pc486

A similar situation to me then. The speed really picks up when going downhill, especially on a heavier bike like an ebike! I've done 45 mph on my recumbent without any effort. At least I was keeping up with the cars!

I have one more recommendation then: stress test your brakes! I've burned up a few sets of pads, even bluing out a set of rotors. Breaking power drops as the rotor temperature gets higher ("fade") and I've nearly lost all my brake power before. You know, like at the end of a hill where there's a busy intersection controlled only by stop signs. Fun.

Make sure you can stop with plenty of brake power left at the bottom of your hills. If you find it lacking, then consider harder pads and the associated rotors that can handle the pads. Mountain bike pads, semi for full metallic, are a good place to look. Careful with the extra hard pads (full metal/ceramic) because they must be matched with a rotor that can handle such a hard compound.

I feel pretty safe with all this but it still honestly scares the crap out of me riding at 30+mph with cars.

30mph is pretty cooking. I only get up to those speeds when I'm riding downhill (thanks 18% grades). If you can, especially when not on the road with cars, try slowing down a bit. A 20mph collision (or allision) is much safer than at 30.

At 30mph speeds, definitely look at motorcycle gear. Illuminate your bike (good rear and front lights). Consider a mirror on your handle bars or helmet. Maybe take some online courses on how to ride a motorbike and translate it to your fat bike.

FortNine did a nice little short about this space, though mostly so folks stop pestering motorcyclists about the danger on the roads. The reality is the cars are the danger for both motorized bikes and pedal bikes. Defensive techniques are your only option.

They're definitely keeping all the old comments, even if you "delete" them. What an edit is doing is making a new version of a comment. While this seems strange, it's literally easier to do on a technical level and provides a layer of safety if there's a bug in the code (allows recovery to previous data).

Honestly, this seems like a good move from Reddit. If they believe they're removing a bad actor by a ban, then of course they're going to prevent a bad actor from interacting on their stuff. Allowing edits post-ban for abuse is not a good outcome.

Don't like it? Angry at Reddit? Leave and never interact with them again. Pulling that bandage off will sting but you'll be better off for it.

Here's a convenient list of affordable cities in the US.

https://youtu.be/IKxR06isoLU

I completely agree. Public access to transport can be such a joke that it forces disabled people who shouldn't be driving to be driving, like the case here with Corsiglia. They didn't have a choice so they committed murder in order to find existence beyond being jailed in their own home. A real-life Shakespearean tragedy.

Continuing to push for disabled parking at places where parking in the first place doesn't make sense encourages driving and discourages public transport. It's actually harmful to ask for disabled parking because it takes away from the greater disabled group and places the general public at risk.

All that said, there are situations where it's OK to demand disabled parking. When a public project clearly is going to include a parking structure, demand disabled parking in high quantities. Demand at-grade and wide zones at these spaces. Demand escalators and elevators. Fight for equal access. I would be there on your side.

PS: Thanks for engaging and listening. This is a topic that often doesn't get the attention it deserves and typically devolves into some kind of public virtue signalling. The devil is in the details.

You cannot dive and yet in the very first picture of the station in the OP's article is a passenger loading and unloading zone at the gates. How could this train station's design prioritization unduly harm your own disability since they picked a design where you could be dropped off at the entrance? I'm actually curious here because I can drive and I would be harmed (no parking for me) yet I'm willing to let it go in favor of things like front-gate drop-off zones for public and private loading.

You're absolutely right that different people do have different needs but priority must be given on every project. Not including disabled parking is a choice that does not unduly harm disabled people. Including disabled parking can harm disabled people. Let me explain.

Prioritizing private car infrastructure necessarily means de-prioritizing non-car infrastructure, like these loading zones. Maybe they can shrink the loading zone a bit and get a parking spot or two in, but would that be enough for those who can drive? Maybe they can put the parking in the back, but that's not every disabled friendly either. A parking structure could address some of that, but where's that money coming from? Remember, there's a limited budget and limited land availability. What's being taken away for that disabled parking?

Prioritization of parking appears harmless on the surface but manifests in unusual ways, which is precisely why I chose "San Bruno Man With Seizure Disorder Found Guilty In Double Fatal Car Crash" as a case-in-point. The disabled man in question, Rodney Corsiglia, felt forced to drive despite multiple doctor interventions and the DMV revoking his license.

