twblalock

It isn't realistic to counter a biking accident with claims that people are sacrificing their kids and that they are idiots for biking

Who said that?

Again, people seem to be reacting to something that was not said by anyone in this thread.

The fact is you don’t know who this parent is. You have made the assumption that they are taking unacceptable risks.

What on earth are you talking about? Who the heck is the parent here? I am merely defending someone who is being dogpiled by trolls for the outrage of pointing out the fact that cycling in SF is dangerous. I am familiar with SF even though I don't live there, and I know that is the case.

The easiest thing the USA could do to make cycling safer without investing a cent in infrastructure is to adopt the rule that by default if a car hits a cyclist the car is at fault.

That would obviously be an unfair and dumb rule because fault should always be determined on a case-by-case basis. We would also have a massive amount of fraud caused by cyclists intentionally hitting cars, just like the rash of pedestrians running in front of cars in Russia.

I ride bikes and I also drive cars, and I've seen a ton of dumb behavior from both cyclists and drivers. Nobody is immune to being a dumbass in this category. They just shouldn't mix.

The problem is infrastructure. In the places where cycling is safe and normally practiced by normal people, the bicycles and cars are mostly separated. US cycling advocates have been pushing for the wrong things for years, asking for rights on the road as though bikes are the same as cars, when in reality the only thing that works is separate roads.

I don't run the world and neither does the OP. I don't even live in San Francisco. It's not our fault that things are this way, and it's really dumb to blame us for pointing out facts.

Is it now also victim-blaming to tell people to wear seat belts, or to look both ways before crossing the street? Telling people about danger is not a form of blaming.

People seem to be reacting to something the OP didn't actually write. Stop ascribing beliefs and motivations to people you don't know based on a few sentences of written text.

The OP didn't shame anyone. Why are you making this wild accusation?

Read what was written. No shaming is there.

You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.

Danger is a matter of degree. There are plenty of places where the risk of getting hit by a car is lower than in SF.

Most of San Francisco is not really dense either. Outside of a few well-known areas the entire place is a suburb.

This is not victim blaming. Nobody blamed cyclists here. It is a true and obvious statement from an observer that cycling is dangerous in San Francisco.

It's sad to see this comment being dogpiled by trolls, including the standard and annoying responses like "wrong takeaway" or "bad take" or the sarcastic "how dare people do X", or the standard European city defense, or the most annoying type of response: rephrasing the original post to make a maliciously bad argument.

We don't live in should-land. We live in reality. Parents who live in reality need to protect their children from the dangers that exist in reality.

Parents who live in reality in the city of San Francisco know that it is a dangerous place to ride bikes. It is not ok to tell people to ignore those dangers because they should not exist, or to scold people for making those dangers known. It's also not ok to tell people that they are responsible for solving problems they did not create, and it is really not ok to equate warning people about danger with victim blaming.

sidfthec, you are right and you should not be getting this kind of response.

What I'm saying is that the things the people who work at Internet Archive care about may not be the same as what end users care about. I think the end users care mainly about the Wayback Machine.

I'd bet that most people who care about this issue are primarily worried about losing the Wayback Machine. If that goes away, a lot of internet history will be lost forever. All those copyrighted works that IA was lending out won't disappear in the same fashion -- they will still be available from other sources.

IMO the Wayback Machine has always been the primary product, and most valuable part, of the Internet Archive. If IA wanted to do other things they should have done them via a separate legal entity to protect the Wayback Machine.

Disclaimers are not a guaranteed release from liability.

Especially in the case of libel/defamation law, and especially in the UK and Australia, where even true statements can get you in trouble, putting up a disclaimer may not give you any protection at all.

It's not the Internet Archive's job to be the first one to try to resolve fair use questions like this, and attempting to do so put the organization's orginal core mission at risk.

They should have let someone else take the risk, and continued archiving the internet. That is all that most of their supporters expected of them, for good reason. Their attempt to pivot toward being a generic, universal library was bad scope creep and should have been stopped when it started.

What authority?

It doesn't take much karma to vote or flag. Well under 100 points IIRC. Past that point, having more karma has no effect on what you can do on the site.

All you provided is evidence that people moved away from San Francisco during the pandemic. We all know that. Many of the people who left could have afforded to stay and chose not to. That is not displacement.

Proof of displacement requires demonstration that people left SF because they could not afford to live there anymore. It's really that simple.

Techies with six-figure incomes leaving town to move back in with their parents during the pandemic doesn't count as displacement.

People leaving is not the same as displacement. Many people chose to leave during the pandemic for a variety of reasons, including tech workers moving away to work remotely.

After all, why stay in a city when everything is closed when you can get the same experience cheaper somewhere else?

Any time window that includes 2020 is going to include very strong pandemic-related effects.

That link doesn't really have any data and it's not from a credible source. It's also an 19-year-old article.

An entire generation of San Franciscans have been born and become adults since that article was published. Even if you accept the premise that there was significant displacement in San Francisco in 2004 that doesn't say anything about whether there is today.

I do not believe there is a large amount of displacement happening in San Francisco today because I have not yet seen any evidence.

Digital cameras are not a niche. They constitute almost the entire global camera market. There are other review sites, forums, print magazines, etc. One website going away is not going to obliterate the world's ability to review one of the most popular consumer products.

Who are the people who were displaced, and where did they go?

This is all very handwavy. Why do you believe this narrative without concrete facts?

Wrong thread?

It's not wrong to be concerned about that in a property market where values can double in a decade.

In fact it would be foolish to buy property in such a market unless you are rich or something limits tax increases.

It's not like there won't be somewhere else to read camera reviews. Someone else will fill the gap.

It's not even selling fancy cameras. It's reviews of digital cameras that are all either obsolete or about to be. Much of the data is only of historical interest.

Amazon is not running a charity or a public library. It's foolish to expect them to run a site like this forever. If the original owners wanted this to be preserved they should have sold it to someone who contractually agreed to preserve it, or donated it to the Internet Archive or something.

Besides, the old stuff should all be free from archive.org, right?

I know for sure it did. SF was famous for it for decades. It's even worse now.

If an increase of wealth creation is a problem for a city, that city is being badly run.

It's pretty obvious on the ground in SF that the homeless problem is fundamentally a problem of mental illness and drug abuse. A fairly large portion of the homeless there are not from SF but came there because SF tolerates behavior other cities do not. Even if there was an empty, free house offered to every homeless person in SF there would still be a massive problem because many of them would be unwilling to accept it.

Austin certainly isn't handling it well.

We had affordable housing in California in the past without any pie-in-the-sky stuff like land-value taxes.

If you are going to make up a fake birthday and you think you might have trouble remembering it, picking a nice round number might make it easier.

Some may be, but all I know is that some definitely aren't.

Everyone I know who had cancer (and that is a large and increasingly growing list...) found out about it because they went in to the doctor for a non-routine appointment because they felt pain, or felt a lump, or had a weird reaction to a vaccine, or whatever else. Even early stage cancer can produce symptoms, and luckily most of those people survived.

The single-pedal braking can be turned off in the settings. I have no idea why coasting and hovering over the brake is ever a good idea in any circumstances, but if you really want to do that, you can.