industry sewn up, notably confectionary and soap. Places such as the Lever Estate 'set the standard' for those wanting more than slums.
Finally, we did have the high rises of the 1960s. They didn't work out as they lacked community, leading to crime and a general downward spiral. Glasgow, once the second city of the empire, was notable for these, however, most of them had to come down, for lower density housing estates to be built elsewhere, further up or down the Clyde.
I am not sure the article makes sense in the British context, it reads more like examples picked to suit a hypothesis. I also would have liked it if the author had explained why inflation came in to play from 1914. Note that after WW1, the UK lost all of its skilled tradesmen because someone decided that they were needed for cannon fodder. This was a tragedy, not just for them and their families, but also for the quality of housing and what was possible after WW1.
Mortgages also need to be in the picture, in feudal times there was no market in property, however, the mortgage came into being and that changed how development happened in a big way. This too affected how dense housing would be.
I jest, but, once upon a time I worked with an infallible developer. When my projects crashed and burned, I would assume that it was my lack of competence and take that as my starting point. However, my colleague would assume that it was a stray neutrino that had flipped a bit to trigger the failure, even if it was a reproducible error.
He would then work backwards from 93 million miles away to blame the client, blame the linux kernel, blame the device drivers and finally, once all of that and the 'three letter agencies' were eliminated, perhaps consider the problem was between his keyboard and his chair.
In all fairness, he was a genius, and, regarding the A320 situation, he would have been spot on!
Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.
Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.
Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.
reply