Whatever our human laws and morality says about right and wrong and fault, the laws of physics usually judges the car a winner when it hits somebody.
Placing yourself somewhere where pedestrians are not expected (non-residental road) mostly hidden from oncoming traffic for an extended period is putting yourself in undue risk.
You don't always have a choice about where you are momentarily and anybody turning a blind corner has an obligation to immediately reduce their speed (prior to turning the corner!) to where they can safely come to a stop without endangering others. That's drivers education 101. Right after 'don't text while driving', 'don't drink while driving' and 'slow down when there are pedestrians, bicycles and other fragile road users around'.
I walk that road many times. I hug the side on the outside of the turn (there's no room on the inside) and so I can see (and be seen) from further away. I listen for cars coming. I watch for them. I am prepared to jump over the railing.
It's just common sense.
BTW, do you know that if you rear-end someone, it's your fault? I once was in heavy traffic, and the traffic in front of me stopped abruptly. I hit the brakes hard. I also glanced in the rearview mirror and realized the truck behind me was not going to stop in time. So I quickly pulled onto the shoulder. The truck hit the car in front of me.
But fortunately, that gave the truck a precious few more feet of stopping distance, and the collision with the car in front was minor.
Last year I was driving on an arterial, with a 35mph speed limit, that was a miles long downhill grade. There was a bike lane on the right. In it was a girl maybe 12, and on the back of it was another girl maybe 6. With the downhill, she was able to go about 20mph. Suddenly, she veers into the center of the car lane. Never looked over her shoulder. (Traffic was lining up behind me.) She then rides a bit on the stripe separating the bike land from the car lane. Then back to center of the car lane. Then in the bike lane, then back to the car lane. Back and forth. She never looked over her shoulder. I never dared to pass her, even when she was in the bike lane.
All of Mr. Devereaux's work is wonderful including the series you linked, but I think that one its overly focused on the household. I think his two part series on "Lonely Cities"[1][2] is a lot better at giving you a feeling for a city. It is both less in depth and in that one he spends half his time complaining about how Hollywood gets it wrong, so of course YMMV.
Are there technical reasons to prefer GDScript over C#?
GDScript is undoubtedly better integrated in the engine, but I would have expected C# compare more favorably in larger projects than the game jam sized projects I have made.
I don't see how this article could possibly support the argument that C# is slower than GDScript
It compares several C# implementations of raycasts, never directly compares with GDScript, blames the C# performance on GDScript compatibility and has an strike-out'ed section advocating dropping of GDScript to improve C# performance!
Meanwhile, Godot's official documentation[1] actually does explicitly compare C# and GDScript, unlike the the article which just blames GDScript for C#'s numbers, claiming that C# wins in raw compute while having higher overhead calling into the engine
My post could have been a bit longer. It seems to have been misunderstood.
I use GDScript because it’s currently the best supported language in Godot. Most of the ecosystem is GDScript. C# feels a bit bolted-on. (See: binding overhead) If the situation were reversed, I’d be using C#. That’s one technical reason to prefer GDScript. But you’re free to choose C# for any number of reasons, I’m just trying to answer the question.
At least in my case, I got curious about the strength of /u/dustbunny's denouncement of Godot+C#.
I would have have put it as a matter of preference/right tool with GDScripts tighter engine integration contrasted with C#'s stronger tooling and available ecosystem.
But with how it was phrased, it didn't sound like expressing a preference for GDScript+C++ over C# or C#++, it sounded like C# had some fatal flaw. And that of course makes me curious. Was it a slightly awkward phrasing, or does C# Godot have some serious footgun I'm unaware of?
Makes sense! I think dustbunny said it best: C# is “not worth the squeeze” specifically in Godot, and specifically if you’re going for performance. But maybe that’ll change soon, who knows. The engine is still improving at a good clip.
A lot of people have made careers out of telling you that it's a failure, but while not everything about the F-35 is an unquestionable success, it has produced a "cheap" fighter jet that is more capable than all but a handful of other planes.
And the fact that superman can fly is evidence that people are lighter than air. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.
The costs (in money and energy) of the infrastructure to mine another solar system would pay for a lot of R&D to synthesize whatever it is here in our solar system.
Unlike the other poster, I don't think interstellar mining needs finding, I'm perfectly happy to lean back and enjoy the show. But whatever they mine would have to be very magical indeed to not be cheaper from any other process.
> And the fact that superman can fly is evidence that people are lighter than air. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Is this a serious response? What is your point?
> The costs (in money and energy) of the infrastructure to mine another solar system would pay for a lot of R&D to synthesize whatever it is here in our solar system.
Sure. Just like infrastructure to mine another continent would pay for a lot of R&D to synthesize whatever. And yet, we mine other continents. Not only that, in the not too distant future, we are going to mine the moon, asteroids, etc. I wonder why we don't just synthesize gold rather than mining for gold in south africa or some far distant place?
> But whatever they mine would have to be very magical indeed to not be cheaper from any other process.
And yet, history, science, economics and reality says you are wrong.
You do realize that costs come down right? Just because intercontinental travel was expensive in the past doesn't mean it is expensive today. In a world of engineers and xenomorphs, it's the least crazy aspect of the film that simpletons are hung up about.
They're not dealing with a pressure differential. Or at least I don't think so.
I don't think the Journalist who wrote the article understood the technical details, but from digging a little at their website I think what's going on is they're moving heavy brine up and down, all of it equalized with local pressure.
Despite them describing it as pumped hydro, I think its better framed as a cousin of the "chunk of concrete suspended over a mine shaft" style gravity battery. Replace the mineshaft with water and the concrete with salt.
That link isn't really a source for residential 3-phase power.
Almost every electrical network is 3 phase distribution, the matter under debate is if you bring every phase to each house, or if a phase reaches every third house.
Anecdotally I have never seen an electrical panel without three phases, but when I went looking it was like trying to find a source for the fact the sky is blue.
Placing yourself somewhere where pedestrians are not expected (non-residental road) mostly hidden from oncoming traffic for an extended period is putting yourself in undue risk.
reply