Dr. Austin told Corsiglia he should not be driving because his seizures were not controlled and he did not have full awareness of them. Corsiglia had difficulty accepting the recommendation and wanted to drive because he lived alone, felt he needed a car for transportation, and had a new truck even though he did not have a driver's license.

-- People v. Corsiglia, A145944 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2017)

Being a local in the area, I fully understand Corsiglia's argument and he has a point. There are no protected bike lanes, the sidewalks are a mess, there's exactly one bus every hour that's daytime only to the train station across the street from where the collision occurred. There's no way he can reasonably function without a car, which is good because the train station where he murdered two people does have disabled parking. And that's the issue: San Bruno prioritizes disabled drivers while excluding every other disabled member. It's a decision the city, county, and state can and often makes. It's also a decision that killed.

Pushing the "what about the disabled people" is exactly how cars get prioritized above people's needs, disabled and abled alike. It's counter-intuitive but pushing disabled parking and induces parking demand which, even in totally unreasonable circumstances, pushes disabled people to drive even when they shouldn't need to.

Like blind people? Or those who cannot afford a mobility van because a 10 year old used one is priced at $35k? Perhaps you mean those who suffer from seizures?

Let's focus our limited budget into personal vehicle infrastructure that certainly wouldn't force these suffering people to drive. It works, bro. Trust me.

Even if it was a quarter million bucks, it would quickly pay itself off. Keeping a taxi car available and operating 24/7 is a big deal for operational costs. $25/hour on a $250k device is a recovered in just over a year. It's all profit after that.

This is a good, and quite common, question regarding congestion pricing. The fact of the matter is those with less means often cannot afford a car. It's usually not their car if they're driving into a city (e.g. a work truck).

But let's say we have low-income people who do have a car and need to drive for whatever reason. There's programs for that. Two of them.

• If you're a low-income car owner, you get reduced congestion pricing. It's 50% off the normal fare. They can drive in and pay less than affluent drivers.
• If you're low-income, you would qualify for the Fair Fares program. It too is 50% off for subways and busses. That prices trips to well below the cost of fueling a car into NYC.

Congestion pricing is also funneling money into metro services, meaning the affluent drivers are actually making low-income access to transportation cheaper while also improving reliability and service levels to those riding transit.

Low-income residents stand to win the most with congestion pricing. Personally, I would focus more on how to better help businesses with legitimate car needs, like dog groomers, mobile mechanics, delivery workers, etc. For example, zero fare for businesses licenses at nighttime periods (to encourage shifting delivery schedules). Programs like that could help small business, which in turn helps boost the income of low-income employees.

You're not off the mark. Honestly not a bad overview to squeeze into a few sentences. Here's some extra detail for those who remain more curious.

The circuit complexity reduction happens by changing the math behind the radio signal. Much like how you can describe a vector in cartesian coordinates (a point in x, y) or in polar coordinates (a point in angle and length), choosing how to represent the radio math allows for different techniques to arrive in the same answer. That's what the author did: he picked a polar modulating scheme over a quadrature modulation scheme. (Note, there are even more mathy ways to modulate a radio signal, but those are what the author is presenting to us.)

The author's choice avoids generating unwanted frequencies that must be filtered out before amplifying. That's components on the board that don't need to be designed nor exist. A solid win.

The drawback? Polar modulation is non-linear in frequency space. What that means is certain frequencies are over-represented and others are under-represented. Imagine playing notes on a piano where some keys are very loud and others you could hardly hear them. That's the unwanted non-linearity.

Herein lies the trick: what's bad can be turned into good. Power amplifiers typically need to be linear. Imagine a piano that works fine but the auditorium's loud speakers make it sound terrible. Those loud speakers would be a non-linear amplifier. The trick is that it's possible to match the modulator's non-linear behavior with a power amplifier's non-linear behavior to end up with a clean signal! A non-linear piano and a non-linear loud-speaker can produce beautiful music! This engineering trick unlocks all kinds of non-linear power amplifier architectures (that's the "C/E/F" described in the article) which are drastically more energy efficient than linear ones (linear designs max out around 65% efficient).

Given the username, I'd say that is the case: https://terptheatre.org/

"TerpTheatre is both a source of information about theatre interpreting and a tradition of theatre interpreters in the shadowed strategy. "

As long as the aquafaba is salt-free, it makes an awesome substitute for egg whites in mixed drinks. Whiskey sours are absolutely elevated with this substitution.

And this comes from a guy who isn't a vegan. Try it out, folks. You won't regret it.